[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S353-S380]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS 
                          PRESERVATION SYSTEM

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of S. 22, which the clerk will report 
by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as components of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize 
     certain programs and activities in the Department of the 
     Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 15, to change the enactment date.

[[Page S354]]

       Reid amendment No. 16 (to Reid amendment No. 15), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Motion to commit the bill to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources, with instructions to report back 
     forthwith, with Reid amendment No. 17, to change the 
     enactment date.
       Reid amendment No. 18 (to the instructions of the motion to 
     commit), of a perfecting nature.
       Reid amendment No. 19 (to Reid amendment No. 18), of a 
     perfecting nature.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time 
until 10:30 a.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the 
two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and 
ask unanimous consent that the quorum call time be charged equally 
between the two sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, at 10:30, I believe, this morning, we are 
going to vote on cloture on this lands package. I wish to take a few 
minutes--and my colleague has been more than gracious to me in terms of 
allowing time--to discuss this.
  Our country is at a very difficult time in terms of our economic 
growth but, more importantly, in terms of the number of people who are 
suffering. We have before us a 1,300-page bill that we will hear has 
been looked at for a year and a half--the proponents of which, I am 
sure, have--that is nonamendable and that we will spend somewhere 
between $10 billion and $12 billion, when we think about the long-term 
consequences of the bill.
  The questions I have before the body on this bill are, No. 1, is this 
truly a priority for us at the times we are in, considering the nature 
of the great difficulties that face this country; and No. 2, is it a 
priority for us in terms of the things that are out there that we can 
really be making a difference on today that we refuse to make a 
difference on.
  Mr. President, let me highlight that for you for a minute.
  This last year we put out a report on the Justice Department that 
showed very clearly $10 billion a year in waste. I gave a speech on the 
floor this last summer outlining $380 billion in waste. We know we have 
at least $50 billion a year in waste at the Pentagon. We know we have 
at least $80 billion worth of fraud a year in Medicare. The first thing 
we do in this Congress is create $10 billion more of spending. So we 
are not attacking the structural problems that actually face our 
Government, but, more importantly, we are not attacking the biggest 
problem. The biggest problem is the American people do not have 
confidence in us as an institution to do what they do every day, and 
that is to set priorities.
  Every family out there today is going through a process, much like I 
did at the end of the year, seeing how much is going to come in, what 
they are absolutely obligated to spend, and if there is any left over, 
where is the priority at which they do that. We are in reverse of that 
process. We are saying we are not even going to look at that process, 
we are not going to look at the $380 billion worth of waste, we are not 
going to look at the programs.
  I had a visit with Mr. Duncan, who is the new nominee for the 
Education Department. To his surprise, he was blown over by the fact 
that there are more educational programs outside the Department of 
Education than there are inside. Yet we refuse to work on those very 
hard things that will actually make a large difference in the outcome.
  We are going to be voting yet this week on putting another $350 
billion in the hands of the Treasury Department to enhance liquidity. 
But with that, we hear from Larry Summers that we are going to direct 
the money to whoever needs to borrow rather than whoever needs to try 
to be liquid in terms of loaning money. We have it exactly backwards.
  Before us is a bill that will markedly undermine attempts at energy 
independence, will add to the 107 million acres of land that presently 
are wilderness areas which will make them truly, in all respects, 
significantly difficult to ever tap any natural resources, regardless 
of whether we can do that without any impact on the environment.
  It is interesting to note that the actual number of acres of land 
that are in wilderness areas is greater than the total developed land 
in this country, which is 106 million acres.
  We are going to take another 2.2 million acres and move them away 
from any possibility. Yet nowhere in our thought was--whether we were 
manipulated by supply-demand constraints or we were manipulated by 
futures markets--the fact that oil reached an all-time high and we were 
paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline. Completely outside the scope of 
this bill was any consideration that we might want to preserve our 
ability to have access to future oil reserves--even the disputed debate 
on the Wyoming Range on whether we are going to have access to, the 
lowest estimate, 5 million barrels of oil and maybe 3 trillion cubic 
feet of natural gas, all the way up to 300 million barrels of oil and 
15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
  My complaint and my reason for voting no on cloture is really 
fourfold. No. 1 is it is not a priority what we are doing. No. 2 is our 
problems with demand that we would be doing something different than 
what we do in this bill. No. 3 is the process which has not allowed for 
significant amendments of our choice on this bill is flawed. And, 
finally, No. 4, it does not go towards building back the trust in the 
Congress to actually do things in order of priority that are going to 
make a difference for this country.
  I recognize that I am in the minority opinion of that view in this 
body. What I don't recognize and what I know is true is that I am not 
in the minority opinion of the people in this country.
  We are about to vote on a 1,300-page bill that will not be amended, 
that very few have read, that very few have studied hard as to the 
consequences it will have on our energy dependency, and we are going to 
pass it. It is probably going to be sent to the new President, and he 
is probably going to sign it, which gives me great cause for worry 
because my friend, the President-elect, ran on hope and a promise of 
change. I don't see any change in the Senate.
  My hope is somewhat diminished because I don't see us as a body 
collectively addressing the big problems that face us as a nation. 
There is no question that many of the States that have programs in this 
bill have wanted them for a long time, and they are going to be happy 
with them, the fact that we do all these things for these various 
organizations to create four new extensions to national parks at a time 
when there is a $9 billion backlog on the national parks we have today.
  But I wonder if getting something parochially is worth putting the 
country at risk, and not just at risk with this bill but the risk of 
process, the risk that we will continue to plow ahead on that which 
will not make an ultimate difference in the security, the long-term 
financial outlook of this country.
  Anybody who reads this bill will say: Why are you doing certain 
things now? Why would you authorize the spending of $3.5 million for a 
birthday party in Florida? Why would you enhance botanical gardens now 
when we are going to run a $1.8 trillion deficit this year? Why would 
you build a new orchid garden for the Smithsonian now when we have so 
many other issues that are so far more important that we should be 
doing? Why in light of the greatest drought California has ever seen 
would we disrupt the water supply to 10,000 farmers, creating more than 
$2 billion worth of GDP? Why would we do that? Why would we do that 
now? I don't understand why we are doing it now.
  I understand the politics of it. I understand the way the Senate 
works. I understand the reason Members want to get things done for 
their States. But right now in our Nation, we ought to be thinking 
about the good of the Nation as a whole, the long-term good of the 
Nation as a whole.
  Confidence--confidence--is what Americans don't have today. They are 
not confident in their future. They are

[[Page S355]]

not confident in the economics of maintaining their family, their 
lifestyle. As a matter of fact, the confidence is so low that we are 
going to have a savings rate that we have not seen in 40 years in this 
country because people are saving for a rainy day, and they think the 
rainy day is here. What we are doing is destroying what confidence is 
left.
  Our President-elect's job over the next year, more than anything, is 
to restore hope and confidence in the future of this country. I believe 
we fall far short by bringing this bill to the Senate at this time in 
this way without an ability to amend it in significant ways that 
preserve chances for energy exploration, that take the silliness out of 
it--as I mentioned earlier, the 45 earmarks that are in this bill--and 
do not address the priorities of which we should be authorizing the 
spending of money in this bill. It is wasteful. It does not meet common 
sense. It destroys what little credibility we have left, and in the 
long run it diminishes the promise of change and hope for which our new 
President-elect stands.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico is 
recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is 18\1/2\ minutes remaining: 
15 minutes on the Democratic side, 3\1/2\ minutes on the Republican 
side.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, shortly, the Senate will vote on cloture 
on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. I obviously support going ahead 
with cloture on that legislation. Let me explain briefly why and then 
respond to a few of the points that my colleague from Oklahoma made.
  Yesterday, we did spend several hours trying to determine if it was 
possible to develop a unanimous consent agreement so that we could have 
a couple of votes today on amendments that the Senator from Oklahoma 
has proposed. Despite good-faith efforts on both sides, we were unable 
to reach that agreement. I appreciate Senator Coburn's willingness to 
work with us. Also, I appreciate Senator Murkowski's involvement in 
those discussions.
  I have spoken at some length earlier this week about this package of 
bills, so I will not repeat the details that I talked about before, but 
I would like to briefly summarize the bill.
  This legislation contains over 160 separate public land and related 
bills, with roughly an equal number of provisions sponsored by 
Democratic and Republican Senators. Apart from the bipartisan makeup of 
the package, almost all of these bills were considered in the Energy 
Committee and were reported in our committee after amendment. I should 
emphasize that there was an extensive process of amending these bills 
in our committee. They were reported after amendments by unanimous 
vote. We have made some further modifications to some of these bills in 
an effort to address any remaining concerns.
  S. 22 incorporates 15 new wilderness bills, which combined will 
result in over 2 million acres of new additions to the National 
Wilderness Preservation System in nine different States. It will add 
over 1,000 miles of new rivers to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
System. It will add over 2,800 miles to the National Trails System. It 
will add three new units to the National Park System and enlarge the 
boundary of over a dozen existing parks. It will designate a new 
national monument, three new national conservation areas, and 
legislatively establish the Bureau of Land Management's National 
Landscape Conservation System.
  The bill will protect over 1 million acres of the Wyoming Range for 
hunting, fishing, and other recreational uses. And to help reduce the 
catastrophic fire problems of recent years, it authorizes a new forest 
landscape restoration program.
  In addition to the public land components of the package, the bill 
will ratify three extremely important water rights settlements. Those 
are located in California, in Nevada, and in my home State of New 
Mexico. The legislation related to those settlements will end literally 
decades of litigation. And it includes many other land and water 
authorizations to help local communities throughout the country but 
especially in Western States.

  Despite the scope of the conservation measures included in the 
package, it is not, as some have suggested, inconsistent with our 
national energy policy. I heard my colleague indicate that in his view 
this legislation in total would--I believe the phrase he used was--
markedly undermine energy independence in our country. I strongly 
disagree with that characterization of what we are doing. Almost none 
of the wilderness areas designated by the bill are in areas with 
significant energy development potential.
  As to the one area which does contain energy potential--that is the 
Wyoming Range Legacy Act legislation--let me give some details as to 
that legislation. The legislation seeks to protect from future oil and 
gas activity lands in the Wyoming Range not currently under lease. As 
of November 6, 2007, there were 18 oil and gas leases within the 
proposed withdrawal area. Those leases cover a total of 70,600 acres. 
These leases represent valid existing rights and will not in any way be 
canceled by this legislation. The leases are primarily located in the 
area that has some of the most significant mineral development 
potential.
  In addition to those oil and gas leases, there are 35 oil and gas 
leases covering 44,977 acres that have either been issued and are under 
protest or have been sold but not yet issued. This bill, again, does 
not in any way cancel or impede development of those leases.
  Under the estimated U.S. Geological Survey's estimates, they believe 
the natural gas potential for the area is 1.5 trillion cubic feet, and 
the mean oil potential is 5 million barrels. Relative to other known 
gas reserves in the area, the numbers are smaller in both size and 
scope.
  There are approximately 4,300 producing oil and gas wells in the 
three counties that are touched by this legislation. There is a 
proposal being considered for up to 4,339 additional wells that would 
not be affected by the legislation. There is production currently 
taking place nearby that will not be stopped by the provisions here.
  We had the Congressional Budget Office look at this, and they have 
issued a statement which I will quote for information of Senators. When 
they refer to S. 2229, that is the legislation that is incorporated in 
this bill. They say:

       Based on information from the U.S. Forest Service and the 
     Bureau of Land Management, CBO estimates that enacting S. 
     2229 would have no significant effect on the Federal budget. 
     Under the current law, CBO anticipates that neither agency 
     will offer to sell mineral leases or other interests in land 
     that would be withdrawn by the bill within the next 10 years; 
     hence, we anticipate no foregone receipts from sales of such 
     interests over the period of 2009 through 2018.

  So as I was saying, the legislation, in my view, does not markedly 
undermine energy independence, it does very little to impede our 
ability to develop oil and gas resources, and this is a piece of 
legislation that is strongly supported by the Senators from Wyoming, it 
is strongly supported by the Governor of Wyoming, and it is legislation 
that I myself support as well.
  Several Senators have previously spoken about the many years they 
have spent working on some of the provisions in this package. 
Especially in the West, there are few issues as complex and difficult 
to resolve as land and water use issues. Given the years of work 
invested by interested citizens and communities, by State and local 
governments and by individual Senate delegations to address and resolve 
the many competing issues, it is time to bring these issues to closure. 
There has been an extensive public process for the individual bills 
contained in this package, both locally and in the Congress, with 
almost all receiving the unanimous approval of our committee, the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which has jurisdiction over 
these matters.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture 
this morning on S. 22, the Omnibus Public Lands Act, so we can advance 
this long overdo legislation forward for Senate approval.
  Mr. President, how much time remains for the majority?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority has a little over 4 
minutes and the minority has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, at this time, I yield the remainder of 
my

[[Page S356]]

time to my colleague, the Senator from Alaska, Ms. Murkowski.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this morning to support the 
statement of my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources, as it relates to this legislation, the Omnibus 
Public Lands Act of 2009.
  There has been a great deal of discussion in these past several days 
about priorities and whether the bills in this package actually reflect 
my particular priorities. Well, in fact, there are some priorities I do 
have. But are all these bills, all 160 of them, my priorities? No.
  There has been a great deal of discussion about process. The fact 
that we have 160 bills packaged into an omnibus bill is cumbersome. Is 
this a process I would have chosen? Probably not.
  Am I concerned about the ability of the minority to offer amendments? 
Absolutely. Absolutely. My colleague from Oklahoma has made a very 
strong case for why, in this deliberative process, in this deliberative 
body we should not be allowed to move forward and advance amendments. 
As I understand it, there were discussions yesterday that, hopefully, 
would have allowed a time agreement for consideration of amendments, 
but that didn't work out and that is unfortunate. But I do not believe 
the bills we see in this package result from an absence of careful 
consideration and process.
  As the chairman has noted, the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources has had almost 2 years' worth of hearings, negotiations, and 
business meetings on these very bills we have in front of us. There has 
been that thoughtful committee process, there has been that review, 
there has been the input from the local level all the way to the top. 
The public lands bills in this package were considered and they were 
amended with the very concerns in mind that my fellow Senators are 
expressing today.
  The concerns are most appropriate: How do we get a fair deal for the 
American taxpayer? How do we ensure we are not locking up land that 
could help improve our Nation's energy security? Are the lands we are 
protecting deserving of this? We can find that balance and we can 
maximize the development of our domestic energy resources while 
protecting our Nation's other natural resources.
  So why so many bills in here? Well, for those of us in the West, so 
much of our land is federally owned that simple transactions often take 
literally an act of Congress. This bill transfers 23,226 acres of 
Federal lands to private and State sectors through conveyance, exchange 
or sale, and does so in a way that provides full value for the American 
taxpayer. The bill does authorize the expenditure of funds, but each of 
those is dependent on future appropriations that depend on the 
oversight of the Appropriations Committee and the Presidential budget 
request.
  This process is not my preferred method for passing legislation. I 
wish to work with my colleague from Oklahoma and with others who have 
expressed their concerns about how we move public lands bills. I think 
working with the chairman we can improve this process, and we should. 
But I believe that overall what we have before us today is a package 
that will improve our Nation's management of its public lands and parks 
and will be a long-term benefit to our Nation. Therefore, I 
respectfully request my fellow Members' support for passage of this 
legislation and on this cloture motion we have before us this morning.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Let me clear up the data on the Wyoming Range. It is said 
there is only 1.5 trillion cubic feet, according to the U.S. Geologic 
Survey. But you have not read the complete report. The letter is new. 
The data used by them is older than the data used by the Bureau of Land 
Management. It wasn't based on the latest topographic and geological 
studies. That is the first problem.
  The second thing they say in their report is they lacked an official 
map. So it is their best guess, not based on science, not based on 
known data.
  Finally, they only approximated for the following reasons: They only 
had a general outline of the area and they assumed a homogenous 
distribution of oil and gas resources across the entire area.
  Well, that is a no report. The latest report to come from the 
National Petroleum Council, which is subcontracted to BLM, estimates, 
at a minimum, 12 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. So where you get 
your information and what it says and what it is based on is very 
important.
  So we have had all this defense that this is not going to impact 
energy based on an erroneous report based on erroneous assumptions by 
the National Geologic Survey, when all you have to do is read their own 
survey and that is the footnote to it, which says we didn't have the 
information, we didn't have the map, so we used an average, not what 
was there. Having known that the first three gas wells drilled there 
had to be capped because we didn't have the technology to take the 
flow, it was so great, the estimates by the USGS are so far out of 
range it is laughable. As far as 10 years counting whether it is going 
to have any impact on our energy, I hope we are thinking longer than 10 
years. But that is what the CBO says they are going to use--10 years.
  Don't forget there is another big issue with this bill in that we 
step all over property rights in this country. Even though several of 
the bills in here say they would not use eminent domain, every one of 
them still has the right to use eminent domain outside the areas we 
have created in this bill. So we have taken one of the basic rights of 
Americans in this country, and the Senate, in passing this bill, by 
saying: Sorry, our parochial interests for what we want to do for the 
State trumps your property rights.
  If you believe in property rights, if you believe people who own land 
ought to have the right to develop that land, if you don't think the 
Federal Government ought to be funding those people who will take away 
your rights--which is what they will do with the heritage areas; they 
actually change the zoning laws as funded by the U.S. Park Service--I 
have a bridge I want to sell you.
  We ought to be about doing what is in the best interest of the 
country, not what is in the best interest of our States right now. Our 
problems are severe. We ought to be doing things that develop 
confidence in this body, not undermining the confidence in this body. 
As far as the land exchanges, almost none of those was objected to. 
They could have come through here on unanimous consent, and everybody 
knows that. To use that as a reason for why we are at this point is not 
only insincere, it is inaccurate.
  So it is time for us to start behaving and acting in ways that 
restore confidence in this body and setting priorities that are very 
similar to the priorities every family has to set. I will say, again, 
we should have spent the last 2 weeks working on waste and fraud and 
duplication in the Federal Government because we are getting ready to 
approve a bill that will spend $800 billion at the same time we know we 
are going to waste $300 billion in this Government. For us to spend 
time on this bill rather than the important things that are going to 
make a difference in the lives of families in this country in the long 
run, I believe it undermines the best values of the Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico has 
half a minute remaining.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the time of 10:30 is about to arrive. I 
yield my time. The yeas and nays have already been ordered or are they 
mandatory?


                             Cloture Motion

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All the time has expired. Under 
rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending motion to 
invoke cloture, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 22, the Omnibus 
     Public Land Management Act of 2009.
         Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Bernard Sanders, Jon Tester, Tom Harkin, 
           Kent Conrad, Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Daniel K. Akaka, Ken Salazar, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Ron Wyden, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert Menendez, 
           Bill Nelson.


[[Page S357]]


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. By unanimous consent, the mandatory 
quorum call is waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on S. 22, a bill to designate certain land components of 
the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain 
programs and activities in the Department of Interior and the 
Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, shall be brought to 
a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. 
Conrad), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator 
from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. 
Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 68, nays 24, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 2 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Akaka
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--24

     Alexander
     Brownback
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     McCain
     McConnell
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Biden
     Brown
     Bunning
     Conrad
     Kennedy
     Stabenow
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) On this vote, the 
yeas are 68, the nays are 24. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen 
and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  (Mr. LEVIN assumed the chair.)
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reed). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask to speak as in morning business.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Lilly Ledbetter

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am the leadoff speaker today in what 
will be a substantial conversation on the Fair Pay Restoration Act. It 
has been otherwise known in the community and in the media as the Lilly 
Ledbetter bill, which we hope to bring up for a vote tomorrow to 
advance this bill. What this legislation will do is to overturn the 
Supreme Court decision that essentially mitigated the ability to file 
lawsuits for equal pay for equal work.
  Mr. President, I am not new to this bill, and neither are you. We 
counted you as one of our strong advocates when we had our vote last 
year on April 23.
  The person who has been one of the leads in the Senate has been our 
very good colleague, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. As we know, 
Senator Clinton is about to assume other responsibilities. I have taken 
up this bill as the lead sponsor, along with many of the women in the 
Senate and the very good men. I thank Senator Clinton for her 
leadership and her advocacy on behalf of women and on behalf of civil 
rights and on behalf of fairness and justice. She has been a great 
advocate, and we are going to miss her.
  I also thank Senator Kennedy and his staff, Senator Kennedy for his 
leadership in trying to right the wrong the Supreme Court decision 
created. Senator Kennedy has been a stalwart on this bill and is also 
one of the original sponsors of the remedy we are bringing before our 
colleagues today.
  You might recall that in April we had our vote on the Lilly Ledbetter 
bill. You might recall it was a very intense and emotional debate. Most 
of the women of the Senate came on the floor. We were dressed in red 
because that was the color of the women's movement and Mrs. Ledbetter 
herself wore red. We lost that vote by essentially two votes. As 
everybody left the floor, they thought it was over. But I knew it was 
not over because we were not going to let it be over. We were going to 
continue the fight. I said to my colleagues then, when we lost the 
vote, we would come back and fight another day, and that day is here. 
We said very loudly, clearly, firmly, and resolutely that we wanted to 
be sure women receive equal pay for equal work, equal or comparable 
work. We wanted to change the law books so women would feel it in their 
checkbooks.
  I reminded our colleagues, because there had been a fantastic 
miniseries about John Adams, that Abigail, one of our heroes, had 
written John when he was busy writing the Constitution--she was busy 
running the farm and keeping life going--and she said: John Adams, when 
you write that Constitution, remember the ladies because if you forget 
us, we will foment another rebellion.
  I said on the floor on April 23 that we, in the spirit of Abigail 
Adams, were ready to foment another revolution if we were going to be 
denied the opportunity to pursue equal pay. I then said we were going 
to fight, and I asked the women of the Senate--I asked the women of the 
Senate and women all over the country--to suit up, get ready to fight. 
Put your lipstick on, and let's foment another revolution.
  Wow, the revolution came, and it is more than I anticipated. The 
revolution came in one of the most dynamic primaries our country has 
ever seen. The revolution came when people said loudly and clearly, at 
every primary and every caucus across this country, that they wanted 
change. They chose a new standard-bearer in President-elect Barack 
Obama. In that, with Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, we have the leadership 
the American people want. In their leadership, working on a bipartisan 
basis in the Congress, we want to bring about change, and therefore one 
of the first bills we bring to the floor of the Senate is one that 
makes sure women have equal pay for equal or comparable work and they 
have access to the courts and appropriate legal process to be able to 
pursue their concerns and their complaints.
  The revolution is here, and the votes are coming. We are going to 
vote tomorrow on cloture on the motion to proceed. Later on, we are 
going to have complete debate on the bill itself. We know there are 
colleagues who offer alternatives, but that is part of the revolution--
to have great ideas, engage where there are differences of opinion, and 
then, at the end of the day, have the votes. We are looking forward to 
this. It is a day long in coming.
  This year, this new Congress and this new President bring us not only 
a new year, but it also has created a new economic reality. The economy 
is tanking, with no end in sight, retirement accounts are plummeting, 
home values are sinking, and unemployment is surging.
  This is not news to women. Women who are in the workplace today know 
how hard it is to get and keep a job. What we also know is that in good 
times or bad times, women are discriminated against in terms of the pay 
they receive. Right now, today, in the 21st century America, women 
still earn only 76 cents an hour when men receive a dollar an hour. 
There are women who pursued remedies.
  In May 2007, the Supreme Court made an outrageous decision. They said 
women cannot get equal pay for equal work unless they file a complaint 
180 days from when the discrimination

[[Page S358]]

began. Women do not always know when discrimination began. They meant 
from the very first day that you get a paycheck that discriminates 
against you, within 180 days, within 6 months, you are supposed to know 
that and file a complaint. We would love to be able to do that. But 
this decision does not reflect the reality of the workplace.
  What is it that we know about the workplace? You can talk about 
anything in the workplace. Often, politics are discussed in the 
lunchroom; religion is talked about at the computer; sex is often 
discussed at the water cooler; but salary is never discussed. How many 
people really know the salary of their coworkers? Women do not go 
around asking men: How much are you paid, and pull out a little pad. 
They presume that if they are doing the job side by side with male 
coworkers, they are getting equal pay. They don't know that. Then what 
happens if the male counterpart gets a raise? The guys have been out at 
a ball game. They say: Don't worry, we will take care of you. But the 
women don't know that. You have to know it the day you get the paycheck 
and he gets the bigger one. How are you going to know that? Snooping? 
Men get raises and promotions, but women are often overlooked and 
undervalued.
  What we saw in the Supreme Court decision was that it was a backward 
step for women and it violates the very concept of fairness and 
justice. The Supreme Court decision was so outrageous that our beloved 
and esteemed Justice Ginsburg took the unusual position of reading her 
dissent from the bench. Usually, Justices do not do that. She said in 
her dissenting opinion that the Court did not get it, that they do not 
understand the realities of the workplace that would prohibit women 
from knowing exactly when the discrimination started. She called upon 
Congress to fix it, and that is what this bill does. Our bill restores 
the original language that existed before Ledbetter.
  Along the way, President Bush heard about our legislation. He 
threatened to veto it. On January 20, we will have a new President, and 
he will not only sign it, he campaigned with Lilly Ledbetter and made a 
promise to the American people. When President-elect Obama, who by then 
will have taken his oath of office and will be President Obama--this 
will probably be the very first piece of legislation he will sign. What 
a sweet day for women all over America. But we have a legislative road 
to go on.
  A lot has been said about Lilly Ledbetter, but people are busy and 
they might not remember her whole story. What a gallant and courageous 
woman. She fought the system, and on her own time and with great risk, 
she took on the challenges of the workplace. She turned to the courts 
and began her fight. She fought two different times, once against 
sexual harassment and the other time against unequal pay. What you need 
to understand is when she began her fight to get equal pay, she was 
then sexually harassed because she followed her legal opportunities and 
rights. So she was doubly punished. She was punished in the workplace 
in her paycheck and she was punished in the workplace because she dared 
speak out.
  Lilly Ledbetter did not work at some microbusiness. Lilly Ledbetter 
worked at Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. She worked there for 19 years 
and by all accounts was an outstanding employee. She did not know when 
the disparity developed, whether it was on the first day she was hired 
or over the many years she was there. But she found out and took it to 
court. A jury found that Goodyear had discriminated against her and 
awarded her $400,000 in backpay. When they did, Goodyear then took this 
all the way up to the appellate court. Each time, this woman pursued 
her remedies, often at great risk and great financial and personal 
hardship. Finally, because Goodyear, every time she won, took it to a 
higher court--that is their prerogative. But you had little Lilly 
Ledbetter against this giant corporation, with tons of lawyers and tons 
of legal resources. Finally, they had the Supreme Court on their side, 
and the Supreme Court said someone cannot sue their employer over 
unequal pay if that person doesn't file the suit 180 days from the day 
the discrimination began.
  As we said earlier, the Supreme Court just didn't get it. How many 
people know the salary of their coworkers, especially in the first 6 
months on the job? What if you are hired at an equal rate with your 
male counterpart but he gets a raise every few months and you don't? 
The decision was terrible. As I said, Justice Ginsburg said, ``In our 
view, the Court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious 
way in which women can become victims of pay discrimination.'' She 
encouraged us to fix it.
  As I said, women continue to earn 77 cents for every dollar. Women of 
color get paid even less. So Lilly Ledbetter is not an isolated 
incident.
  Now, there is opposition to this bill because people make profits off 
of discrimination; if you pay women less, you make more. I mean, we are 
providing a subsidy to these businesses that discriminate.
  Over a lifetime, it not only affects your current paycheck, but it 
affects your Social Security and your retirement in terms of lower 
lifetime earnings. The Supreme Court now even makes it harder for women 
workers to close this work gap.
  I am going to have more to say about this, but I want to say that we 
now know the situation in the workplace, women are paid less generally. 
We want to be sure that if you are paid less specifically, you have an 
open courthouse door that will have an open mind to the fact that 
discrimination might exist. We want to have a fair playing field for 
you to file this complaint.
  This bill will amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so 
that the time for an employee to file a wage discrimination suit runs 
from the date of the actual payment of a discriminatory wage, not from 
the time of hiring. That means that employees can sue employers based 
on discriminating paychecks. It does not limit the time a worker can 
seek the remedy.
  I want to be clear, though, it does not change the statute of 
limitations. What it does is, under the Supreme Court decision you 
would have to file your complaint within 180 days of when you were 
hired. Here, you can file it within 180 days of your last paycheck when 
you found that discrimination, you believed discrimination existed. We 
are going to be debating this bill. I have many colleagues who want to 
speak on it. There are many in this Congress who have been very strong 
advocates, but our leading advocates are the two wonderful women from 
the State of Washington who I know are eager to speak. Both are on the 
floor, and the lead on this working with us in the Health and Education 
Committee is, of course, the senior Senator from the State of 
Washington, a part of our leadership team, the dynamic and intrepid 
Patty Murray. I yield the floor for her.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I first thank Senator Enzi for his 
accommodation to allow me to follow Senator Mikulski.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland. She has been tireless on this 
issue and a champion for women and their families for many years. I am 
very proud to be with her today as she leads the Senate and the country 
in restoring the credibility and confidence of women across this 
country to be able to get what they should be getting when they go to 
work every day. So I thank her for that.
  This Senate has a very proud history of working across the aisle to 
pass civil rights laws. Those historic laws ensure that all people in 
our Nation have equal rights regardless of their race, their religion, 
gender, or national origin. I am very proud that because of those laws, 
my daughter now has the right to work in the same job and achieve the 
same success as my son.
  But despite all of the years of progress, we have not eliminated 
unfairness in the workplace. I believe we should all fight long and 
hard whenever Americans are denied the ability to fight for their 
rights, and that is why I have come to the floor today to speak.
  With its May 2007 decision, Ledbetter v. Goodyear, the Supreme Court 
reversed years of progress in the fight for fairness in the workplace. 
Their decision made it almost impossible for workers who suffer 
discrimination to seek justice. It went against congressional intent, 
and it set us back 40 years in the fight for equal opportunity

[[Page S359]]

in the workplace. The decision was wrong, and we here in this body need 
to take action before it weakens our civil rights even further.
  So today as we begin this new Congress and a new administration, I am 
urging all of our colleagues to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay 
Act to reverse Ledbetter v. Goodyear and ensure that our workers again 
have a fair shot at fighting discrimination.
  Before I describe the bill that is before us today, I want to say a 
few words about Lilly Ledbetter and her Supreme Court case. As the 
Senator from Maryland talked about, Lilly Ledbetter worked for Goodyear 
Tire for 19 years before she found out that her male counterparts were 
being paid more for doing the exact same work. So she sued, charging 
her employers with pay discrimination.
  But, as you know now, the Court sided with Goodyear. It was not 
because the Court thought she was wrong. They, in fact, agreed she had 
been discriminated against. But the Court said she did not have the 
right to sue. That is right, that is what the Court said. They said she 
should have sued within 180 days of her very first unfair paycheck, 
even though she did not know about it until many years later.
  It made that ruling despite the fact that courts around this country 
had for years assumed the opposite, that the clock starts ticking after 
any discriminatory act, including every time a worker is paid unfairly. 
Now, I think that sounds an awful lot like our Supreme Court is asking 
workers everywhere to be mind readers. It is unfair and it is not what 
Congress intended when we created that law in the first place.
  Lilly Ledbetter has, to her credit, not let that decision go without 
a fight. She has been a tireless champion for her rights, and I truly 
want to thank her for everything she has done to raise awareness about 
her case.
  The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act before us today would reverse the 
Court's unfair decision. It will allow workers to file a claim within 
180 days of any discriminatory paycheck, and it would again allow 
workers to discover the facts and to challenge ongoing discrimination 
as Congress always intended. Purely and simply, it restores a worker's 
right to fight for her rights.
  I also want to take a little bit of time to talk about why it is so 
important that we ensure our workers have all of the tools necessary to 
fight for their rights. As I said earlier, what we are talking about 
today is not just a philosophical issue of rights and discrimination. 
The truth is that although we have made tremendous progress in civil 
rights, there is a lot of work to be done yet. The pay gap is only one 
example. Women still make less than men even though they are doing the 
exact same work. On average today, women earn only 77 cents for every 
dollar that is paid to their male coworkers. That pay gap, by the way, 
is even wider for African-American and Latino women. African-American 
women earn 67 cents on a dollar, and Latino women earn only 56 cents 
for every dollar a white man makes.
  Pay discrimination like that has real and harmful impacts on our 
families and for our Nation as a whole. It hurts an individual's 
ability to earn a living or to care for their children or to contribute 
fully to society. Yet it is so deeply ingrained in our society today 
that many jobs dominated by women pay less than jobs dominated by men 
even when the work they do is almost the same. That disparity hurts 
millions of families. In almost 10 million households today, mothers 
are the breadwinners. In many of those cases, those women are also 
supporting their parents and other extended family members and, in far 
too many of those households, women have to struggle to pay for rent or 
heat or food or gas, much less send those kids to college.
  Think of how much better off our families and our country would be if 
women were paid a wage equal to men, especially, of course, as we face 
this deepening economic crisis and all of our expenses are rising every 
day. If women and men made an equal wage, single working women would 
have 17 percent more income every year. Ensuring that they have a fair 
paycheck would cut their poverty rate in half. That is to the benefit 
of this entire country.
  There is one other issue I want to raise. Although the Ledbetter case 
involves gender discrimination, the decision applies to all 
discrimination: religion, race, age, disability, national origin. I 
think it is only fitting that in the days before we honor the life and 
the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. we are considering this issue 
today. The truth is, all the laws we pass guaranteeing rights have 
little meaning if Americans do not have the ability to challenge the 
discrimination in court.
  This case could set a terrible precedent. We run the risk that 
antidiscrimination laws will grow weaker, not stronger, if we do not 
act here in the Senate. So I urge our colleagues to support this bill 
to reverse this unfair decision and restore congressional intent and to 
ensure the Senate's history of protecting civil rights will not be 
eroded.
  I again thank my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, for her 
tremendous fight over so many years to make sure that women have equal 
access in the workplace.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming is 
recognized.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Mikulski and Senator 
Murray, and all of the people who have worked on the bill for their 
dedication to women's rights and their dedication to civil rights.
  I have been referred to several times as a reasonable voice on this 
floor and in committee. I work across the aisle. And I have got to say, 
I went through an election where that was the toughest issue against 
me, the fact that I had worked across the aisle. People particularly 
wanted to know how I could work with Senator Kennedy to get stuff done. 
I always concentrated on the last part of that: ``getting stuff done.'' 
America expects us to get stuff done.
  The way that really works is, we work across the aisle and we listen 
to everybody, and we work across the building, and we listen to 435 
people down there as well, providing a process where people can have 
their views heard.
  One of the reasons we go through a process--and we are talking about 
an appropriate legal process that people who are discriminated against 
need--is to make sure the voice of the people of the United States is 
heard.
  The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was once the most 
contentious committee in this body. It is now the most productive 
committee in this body. We pass a lot of legislation. You do not hear 
much debate on the floor on it because it goes through the committee 
process.
  How does that committee process work? Well, when a bill goes to 
committee, you usually have hearings. We have not had a hearing on 
this. You get a markup. That is when everybody can turn in every 
imaginable amendment they can think of for that bill, which is where 
you bring into account the perspectives of all of those people on the 
committee, 20, 22, 23 people, who concentrate on a subject, who know 
that subject.
  From there, the chairman and the ranking member kind of divide things 
up and see what the relative amendments are trying to do, and the 
ramifications of those amendments. If you have 25 amendments, but all 
deal with one subject, you know that is a hot-button issue. But if you 
look through them, you usually find out there is kind of a common 
theme; not a common solution but a common theme. And because of the way 
a committee works, you have a chance to sit down with those people who 
have those opinions and see if there is a solution that fits in the 
bill. Usually there is.
  That is why we have done some very difficult issues through 
committee. We passed the first change in mine safety law in 28 years, 
and we did it in 6 weeks, not 6 weeks of floor time. The floor time was 
about an hour. We did a pensions bill. That has always been a difficult 
process. We wanted to make sure people received the pensions they were 
promised and that companies were not put out of business so they could 
not pay those pensions. That was a 1,000-page bill. We had an agreement 
before it came to the floor, because of committee work, that we would 
have 1 hour of debate, two amendments that we could not agree on, and 
then a final vote. In less than an hour and a half,

[[Page S360]]

we passed one of the most critical bills for this Nation, and it was 
because of committee work. It is because of the knowledge the committee 
has and shares in committee and the negotiation that goes on.
  When we are presented a bill on the floor that has not been to 
committee, we have no voice, and it is take-it-or-leave-it. If we look 
at the history of the Senate, it is usually leave it. Why? Because 
there isn't that flexibility of amendments when it comes directly to 
the floor. There isn't that ability to see what the intensity of the 
amendments is, let alone the direction of the amendments, let alone the 
opportunity to find an alternate solution, one on which both sides 
agree. When you don't follow committee process it takes a lot more 
time. How much time does it take? I guess we will be talking about this 
today and tomorrow we will have a cloture vote on it. If that cloture 
vote succeeds, then there is 30 more hours of debate before we get to 
amendments.
  One of the concerns on this side is whether the process will break 
down at that point as well so that if there is the approval to proceed, 
then there would not be any amendments allowed. That was a concern on 
the public lands bill, no opportunity for anybody to offer any 
amendments. That was a $3.5 billion bill. But that doesn't mean much 
when one is talking about $700 billion stimulus bill and when we 
haven't even done the appropriations process for last year. Where are 
the appropriations? Should that not be a part of the solution to the 
crisis we are in? Yet we are jumping right to this bill that has not 
been to committee.
  I express my strong opposition to the process or, more accurately, 
the total lack of process which brings us to the consideration of S. 
181. The manner in which this bill is being handled by the majority 
sets a disappointing tone for the new Congress and lays the groundwork 
for a legislative term that will surely be more partisan than 
productive. The majority has brought this legislation directly to the 
floor of the Senate and, in doing so, has completely circumvented the 
regular order of the Senate and its committee process.
  This legislation has not been brought before the committee of 
jurisdiction and, as a consequence, has not been subject to scrutiny, 
open debate, and amendment which is an integral part of the Senate's 
deliberative process. This is not the legislative process our Founding 
Fathers created. It is an affront to Members and a disservice to the 
American people. We cannot have good legislation with a bad process. 
People may have wanted change when they voted last November, but the 
change they wanted was not the imposition of one party rule or 30 hours 
of debate followed by a vote, followed by 30 more hours of debate, 
followed by no amendment process, followed by a final vote. I don't 
think anybody thought that was the solution to what we were doing.
  In the committee process, things can be done in a much more prudent 
and sometimes rapid manner, with less floor debate, and this is where 
the 80-percent rule can be applied. I have found that we can agree with 
80 percent of the issues. Pick an issue that is in that agreement 
category, and we can agree on 80 percent of that issue. What we get to 
see on the floor of the Senate is the 20 percent debate on what we 
don't agree on, not the 80 percent that we could get done quickly.
  In addition to slick procedural maneuvering and empty platitudes, 
there are other ploys in the political playbook at work. First and 
foremost, and guaranteed to be used to distract the public's attention, 
is to demagogue the issue and attempt to demonize anybody who dares to 
suggest there may be another way to achieve a particular goal. The 
Ledbetter bill is the perfect example of this divisive tactic. Anyone 
who suggests the bill is an overreach or the problem it seeks to 
address can be addressed in a better way is immediately painted as 
opposed to equal pay for women or is some kind of a sexist Neanderthal. 
What a nonsensical claim.
  Let's not forget that the alternative to this bill, which has been 
introduced in this Congress and which the majority leadership will not 
let us consider, was authored by Senator Hutchison. I do not believe 
there is a single Member of the Senate who can credibly claim to be 
more sensitive to women's legitimate concerns over pay equity or more 
instrumental in assuring equal rights for women in the workplace than 
Senator Hutchison. Is there so little respect for the intelligence of 
the American public that despite this fact the proponents of the 
legislation will nonetheless foster this myth?
  People may have wanted change when they voted last November, but the 
change they wanted was not a further coarsening of public discourse and 
the substitution of name calling for meaningful debate or the avoidance 
of following the process in a prudent and rapid way.
  I intend to speak further with respect to the substance of the 
legislation, but I do not wish to dilute my concerns about the way this 
legislation is being handled with my concerns about the bill.
  Accordingly, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we will be turning to the Senator from 
Washington in a moment. I can't let the remarks that have been said not 
be clarified in terms of facts.
  First, when this bill moves forward, there is an agreement between 
both leaders, the majority and the minority, that there will be 
amendments. In fact, one of the premier amendments will be offered by 
the Senator from Texas, who has an alternative view. She will have the 
opportunity to offer her amendment. As I understand, there is no 
restriction on amendments. Speaking for the Democratic leader, there is 
no intent on our side to fill the tree.
  The debate is being led by the women in the Senate. Among ourselves, 
we have dinner once a month. We get together on a bipartisan basis. We 
have pledged among ourselves--and it is unofficial, not an oath--that 
we are going to be a zone of civility in this institution. The way we 
will debate will, first of all, always try to allow amendments. We will 
proceed with intellectual rigor, have our discussions based on fact. 
Yes, philosophy will enter in, but it will not be ideological. Nor do 
we intend in any way to be tart or demonize.
  We have listened to two speakers on this issue, myself and Senator 
Murray. There has been no demagoguing. We spoke with passion because we 
know Lilly Ledbetter. We mourned for her when her husband passed away. 
We listened to stories of sexual harassment because she stood up for 
herself. But we are not in the demonizing business. I can assure my 
colleagues, this discussion will be debated by men as well as women. 
But the women of the Senate intend to have this be a model of civility. 
That is one thing.
  The second thing is hearings. This is January 14. There have been no 
hearings on this bill in this session. But it is exactly the same bill 
voted on in the last Congress on which there were two hearings held: 
one in the HELP Committee on January 24, 2008, and the Judiciary 
Committee on September 23, 2008. It is the same hearings. We would have 
the same witnesses. We would bring in Lilly, et cetera. The differences 
of opinion on how to achieve the goal of ending discrimination, for 
example, between the Hutchison approach and the approach here will 
afford her ample time. We know our colleague, Senator Specter, has some 
flashing yellow lights about the bill. He, too, will offer his 
amendment. We know the lawyerly way in which he proceeds, and so on.
  We are ready for debate and discussion. I don't think we have been 
inappropriate in the process. We held our hearings last year. We are 
going to offer wide latitude in the offering of amendments here. The 
whole mood is one that is upbeat and looking forward to spirited 
debate.
  Having said that, I didn't know if my very civil colleague from 
Wyoming wanted to comment. I just wanted to have those particular facts 
on the record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I still suggest on bills that we are going 
to do, if they go through the committee process, the committee markup 
process, we have a better idea of the intensity from each of the 
members on the committee. We have a better idea of alternate solutions 
or sometimes just alternate wording: a comma, a word here or there. 
Change sometimes makes a tremendous difference. That is not possible to 
do from the floor of the Senate.

[[Page S361]]

The publicity isn't very good from the committee. Those issues that we 
passed nearly unanimously every time have not risen to much of a level 
of publicity, but they have gotten the job done. That is what I am 
suggesting we ought to do on bills this year. I am worried about the 
way this came up so early and, without that process, what we are facing 
for the rest of the year.
  Will we just short-circuit committees? I also believe committees were 
very important, and I have enjoyed working on this committee. It used 
to be the most contentious, and now it is the most productive. I want 
to keep it that way. The way to keep it that way is to make sure things 
go through committee so committee members are not left out.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join in the discussion about 
this important legislation and to thank the dean of our women Senate 
delegation, the Senator from Maryland, for her steadfast support of 
this legislation and continuing to make sure that people are aware of 
the urgency of passing this legislation. I also thank my colleague, 
Senator Murray, also on the HELP Committee, who has been working on 
this legislation, along with Senator Clinton who was an original 
sponsor.
  Last year I had the opportunity to attend a rally where I met these 
three young Americans: Gussie, Sofia, and Leo. I thought their story 
was compelling because they made their own signs and talked about how 
they will work for justice. Their plan to talk about discrimination and 
the difference in pay equity on this particular day was to walk around 
the street corners begging for 23 cents. They were doing that to show 
that this was the difference between what women get paid and what men 
get paid for doing the exact same job. This young generation of 
Americans wants to grow up in a world where they know there is going to 
be equal pay for equal work.
  I would like to tell them that the Senate has acted on this 
legislation and moved forward. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn't 
share that view. I took delight in our hometown newspaper actually 
saying the Supreme Court kicked female workers in the teeth with their 
2007 ruling and that what was important was restoring average 
Americans' right to justice as a good place to start undoing the damage 
that has already been done.
  This issue is so important to women because the legacy of this 
injustice means not just on average we make 77 cents for every dollar 
our male counterpart can make in a job, but we stand to lose up to 
$250,000 in income over our lifetime because of this injustice. Those 
are real dollars.
  At a time of great economic uncertainty, when every penny counts, it 
is more important that we close the gap between what women and men earn 
in the workplace.
  Last year we saw more jobs lost than in any other year since World 
War II, and the unemployment rate has climbed to 7.2 percent. In 
contrast to previous recessions, we are seeing early signs that women 
are being especially hard hit because of the economic downturn. So we 
want to make sure, that as unemployment numbers rapidly rise, those 
women who are still in the workforce are going to get the same pay as 
their male counterparts.

  In 2007, women's median wage fell by 3 percent. But during that same 
time period, the average decline for men was only about .5 percent. So 
we can see that our economy and how women are being impacted is 
impacting individual families. So I am here to urge my colleagues to 
support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act--a piece of legislation that 
will help us close this gap of injustice and help these young people 
understand they are going to grow up in a society where there is faith 
and justice and fairness.
  As my colleague from Washington said, this bill is about gender 
discrimination, but it also extends to claims of pay discrimination 
based on race, national origin, religion, disability, and age. That is 
why I think it should be a top priority for us, and I am sure it is a 
top priority for many civil rights groups across our country.
  But this bill, as my colleagues have already discussed, will allow 
workers to file pay discrimination claims as long as the discrimination 
continues. A worker's ability to challenge unequal pay should continue 
as long as the discrimination is there. So it is their most recent 
discriminatory paycheck that will be the trigger for allowing them to 
file a case.
  Now, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have not 
supported this legislation in the past to now come to the aid of 
helping this legislation get to the President's desk.
  A few years ago, we had a similar case with the Supreme Court dealing 
with identity theft. The Supreme Court had interpreted a case to say 
that the statute of limitation for a consumer harmed by identity theft 
to file a lawsuit to recover from financial harm is 24 months from when 
it first occurred rather than when the consumer discovered it. Many of 
us came and made the case, through the legislative process, that 
sometimes you do not know when your identity has been stolen, and the 
consequence of that is sometimes by the time the statute of limitations 
had run out, you did not have a chance to bring your case.
  Well, we did something about that. We passed the Fair and Accurate 
Credit Transactions Act that helped create a framework that said that 
at the time of discovery of the act of your identity being stolen was 
the time the statute of limitations started to run--very similar to 
what we are trying to do here. In fact, it was in response to a Supreme 
Court case in which the U.S. Congress said: We do not like the Supreme 
Court's decision. It might be based on the law, but let's change the 
law and make sure there is justice for those who have had their 
identity stolen. That legislation passed 95 to 2.
  It is a similar principle here. We are saying some individuals do not 
know that discrimination has happened. We want to change the law to say 
that the most recent paycheck that established discrimination gives you 
the ability to bring up the case.
  So I would ask my colleagues, if you were willing to support the 
previous legislation, the same kind of scenario dealing with identity 
theft, why are you not willing to give the same kind of justice to 
women who are trying to get equal pay for the equal work that they are 
doing?
  I hope my colleagues will take the opportunity, now that the Supreme 
Court has put this ball in our court, to create a fair and equitable 
process and pass this legislation as soon as possible.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we would now like to turn to another 
strong advocate for ending discrimination, someone who has completed 
her first 2 years in the Senate and is part of that zone of civility to 
get the job done. We would like to hear from Senator Klobuchar.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota is 
recognized.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  I thank the Senator from Maryland for her great leadership and her 
tenacity with this bill from the very beginning. She is wearing red for 
a reason: That is the color to get this done. I will always remember 
this bill by Senator Mikulski taking to the floor the last time we came 
so close to passing it, when she said to the women of America: Suit up, 
square your shoulders, put your lipstick on. We are ready for a 
revolution.
  I also enjoyed hearing the comments from my colleague from 
Washington. I thought the analogy to the identity theft case was on 
point, where sometimes people have a wrong done to them--whether it is 
discrimination or whether it is identity theft--and it is literally 
impossible for them to know what happened until sometimes years later. 
That is what happened to Lilly Ledbetter.
  I am proud to join Senator Mikulski and my fellow women Senators and 
fellow Democrats and others who are here today to call for the Senate 
to take up and pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act.
  The timing of the vote on this legislation, which is tomorrow, could 
not be more appropriate. We all know our Nation is in the midst of a 
financial and economic crisis of historic proportions, with Americans 
facing record job losses and the largest loss of wealth since the Great 
Depression.

[[Page S362]]

  We know working families and women are bearing the brunt of this 
crisis. Since 2000--these figures are actually before we had, 
literally, this meltdown in the last few months--but since 2000--even 
without those figures--the average family income in America has gone 
down $1,175 per year when adjusted for inflation. At the same time, the 
average family's expenses have gone up $4,500 per year.
  This includes higher mortgage payments, higher phone costs, higher 
gas prices, higher heating costs, and higher health insurance costs. So 
the bottom line is the average middle-class family has suffered a net 
annual income loss of something like $5,500 a year, and that is not 
even including all the losses to the 401(k) funds and the pension 
funds, all the losses because of the expenses of childcare, and 
everything that has been going on in the last few months.
  These are not just statistics. I saw this when I was home over 
December. I saw it in the eyes of a woman at a cafe near Litchfield, 
MN, who called me over to her table and said she was taking a break at 
her job being a waitress and she was now doing three jobs. She had just 
had her hours cut back at the third job, and that was the extra money 
she was going to use to buy her grandkids Christmas presents.
  We have received letters in our office, such as the one we received 
from parents who said they would put their three daughters to bed and 
then just go sit at the kitchen table and put their heads in their 
hands and think: How are we going to make it? There is the woman who 
wrote to us and said she had received a small amount of inheritance 
from her father, and she planned to use it for her daughter's wedding, 
but she was now using it to pay for her own retirement because her 
401(k) and her retirement funds had decreased so dramatically.
  These are stories of women, real women, in Minnesota. No one has felt 
the impact of this economic downturn--the loss in income and the rising 
costs--more than the working women in America. It is often said that 
things have changed a lot for women in this country, and they have. It 
was not too long ago that we did not have the right to vote. It was not 
too long ago that my colleague from Maryland, Senator Mikulski, was the 
only woman in this Chamber. Now we have 17 of us. And it was not too 
long ago that I was kicked out of public fourth grade for wearing 
bellbottom pants to school by Mrs. Quady. I went home and changed and 
returned without missing much of my classes--a true story.
  It is a sad reality that--88 years after the 19th amendment gave 
women equal voting power, and 45 years after the passage of the Equal 
Pay Act--it still takes women 16 months to earn what men can earn in 12 
months.
  When I travel around my State and talk to the women in my State, I 
find these women are not simply looking for a handout or preferential 
treatment. All they are asking for is a fair and equal chance to make a 
fair and decent living. That is why it is so important the Senate take 
up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on the Senate floor this week.
  This important legislation will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court ruling--
Ledbetter v. Goodyear--that significantly limited the rights of 
individuals to sue for gender-based discrimination. The facts that gave 
rise to Lilly Ledbetter's case have been told, but I think they should 
be told again. She was a hard worker. People can picture her right now. 
I have met her many times. She is a delightful person. She worked at 
Goodyear Tire as a manager for 20 years.

  When she started, all the employees at the manager level started at 
the same pay. She knew she was getting the same pay as the men doing 
the same job. But early in her tenure as manager, the company went to a 
``merit-based'' pay system.
  Payment records were kept confidential, as they are in many 
companies, and Lilly did not think to ask what her male colleagues were 
making. She was happy to be a manager. She did not think to look at her 
pay raise and to ask if the men in the department were getting the same 
pay the day the paychecks came out. I do not think many people think 
about running around and asking their colleagues if they are getting 
the same amount of money for the same work.
  As the years passed by, the pay differential between what she made 
and what the male managers were making just kept getting bigger. It was 
only after getting an anonymous note from a coworker telling her she 
was not paid as much as the male managers that she finally realized 
what was happening. Soon after getting that note, she filed a legal 
complaint. But that was many years after the discrimination began.
  At trial, Lilly Ledbetter was easily able to prove discrimination. 
She could show what she did, she could show what the men did, and she 
could show the difference in pay. In fact, the jury found that sex 
discrimination accounted for a pay differential of as great as 25 
percent between Lilly and her male counterparts. You can think about 
how that adds up over 20 years of working.
  However, Goodyear appealed the jury's ruling, and the Supreme Court, 
in a 5-to-4 decision, decided that Lilly filed her case too late. 
Essentially, they ruled she would have had to have filed within 180 
days of Goodyear making its first discriminatory act.
  Now, you ask, how would she have known this unless she was nosey and 
going around trying to look at people's paychecks? But this, as absurd 
as it sounds, is what the Court said.
  Although the Court's decision completely ignores the realities of the 
workplace--that employee records are confidential and there is no 
reasonable way to know when discrimination starts--we now have an 
opportunity to bring the realities to light.
  We should pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and allow a claim to 
be filed as long as the paychecks reflecting discrimination continue to 
be issued. In doing so, we will restore the original intent of the 
Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act.
  Women cannot be expected to challenge practices they do not know are 
happening. By passing this law, women will be able to take those 4 
months back, those extra months it takes them to catch up with their 
male counterparts.
  This legislation is critical in the fight for equality for women in 
the workplace, but there is still a long way to go.
  I am honored to be the first woman elected to the Senate from the 
State of Minnesota. Today, I am humbled to work with my women 
colleagues in the Senate in this effort to advance equality for women 
across the country.
  Last week, we welcomed two new women to the Senate, and I see one of 
them in the Chamber--my colleague from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen--
bringing our current total to 17, although our dear friend and champion 
on these issues, Senator Clinton, will soon be leaving us.
  Passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would be a fitting sendoff 
to Senator Clinton who has dedicated her life to working toward 
equality for women. It would also be a fitting tribute to Senator 
Mikulski in her cry to square up your shoulders, suit up, put your 
lipstick on, and get this bill passed. And it would be a great tribute 
to Senator Kennedy. If he were on the Senate floor with us at this 
moment, I know he, too, would be saying: Get this done, pass this 
legislation--in his booming voice.
  So I implore my colleagues--for Senator Clinton, for Senator Kennedy, 
for Senator Mikulski, but, most importantly, for the working women of 
America--that we pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we also want to be able to call upon one 
of our newest colleagues, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, from the State of New 
Hampshire. Though new to the Senate, she is certainly not new to the 
issue. She has been a strong advocate for fairness and justice and an 
advocate for ending discrimination her whole life and her whole career. 
She recently, of course, was Governor of New Hampshire, and now brings 
all that wealth of experience, know-how, and commitment to the Senate. 
This is not her first speech. It is her second speech. We are eagerly 
awaiting her words on this issue.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senator Mikulski for 
those very nice words.

[[Page S363]]

  I am proud to join Senator Mikulski and so many of the women in this 
body in support of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Early in 
the 1980s, I served on New Hampshire's Commission on the Status of 
Women. At that time, I chaired a committee that investigated and then 
reported on the status of women's employment in New Hampshire. At that 
time, women made 59 cents for every dollar a man earned. That report, 
which I was proud to coauthor, pointed out that, ultimately, pay 
disparity affects not just women, it affects their families and it 
affects the entire ability of working families to earn a good living. 
Over the course of a woman's lifetime, that pay discrimination is 
estimated to cost women between $700,000 and $1 million.
  As has been pointed out by the women who have spoken on this bill 
today, we have made some progress. Today, women make 77 cents for every 
dollar a man earns, but the conclusions our report made about the 
impact of this pay disparity for women are even truer today than they 
were in 1981, at the time of the report.
  As Senator Klobuchar and Senator Mikulski have so eloquently pointed 
out, the inability of women to be treated with pay equity in the 
workplace has a huge impact today, as families are facing this 
recession and are looking at how to be able to make ends meet. I think 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a very important step toward 
addressing the inequality that not just women but working families face 
in our country.
  I wish to congratulate Senator Mikulski. As has been pointed out, she 
was the first woman elected to this body in her own right. We have made 
significant progress, much of it as a result of her leadership. I am 
delighted to be able to join as a cosponsor of this bill and look 
forward to voting with the majority of the Senate for final passage of 
this act.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maryland is 
recognized.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator very much. We look forward to her 
hard work and advocacy for people who have been left out, pushed out, 
redlined and sidelined.
  This concludes for today the number of women who wished to speak on 
this legislation. Senator Boxer is chairing a hearing, and I could go 
through others. I believe Senator Clinton just finished her 
confirmation. No, just kidding, but it seems like that. So we are going 
to conclude this part of it. We will be on the floor tomorrow, when we 
have a vote on cloture on the motion to proceed, at which time we hope 
to be able to do that, so we can actually get down to the business next 
week of debating the amendments, as has been promised, and moving to 
final passage next week. We will be doing that after the inauguration 
of Barack Obama. I look forward to further discussion on this bill.
  I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Navy Record of Decision

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the U.S. Navy just released 
today, at 1:30 p.m., a record of decision which follows a 2\1/2\ year 
analysis and final environmental impact statement of 13 alternatives 
for homeporting additional ships at the naval station in Mayport, FL, 
which is at the mouth of the St. Johns River near Jacksonville. The 
Navy's decision will establish a homeport for a nuclear-powered 
aircraft carrier which disperses the fleet instead of it all being in 
one place in Norfolk, VA, a fleet of five nuclear aircraft carriers, 
the most recent of which was just commissioned last weekend--the one 
that was named after the 41st President of the United States--and those 
five assigned to the Atlantic fleet. It will disperse that fleet by 
having a homeport for a nuclear aircraft carrier, which will reduce the 
risk to the Atlantic fleet of carriers from a natural or a manmade 
disaster.
  I wish to give a direct quote from the Assistant Secretary of the 
Navy for Installations from his press release today:

       Neither the [Navy], nor the nation, nor its citizens can 
     wait for a catastrophic event to occur before recognizing . . 
     . its responsibility to develop a hedge against such an 
     event.

  A catastrophic event.
  The decision is a continuation of what the Secretary of the Navy has 
said is the principle of strategic dispersal. According to the 
Secretary of the Navy, ``Strategic dispersal of our fleet is both a 
protective measure and a passive deterrence measure, and it is one 
important factor in [the Navy's] homeporting decisions and [its] 
maintenance of transient piers.''
  Going back to 2005, the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Vernon Clark, 
asserted that ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is 
not a good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-
capable homeports on each coast.
  The fact is, there is only one carrier-capable port on the east 
coast. There are three nuclear carrier-capable ports on the west coast. 
This wasn't the case before. Before, when we had nuclear carriers and 
conventional carriers in the Atlantic fleet back in the mid-eighties, 
there were four carriers in Norfolk, in this photograph from 1985, and 
there were two aircraft carriers stationed in Florida at Mayport Naval 
Station. That was the case all the way up to 1987. There were still 
two-carrier ports all the way up to last year when the John F. Kennedy, 
a conventionally powered aircraft carrier, was decommissioned and 
mothballed. And now with five carriers, there is only one port.
  The Navy has been wrestling with this problem, and they have come to 
the conclusion in the final administrative process of the record of 
decision announced this afternoon that in the interest of national 
security, they need these two-carrier ports, which we have always had 
up until last year.
  If the naval station in Norfolk were to become disabled, the Atlantic 
fleet carriers would be either stuck in port and prevented from getting 
to their area of operations or they would be prevented from reaching a 
port of maintenance. And mind you, the naval station in Norfolk, VA, is 
8 miles up the river in a single-land channel that could easily be 
stopped up.
  Back in 2007, in our Defense authorization bill, we reaffirmed 
Admiral Clark's judgment that he had made 2 years previously in 2005. 
We reaffirmed that judgment that the Navy's fleet should disperse its 
Atlantic coast carriers in two homeports, just as it has always been.
  The considered judgment and decisions of our military leaders make 
sense because there are numerous risks that face our Nation's capital 
ships. Those risks are compounded when you put all your eggs in one 
basket, on one place on the east coast. Remember, on the west coast, 
the Pacific coast, we have not two but three nuclear homeports and, 
indeed, you can put in an additional two ports in the Pacific Theater.
  We simply must not delay in implementing this decision. The Secretary 
of Defense, Robert Gates, has come to the same strategic conclusion 
when he reminds us--and this is from his letter of a few weeks ago:

       Having a single [nuclear carrier] homeport has not been 
     considered acceptable on the west coast and should not be 
     considered acceptable on the east coast.

  It is clear that the strategic necessity is to have two homeports for 
our five capital ships, our five nuclear aircraft carriers.
  The lessons of December 7, 1941, are a reminder of the danger to our 
national security if we do not disperse our capital ships. Remember 
what happened on that day: eight battleships were in port in the 
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. It was just lucky that the three 
aircraft carriers were out. Two of them were sailing out to the west to 
islands, such as Wake, to deliver marine aircraft, and the third one 
was 5 hours out of Honolulu doing training exercises. Because there 
were eight battleships all bunched together, the four-star Navy admiral 
was fired. He was stripped of two of his four stars, and he

[[Page S364]]

was forced to retire. That is a lesson in Navy history that still 
stands. Clearly, that has been part of the lesson that has led the CNO, 
the Secretary of the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense to come to this 
decision which they announced several weeks ago and which has been 
officially reiterated today in the record of decision by the U.S. Navy.
  Some people are going to say: They won't bunch up the ships. Why did 
they bunch up five aircraft carriers in Norfolk in 1997? Count them--
one, two, three, four, five in 1997. The U.S. Navy did not learn the 
lesson of Pearl Harbor then.
  And you say: That was 11 years ago. What about 2001? One, two, three, 
four, five. Oh, by the way, you see this is the main bridge, this is 
the special channel, and the commercial channel comes right by all 
these ships: one, two, three, four, five, all docked together.
  That was 2001. You say that was 7 years ago. We have information that 
in 2003 the same thing happened again. I just don't have a photograph 
of it, but I will.
  Where are the lessons of Pearl Harbor and the firing and stripping of 
two stars of four-star Admiral Kimmel because of the attack on Pearl 
Harbor? Where are those lessons being learned by the U.S. Navy?
  I submit to the Senate that is a main part of the reason the U.S. 
Navy has today announced the official record of decision that it will 
disperse the Atlantic fleet of nuclear carriers by having one of those 
in the port of Mayport, which was the second port until last year.
  This was studied for 2\1/2\ years. There were 13 alternatives to the 
risk that exists. The Secretary of the Navy made the decision, with the 
advice of the Chief of Naval Operations, and accepted by the Secretary 
of Defense.
  It is my hope that parochial politics does not get in the way. There 
is going to have to be an appropriation of some $500 million in 
military construction that will make Mayport station nuclear capable. 
Of course, that is a lot of money, but for the national security of 
protecting the fleet of our main ships, that is a cost we are going to 
have to bear. It is this Senator's hope that we will get the Senate and 
the House of Representatives to understand the good common sense of 
this strategic defense policy when it comes around to the Defense 
authorization bill and the Defense appropriations bill.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I am pleased to know the Navy has 
finalized its decision to make Naval Station Mayport a homeport for a 
nuclear carrier a key element in furthering the Navy's longstanding 
strategy of strategic dispersal.
  Strategic dispersal has guided our Navy in protecting our fleet for 
more than 150 years. Creating greater flexibility and additional 
safeguards for these capital ships is necessary in ensuring continuity 
in our Navy's efforts to tactically position our naval assets.
  Currently, the Pacific fleet has three nuclear carrier homeports and 
maintenance facilities at San Diego, Pearl Harbor, and Bremerton; while 
the Atlantic Fleet has only one at Norfolk. As you might imagine, this 
not only places a tremendous burden on Norfolk, but it also creates a 
tremendous liability.
  Last year, all five of the East Coast's nuclear aircraft carriers 
were in port simultaneously for 35 days. Two or more carriers were in 
port or undergoing routine maintenance in the sole east coast facility 
81 percent of the time.
  If, Heaven forbid, tragedy should strike or Norfolk were to become 
inoperative, the impact on the Atlantic fleet's ability to meet our 
national security needs would decrease immensely.
  Sixty-seven years ago, more than 2,400 brave men and women in uniform 
were tragically killed while another 1,200 were wounded in the Japanese 
attack at Pearl Harbor. The attack taught our Nation an important 
lesson: assets and resources should not be concentrated in one place.
  Mayport has been the home to conventional aircraft carriers for more 
than 50 years and is proud to be playing a role as the Navy continues 
transitioning to an all-nuclear powered fleet.
  The Navy's decision to make Mayport nuclear-ready has been given 
careful consideration. The former Chief of Naval Operations, ADM Vernon 
Clark, told the Armed Services Committee in February 2005 that in his 
view, ``over-centralization of the [carrier] port structure is not a 
good strategic move . . . the Navy should have two carrier-capable 
homeports on each coast.'' Admiral Clark went on to say, ``. . . it is 
my belief that it would be a serious strategic mistake to have all of 
those key assets of our Navy tied up in one port.''
  In another Armed Services Committee hearing, I had the opportunity to 
ask the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs ADM Mike Mullen his 
thoughts on the viability of Mayport as a nuclear-ready port. In 
response, Admiral Mullen said, ``I also consider the King's Bay, 
Mayport, Jacksonville hub a vital part of our both strategic 
interests--strategic interests and key for not just capability but for 
our people for the future. . . .''
  In addition to the Navy, the decision is preferred by the Department 
of Defense, Department of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, and the Environmental Protection Agency.
  In November, the Navy released an Environmental Impact Study 
identifying why expanding Mayport is critical to our Navy's future. In 
the report, the Navy expressed concern over Norfolk's current physical 
capacity, which is at its peak. In order to ensure capacity for future 
ships, the report recommended utilizing the space available at Mayport.
  Another concern is the risk posed by hurricanes. In the Navy's 
report, it was determined that, historically, the hurricane risk at 
Norfolk is statistically identical to Jacksonville. Given the 
statistical similarities between these two ports and reality of 
hurricanes to any city on the east coast, having the flexibility of a 
second nuclear-ready homeport on the Eastern Seaboard is essential in 
mitigating the risk these storms pose to our naval assets.
  The report also addressed the impact an expansion at Mayport would 
have on the local habitat. The report found that an expansion at 
Mayport would not pose a risk to the marine mammals or the local 
essential fish habitat.
  Perhaps most importantly, the report determined that expanding 
Mayport serves our national security interests. The report's findings 
indicated, ``the most compelling strategic rationale to homeport a 
nuclear carrier in Mayport is as a hedge against a catastrophic event 
at Norfolk.''
  So I want to commend the Navy's leadership for making this important 
decision--a decision they admit is long overdue. I also want to 
recognize Navy Secretary Donald Winter and Chief of Naval Operations, 
ADM Gary Roughead for working tirelessly toward making a nuclear-ready 
Mayport a reality. The decision is a tremendous step forward for our 
Navy and a critical component to our future national security efforts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, are we on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 
or is this morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on S. 22, the lands bill.


                              Fair Pay Act

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, tomorrow, it is my understanding we 
will be--or sometime in the next period of a day or so, I think--we 
will be on the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A number of my colleagues have 
spoken on the floor today about it, and I wish to talk about that bill 
because I want there to be a full record before we go forward to vote 
on a cloture motion on that act.
  I am a woman who has experienced gender discrimination. I have 
experienced it firsthand. I know how hard it can be to deal with for a 
woman, or any person who has been discriminated against for any reason 
in the workplace. I am pleased we are going to address this issue. I 
think it is very important that we have all of the considerations 
around this bill as we go forward so that we do not have unintended 
consequences.
  I have been a small business owner. I know the importance of clarity, 
of knowing if you have made a mistake or a potential mistake, or if you 
are accused of making a mistake and the liability that might go along 
with that. I think it is important that we recognize this is not just a 
woman's issue, it is an issue for every person, whether it is age 
discrimination or some other kind of discrimination that might be used 
against a person in the workplace.

[[Page S365]]

  We want to have fair pay in our country. That is something I think 
all of us can agree is very important for America, but this bill should 
be fully vetted. One of the problems I have with it is the process. We 
have not ever gone to committee with this bill. In our committees, as 
they have functioned in the past, we have been able to have numerous 
amendments, we have been able to hear from all sides of an issue, and 
generally, in committees, when a bill is coming out, there has been 
much work done on it and it is a much better bill before it hits the 
floor. I think everyone with any experience in this body can see the 
difference between a bill that has not gone through committee, not had 
the proper input, not had the hearings, not had the debate in the 
markup, versus a bill we try to write on the floor with 100 people who 
may or may not know all of the businesses or women or ethnic groups 
that might have a say that is important to hear on an issue such as 
this.
  We had a cloture vote on this bill last Congress, and in the 
intervening months we could have had a committee hearing, we could have 
had witnesses come forward on both sides, but we didn't. Senator Enzi 
has made a very strong point--because he is the ranking member on the 
relevant committee--that their committee has acted in a very bipartisan 
way, when he was chairman or when he has been ranking member. There has 
been cooperation. This could be a bill that would get 100 votes in this 
body. But that is not the bill that is going to come before us.
  I have introduced a substitute--I introduced it last year and I have 
introduced it again this year--with cosponsors Enzi, Voinovich, 
Alexander, Cornyn, Burr, and Murkowski, because we want a responsible 
approach to address employment discrimination. I hope we will be able 
to have amendments on this bill. I am told the majority leader has 
agreed that we will, and our Republican leader has said he wants to 
work with the majority leader to assure that we do have some reasonable 
number of amendments that might make this a better bill that we could 
all support and know that it will make fairness in the workplace 
better.
  The bill that will be before us is a bill that I think has not been 
fully explained. The supporters say the legislation will restore the 
state of employment discrimination law to the place where it rested 
before the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter. In fact, it was said 
on the floor here earlier that we should overturn the Supreme Court 
ruling. This statement has largely gone unchallenged, but in truth this 
bill does more than what the supporters are suggesting. The practical 
effect is to eliminate any meaningful statute of limitations on the 
validity of claims, meaning that employees could sue on alleged 
discrimination that occurred years ago, even decades ago.
  The bill accomplishes this by treating every paycheck as a new 
trigger to start a new filing period. The result of this would 
basically do two things: One is if a discriminatory act occurs, the 
employer would be liable for that action indefinitely. They could be 
sued for it any time as long as the employee continues to receive the 
paychecks. It wouldn't matter that the passage of a significant amount 
of time, perhaps decades, could make it virtually impossible for the 
business to expect this legal expense and prepare for it and impossible 
to offer a defense or to learn what happened. In Lilly Ledbetter's own 
case so much time had passed between the actual act of discrimination 
that was alleged and the filing of the claim that the supervisor who 
was accused of the past discrimination was deceased. There was no one 
there who could have testified that there had been some motivation or 
no motivation. There was no ability because the person had long since 
left the company and was deceased.
  In addition, I think for fairness to all sides, there has to be a 
time in which a claim is brought or lapses. In almost every area of the 
law--I cannot remember that there is any other area--claims become 
invalid after a period of time. That provides certainty. That is 
essential to our justice system. Witnesses have to be available with a 
reasonable amount of recordkeeping or records or some way to ask 
questions of a person who is accused of some wrongdoing. I think it is 
so important that in our justice system we have the ability for a fair 
trial--for the person who is claiming a discrimination and the person 
who is defending against that discrimination to have the right to make 
a case. That is what our justice system has protected through statutes 
of limitations or having a time period in which you must make a claim 
or that right lapses.
  Another problem with the bill is the addition of three words, which 
sound kind of innocuous, I guess. According to the bill, it is not only 
the person who is discriminated against who has the right for a claim, 
but a third party who claims to be affected by that discrimination. 
With such broad language, you are opening the field to innumerable 
lawsuits. Wouldn't it be irrational to have a law in which an heir of a 
deceased person could potentially have the ability to file a suit, 
saying that, as a third party, they are affected by a discrimination?
  I think we are going down a very treacherous road here. I think if we 
had a committee hearing and the ability to go to markup, this could be 
a good bill, because I definitely want to make sure that we have fair 
pay for all of the people in our country. I have heard from many small 
and mid-sized businesses around the country, saying they are not 
opposed to giving workers a fair shake, but they oppose this bill 
because they are concerned about the catastrophic increase in legal 
costs resulting from an undisciplined system that allows liability to 
continue indefinitely.
  The explosion of litigation from allegations possibly many years old 
could be an enormous strain on a small or mid-sized business, and could 
actually result in reduced employment. Certainly at this particular 
time, when we know we should be creating jobs in America, we should not 
be creating more burdens on the businesses that are providing jobs.
  The bill I have introduced goes beyond simply providing additional 
time for workers to file claims. It would have the consequence of 
allowing a person to file if they knew or should have known of the act 
of discrimination, and they would have the 180 days to do that. It 
would make it a uniform codified law that everyone in America would be 
treated the same. Some districts in America do say that you have a 
burden to show you didn't know if there was a discrimination and that 
is why you are bringing the case beyond the 180 days. But if you knew 
or should have known, then you can say, I couldn't possibly have known, 
and the judge can make the determination if your claim is reasonable. 
That is what we would codify, that an employee would have the 
opportunity to say they were not aware, nor could they have been aware, 
that there was a discrimination.
  Now, if you are fired or demoted, that is clearly a triggering action 
in which you should know that there might be discrimination. If you 
believe you have been unjustly demoted or fired, as an employee, you 
are then on notice that a discriminatory act has been taken against 
you. Then it is a harder case for the employee to say they needed more 
than 180 days. But the area where we want them to conserve the 
employee's ability to file a lawsuit is in pay discrimination, because 
often it is difficult for the employee to know that maybe they were not 
getting what their coworker was getting. So I think my bill, which I 
hope to be able to offer as a substitute amendment, would be a fair way 
to say to the employee, if they feel they have been discriminated 
against because of their gender or their age, they will have the 
ability to come forward and say, it is within the 6 months that I have 
learned of my discrimination. Or here is why I couldn't know of that 
discrimination, and either way, they would have the ability to have 
that decided by the judge or the EEOC.
  I think that is a reasonable approach so that the business will know 
what their range of liability potentially is, which every small or mid-
sized business needs to know. We want to make sure there is a fairness 
for the defense and fairness for the plaintiff in these cases. We want 
to make sure we have a reasonable standard, and I think my bill 
provides that. It provides more leeway and a standard which everyone 
would know is the same across our country.
  I think the underlying bill is flawed in that it gives third parties 
who are

[[Page S366]]

not the person who is discriminated against a right of action. I think 
that opens the door much too wide and offers the potential for abuse if 
the person who actually had the discrimination might not have wanted to 
bring a case or felt discriminated against--but to give a third party 
the right to sue and claim they are affected I think is going way 
beyond our concept of discrimination. Second, I do think it is very 
important that we have a standard here that is the standard throughout 
our justice system and that is you need to bring a case in a timely 
way, for the rights of everyone--for defendants as well as the memories 
of people who would want to be making the case that there is a 
discriminatory act.

  I want fair pay. I want to eliminate discrimination in our workplace. 
I want people to have the right to sue. I want there to be a reasonable 
time in which they can do this, and I think that is what the bill that 
I hope to be able to offer as a substitute will do. Mine is the Title 
VII Fairness Act, which has been introduced with cosponsors. I think if 
we can write this bill in a way that can bring fairness to all sides. 
It would not overburden businesses with undefendable lawsuits and would 
give more leeway to the people who have discovered that they were 
discriminated against and need more time to bring a case, that, in 
fact, would be the best result for our country.
  I appreciate this opportunity to speak. I certainly will have the 
opportunity to speak, I hope, again when I am able to offer my 
amendment. I hope the Senate will function going into the future, where 
we have committee hearings, committee markups on bills so we can have 
the maximum input to go forward and have good legislation and not 
legislation that has unintended consequences that would hurt the 
workplace and the rights of people in our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Shaheen pertaining to the introduction of S. 239 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INHOFE. 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. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Economic Bailout

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have been pretty outspoken in the last 
several weeks on the $700 billion bailout. I still believe historians 
will look back someday and say it was the most outrageous vote ever 
taken. It is the largest single expenditure in the history of the 
country.
  To make matters worse, it was giving an unelected bureaucrat total 
power, usurping our powers, to make all decisions over the $700 billion 
with no oversight whatsoever. It had never been done before. It was 
unprecedented in American history. Nobody seems to care. It is mind-
boggling to me to know that it happened, and now it looks as though we 
will be voting in the other body as well as here on a motion that would 
be hostile to the whole idea, but it will not pass. The money is going 
to be there anyway. The reason is, if the legislation that will be 
coming before the House and the Senate is passed, it still can be 
vetoed by the President, and it would be vetoed by the President. So 
all of a sudden he is going to have the second half of the $700 
billion, the $350 billion laid at his doorstep to do with as he wishes.
  I wouldn't want that for a Republican President or a Democratic 
President, for any President. It is not the way we are supposed to 
function. I believe it is a fait accompli. I don't see any way a 
resolution of disapproval is going to be effective, because I think it 
is going to pass the House and very likely could pass here. I am 
inclined to think it will not. Whatever the case is, it will become a 
reality.
  That is bad for many reasons. It establishes a precedent. People look 
at large numbers, and it is difficult for the American people and for 
me to appreciate how much money is $700 billion. What I normally do 
when we deal with large numbers is, I take the total number of families 
in America who file tax returns and do the math. This turns out to be 
$5,000 a family. When I say it in those terms, which I have done quite 
a bit on talk radio as a wake-up call to the American people, then 
people do understand.
  I have been a little critical of my own President, President Bush, 
because he has let this happen. This wasn't a Democratic idea or a 
Republican idea. It was the President's idea, in concert with the 
Democrats, making this happen. This vote took place on October 10. Ever 
since October 10, I have had legislation I have tried to get through 
saying that it is not going to be automatic. Accessing the second $350 
billion should not be automatic, and we had legislation to keep it from 
being so until 2 nights ago when President Bush agreed to a wish list 
by our new President when he comes into power. It is going to happen. 
Again, this is unprecedented in American history. It has never happened 
before.
  I have been critical of the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, 
for telling us what he was going to do with the money and then turning 
around and not doing it. He did not tell us the truth. It is 
disingenuous. Nonetheless, it is something that looks as though it will 
be happening and it looks as though it will happen this week.
  In defense of President Bush, if we take the total amount of deficits 
of the 8 years of his presidency from his own budget, add them up and 
divide by 8, it averages $247 billion a year. Compare that with what we 
are faced with right now with the new administration which has said it 
is going to be somewhere between $1.2 and $1.8 trillion. I think people 
will look at this and say that the Bush legacy is not going to be one 
of deficits, because it is nothing compared to the deficits we are 
projecting for the coming year, as proposed by the incoming President.
  The reason I mention that is because I have somewhat accused 
President Bush of looking for a legacy. It occurs to me that George W. 
Bush has a legacy that may be unlike any other President in history. I 
call this the invisible legacy of President George W. Bush. I will 
explain in detail how I have come to this conclusion.
  President Bush inherited a weaker America militarily. All of a 
sudden, after he came in, 9/11 occurred. So let's go back in history. 
When George W. Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he was already behind the 
power curve when it came to the war on terror. As the 9/11 Commission 
confirmed, the United States was not on a wartime footing with al-
Qaida, even though they were at war with us. While our country took its 
peace dividend, our enemies continued to train, plot, and test. It was 
a peace dividend, a euphoric attitude that the Cold War is over, and we 
don't need a military anymore. That is what we were living with at the 
time.
  International terrorism took the forefront as bin Laden began his war 
against freedom and specifically against the United States. Afghanistan 
was used as a training ground for terrorists, and the Taliban regime 
allowed al-Qaida unfettered mobility. They took advantage of this in 
major attacks.
  Look at what happened back in the 1990s. This was a predicate leading 
to 9/11, the worst tragedy in the history of America. On February 26, 
1993, a car bomb was planted in an underground parking garage below the 
World Trade Center. This was the first World Trade Center attack. On 
June 25, 1996, the Khobar Towers were bombed by Hezbollah, with 
intelligence pointing to support by al-Qaida. That was 1996. We knew 
al-Qaida was on the run at that time. We knew of their abilities, the 
increasing sophistication in their terrorist attacks. On August 7, 
1998, we recall what happened in Tanzania and Kenya and Nairobi and Dar 
es Salaam. Our embassies were bombed. Links were at that time 
established with al-Qaida. In October 2000, suicide bombers used a boat 
to attack the USS Cole while it was moored in Yemen. It was

[[Page S367]]

one we all remember well, and we remember how it happened. We know the 
terrorist links that took place at that time. The response of the 
United States was at best inconsistent.

  Operation Infinite Reach included cruise missile strikes against 
Afghanistan and Sudan, but there was no real change. This inadequate 
response has been cited as a factor in emboldening al-Qaida's will to 
undertake more ambitious plans. That was simply kind of small. They had 
bigger plans. We know that now.
  In Operation Restore Hope, we became entangled in Somalia. We 
remember that very well, with the naked bodies being dragged through 
the streets of Mogadishu, and America finally woke up, but we did not 
do anything. We kind of let it happen. We directed our forces to stop 
all actions against Adid except for those required for self-defense. 
Well, that is not a very good message, not a consistent message with 
our behavior in the past. So we withdrew from the country shortly 
thereafter.
  We also failed to remain vigilant of the Chinese.
  Security at our national labs was deliberately destroyed. We did away 
with--and this happened actually in the first few weeks of the Clinton-
Gore administration. They went through the energy labs and they stopped 
the wiretapping, they stopped the background checks they were 
conducting at the time. They stopped color-coded badges saying it was 
demeaning to have a color of a badge that was on a lower scale than 
somebody else's. So that is what happened. Of course, we know the 
results of that.
  In 1995, we discovered that China had stolen our W-88 warhead plans. 
That was the crown jewel of our nuclear program, capable of attaching 
10 nuclear missiles to a single warhead. But they had it. They got it. 
They got it because of a lack of security that was the policy of that 
administration at the time, and I was critical at that time.
  I remember Bernard Schwartz of Loral Space and Communications. They 
were given a green light to improve the precision and reliability of 
China's satellites and nuclear missiles. To refresh our memories--I 
remember it very well--it required the President to sign a waiver, a 
special waiver, so the Chinese missile program would have greater 
accuracy. That happened during the 1990s.
  China also gained the capability of accurately reaching the 
continental United States with missiles and targeted between 13 and 18 
United States cities. I was critical of President Clinton for claiming, 
at that time--he said: Not one missile is pointed at American children, 
when in fact missiles were pointed at American children. That was 
happening during the 1990s.
  Simultaneously, weapons of mass destruction proliferation throughout 
the world reached an unprecedented level. The Chinese Government 
learned that it could rely on our acquiescence. They transferred 
prohibited weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, 
Syria, and other countries, threatened to absorb Taiwan, and 
intimidated our regional treaty allies, South Korea and Japan.
  The vast Soviet Union nuclear stockpile became fair game for 
entrepreneurs, with over 40 kilograms of Russian-origin uranium and 
plutonium being seized since 1991.
  Then remember Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear 
program, who began an international network of clandestine nuclear 
proliferation to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. North Korea withdrew 
from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on March 12, 1993, and 
refused to allow inspectors access to its nuclear sites. And Libya 
further continued weapons of mass destruction research as a priority.
  Now, despite the increase in terrorist activities around the world 
and the growing signs of a direct threat to this country, we 
essentially broke our intelligence community through the lack of 
funding, an inadequate number of linguists, and no interagency 
cooperation.
  I have to say this. My predecessor to this job was former Senator 
David Boren. David Boren's young son Dan is a very talented young man 
now serving in the House of Representatives. I was in the House and 
came to the Senate in 1994. I took his seat.
  He at that time was chairman of the Intelligence Committee of the 
Senate, and he made the statement to me--he called me up, and he said: 
Inhofe, I want you to try to do something I failed to do during the 
time I was chairman of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate. He 
said: We have all these agencies--the FBI, the NSA, all the defense 
intelligence agencies--and none of them talks to each other. Then I 
found out later on that was so true. He said: You have to get this 
done. That has to be a high priority. I told him it would be. We were 
not able to do anything until George W. Bush came in.
  If this was not enough, with the demise of the Soviet Union, our 
military was essentially neutered to counter a ``perceived'' diminished 
world threat. I remember so well this euphoric attitude that everybody 
had: The Cold War is over. We don't need a military anymore.
  The Clinton-Gore administration cut the defense budget by 40 percent, 
reducing it to its lowest percentage of the GNP since prior to World 
War II. As a result, President Bush inherited a force half the size of 
the military in 1990.
  Now, as our forces decreased in size and capability, deployments and 
deployment times increased. We have all seen the results. We now have 
15-month deployments. They used to be 9-month deployments. We have 
these because he inherited this military that was undersized for the 
threat we are facing.
  I have a chart in the Chamber I will show as documentation of this 
fact. During the Clinton years--and I do not say this to denigrate the 
administration; I am saying we have to understand how we got in the 
position we are in today and that we have been in since 9/11. If you 
take the black line on the chart--this is during the Clinton 
administration--if he had taken the military budget as it was at that 
time and had the increase for inflation, it would have been this black 
line going up, shown on the chart. Instead, the red line shows what his 
budget request was. If you take the difference between the red line and 
the black line, that is $412 billion reduced from when he took office.
  That is how we got into this position. We downgraded our military, 
and a lot of people believed the threat was not there anymore because 
the Cold War was over, not looking at the new asymmetric threats, which 
are much greater.
  I sometimes look back wistfully at the Cold War. Things were 
predictable back then. We knew what the Soviets were going to do--the 
Soviets, not the Russians--and we knew what their capabilities were. 
These were known things, known behavioral patterns. It was totally 
different than what we have today.
  So the programs, the modernization efforts, and the equipment 
replacement costs were literally kicked down the road and left waiting 
in the wings. This happened to our modernization program. It happened 
in many areas. This has been very demoralizing to most of us who 
believe we have to keep America's national defense strong.
  We saw countries coming up with better systems than we have. We have, 
for example, the artillery piece, the best one we have today now that 
we are modernizing. But we did not have that at that time. We had one 
called the Paladin. That was World War II technology. You have to get 
out and swab the breach after every shot.
  There were five countries at that time, including South Africa, that 
made a better piece than we had, and we are still using this today. It 
was not until a very courageous general, GEN John Jumper, came up and 
admitted, in 1998, that the best strike vehicles we had--the F-15 and 
the F-16--were not as good as some of the SU series being developed in 
Russia and actually were being sold to the Chinese--we know of one sale 
where they bought 240 SU-30 type of vehicles--again, better than 
anything we had.
  So, again, that is where we were before George W. Bush was elected.
  Now enter President George W. Bush.
  Starting with his first budget submission after inauguration, he 
proposed increases in defense spending and focused his Pentagon team on 
reform. He started with recognizing and revitalizing the military for 
the post-Cold War world it now faced. He provided the military with the 
funding required

[[Page S368]]

to develop force structure and modernize its aging force. So he was 
getting in there and starting to do something about the modernization 
program.

  Then, of course, 9/11 happened. Well, 9/11, we all know about that. 
We know what a tragedy it was, with the most significant attack in 
America in our history. It came at a time when we had a downsized 
military, downsized by about 40 percent. So he was saddled with trying 
to respond to this situation, and he did.
  He asked Congress for new authorities and began to implement sweeping 
changes in our national security policy. In this new policy he declared 
a war on terror. This is what he said--I want to read the quote from 
back at that time:

       We will direct every resource at our command--every means 
     of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of 
     law enforcement, every financial influence, and every 
     necessary weapon of war--to the disruption and to the defeat 
     of the global terror network.

  That is what he said at that time. Then he outlined the country's 
strategy. He said:

       First, we're determined to prevent the attacks of terrorist 
     networks before they occur. . . .

  Unlike it was on 9/11.

       Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass 
     destruction to outlaw regimes and
     to their terrorist allies who would use 
     them. . . .
       Third, we're determined to deny radical groups the support 
     and sanctuary of outlaw regimes. . . .
       Fourth, we're determined to deny militants control of any 
     nation.

  And he did. He asked Congress for the PATRIOT Act--listen to the 
things he did--the PATRIOT Act to break down walls between Government 
agencies. That is getting back to what David Boren observed many years 
ago back in 1994 that had to be done.
  In October of 2001, he initiated Operation Enduring Freedom to 
dismantle the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which is harboring al-
Qaida. Bombing runs and Tomahawk missile strikes were launched.
  In October of 2001, President Bush established the Office of Homeland 
Security. This was a coordinating effort that corrects the problem that 
was called to my attention in 1994, so everything would be coordinated 
and everyone would know what everyone is supposed to be doing.
  The 9/11 Commission was formed and he began implementing its 
recommendations, including intelligence reform, which included 
establishing the Director of National Intelligence. There you have it. 
That is the key. One Director over all intelligence: military 
intelligence, domestic intelligence--and it worked.
  On March of 2003, President Bush launched Operation Iraqi Freedom, 
preemptive attacks against Saddam Hussein, a gathering threat to the 
United States, who was reportedly developing ties with our enemies and 
who openly praised the 9/11 attacks.
  I remember that very well because in the first gulf war--which we 
should have gone ahead and taken care of Saddam Hussein at that time; 
we did not do it, and there are some reasons it could not be done--I 
happened to be privileged to be with nine other people on the first 
freedom flight that went into Kuwait after the war was over. Now, it 
was so close to the time the first Persian Gulf war was over that there 
was still burning off the fields, and there were a lot of them. The 
Iraqis did not know the war was over, the ones who were in there.
  I remember so well one of the parties who was going over was the 
Ambassador from Kuwait to the United States and his daughter. I think 
she was around 7 years old. What they wanted to do was go back and see 
what was left in Kuwait of their mansion on the Persian Gulf. We got 
back there, and I remember going back to see their mansion, only to 
find out Saddam Hussein had used this for one of his headquarters. They 
took the little girl up to her bedroom--she wanted to see her little 
animals and all that--to find out it had been used as a torture 
chamber, with body parts stuck to the walls around there. This is what 
we were looking at at that time.
  Well, President Bush established the National Counterterrorism Center 
to assist in analyzing and integrating foreign and domestic 
intelligence acquired from all U.S. Government Departments and 
agencies--so, again, putting this all together.
  He established the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, in the 
Department of Homeland Security, to provide a single Federal 
organization to develop and deploy a nuclear detection system to thwart 
the importation of illegal nuclear or radiological materials.
  In order to consolidate terrorist watch lists and provide around-the-
clock operational support for Federal and other governmental law 
enforcement personnel across the country and around the world, 
President Bush created the Terrorist Screening Center to ensure that 
Government investigators, screeners, and agents are working with the 
same unified, comprehensive set of information about terrorists.
  He transformed the FBI to focus on preventing terrorism.
  He strengthened the Transportation Security Administration through 
screening and prevention. He improved border screening.

  All of these things he did in a very short period of time that had to 
be done and had never been done before.
  He expanded shipping security through container security initiatives. 
He developed Project Bioshield to increase preparedness against 
chemical, biological, and radiological, or nuclear attack, potential 
attack against this country. Finally, he aggressively cracked down on 
terrorist financing with many international partners. Over 400 
individuals and entities have been designated pursuant to Executive 
order, resulting in nearly $150 million in frozen assets and millions 
more blocked in transit or seized at the borders.
  President Bush also rallied international support to fight terrorism 
with a coalition of more than 90 countries. We didn't do this alone. He 
brought in neighboring countries, other countries with the same 
problems that we had, and the same exposure. This coalition of nations 
has actively worked to synchronize diplomatic intelligence, law 
enforcement, economic and financial and military power to attack 
terrorism globally. One man did this. This is George W. Bush.
  The result of all of these efforts is what I refer to as the Bush 
invisible legacy. Now, why is this an invisible legacy? I am going to 
show my colleagues things that were out there that could very well have 
happened to the United States of America--and some would have 
happened--but since they didn't happen, that legacy is invisible 
because they never happened. That, to me, is going to go down as one of 
the great legacies of any President in the history of the United 
States.
  There has not been another attack on this country since 9/11, and do 
not think this was due to a lack of effort on the part of terrorists. 
In fact, there have been many attempts. I am going to give my 
colleagues a partial list of the attacks that were stopped as a result 
of all of these policies and programs I just outlined that our 
President--current President George W. Bush--was responsible for.
  First, December of 2001: This is the first post-9/11 plot that was 
thwarted. It was the capture of an al-Qaida operative named Ali Salih 
Mari in the United States who was targeting water reservoirs and the 
New York Stock Exchange at that time. Also, he was targeting--he had 
his programs outlined in documents that we found through all of these 
efforts to attack our various military academies. He offered himself as 
a martyr to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad. Of course, we know he was the 
mastermind of 9/11. Anyway, all of this was planned, but I believe Bush 
policies stopped the attacks.
  I have to say at this point that I have served on the Intelligence 
Committee. I served for a number of years--ever since 1994--on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. So I have been involved in these 
issues. We know this had a lot to do with stopping some of these 
potential attacks.
  Remember Jose Padilla. He is the guy who had the dirty bomb plot, an 
American citizen accused of seeking radioactive-laced dirty bombs to 
use in attacks against America. Again, this was a Bush program that 
brought him down.
  The 2002 aviation plots: An al-Qaida leader in Southeast Asia known 
as Humbali recruited several other

[[Page S369]]

operatives of Asian origin. The plot was derailed in early 2002 with 
international cooperation. The Library Tower is the tallest building 
west of the Mississippi. It was among the 25 tallest buildings in the 
world. There was a written program about how to bring this building 
down, and our policies--the Bush policies, primarily--stopped that from 
taking place.
  In September of 2002, Lackawanna Six: We all remember that. The FBI 
thwarted the locally recruited terrorist cell, the Lackawanna Six, by 
the capturing of Juma all-Dosari in Afghanistan and a subsequent 
interrogation while in prison in Guantanamo Bay. By the way, I disagree 
with the current attitude toward what is going to happen at Guantanamo 
Bay. I have had occasion to be there, probably more than any other 
Member. I can remember so well early on, those who were in prison, 
incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay actually had better treatment, better 
living quarters, and better health attention than our own troops did at 
that time. I think it is going to be imperative that whoever wants to 
close that down ask: Where are all of these people going to go?
  Six American citizens of Yemeni origin were convicted of supporting 
al-Qaida after attending a Jihadist camp in Pakistan. Five of the six 
were from Lackawanna, NY. The six were arrested and convicted. They are 
out now. They performed terrorist attacks. They were very specific. 
They are gone. I think the new Bush programs at that time were 
primarily responsible for that.
  In May of 2003, we had the Brooklyn Bridge plot: An American citizen 
was charged with plotting to use blow torches to collapse the Brooklyn 
Bridge. After being introduced to al-Qaida operatives, New York and 
Federal authorities intercepted a plan to collapse the Brooklyn Bridge 
by cutting suspension cables, as well as potentially derailing a train 
en route to Washington, DC. Iyman Faris was arrested, brought to 
justice, and was successfully stopped.
  In June of 2003 in Virginia, a Jihad network that was taking place, 
11 men from Alexandria, VA--just south of here--trained for Jihad 
against American soldiers and were convicted of violating the 
Neutrality Act, a conspiracy. Eleven Muslim men were charged in the 
U.S. district court in Alexandria with training with and fighting with 
a group that was associated with al-Qaida. Several members of the group 
were found to have trained for future attacks by using paint ball 
facilities in the Northern Virginia area. It was stopped. The Bush 
policies were primarily responsible for giving us the resources to stop 
attacks such as those I am outlining.
  In 2004, August of 2004, the financial centers plot: This was the 
Indian-born leader of a terror cell who plotted the bombing on the 
financial centers. His name was Barot. He plotted a ``memorable black 
day of terror'' via a dirty bomb that targeted financial institutions 
in New York, Washington, DC, and in Newark. Barot was arrested at his 
home in Pakistan with the cooperation of others, but again, these were 
the Bush policies and resources that we used to make this happen.
  In August of 2004--the same month--a Penn Station plot: This was 
James Elshafay and two accomplices who sought to plant a bomb at New 
York's Penn Station near Madison Square Garden during the Republican 
National Convention. The New York City Police Department's intelligence 
division helped to conduct an investigation leading to their arrest, 
again, using the policies that President Bush had put in place.
  The same month, the Pakistani diplomat assassination plot: We all 
remember that. Two leaders of an Albany, NY, mosque, Yassin and 
Mohammed Hossain, were charged with plotting to purchase a shoulder-
fired grenade launcher to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat. An 
investigation took place by the FBI, and all of these other agencies 
coordinating under the single leadership of the new system put in 
place, they stopped it. With the help of an informant, the perpetrators 
of that plot have been brought to justice. Again, that was stopped.
  August of 2005, Orange County, CA, a terror plot: Seven people were 
involved and were arrested in Los Angeles and charged with conspiracy 
to attack Los Angeles National Guard facilities and synagogues, several 
synagogues. The plan was there; it is in writing. We know it was going 
to happen. Kevin James allegedly founded a radical Islamic prison group 
and converted Levar Washington and others to the group which was known 
as the JIS. After Washington and Patterson were arrested for robberies, 
police and Federal agents began a terrorist investigation where the 
search of Washington's apartment revealed a suspicious target list.
  We had a list of targets in Orange County that were going to be 
brought down. Again, these policies weren't available to us before the 
Bush administration, and we were able to stop that.
  December of 2005, the gas lines plot: Michael Reynolds was arrested 
by the FBI in December of 2005 and charged with being involved in a 
plot to blow up a Wyoming natural gas refinery, the Transcontinental 
Pipeline. That is a national gas pipeline that goes from the gulf coast 
to the east coast and into New Jersey. I believe it is owned by the New 
Jersey Standard Oil refinery. Reynolds was convicted for providing 
materials for supporting terrorists and soliciting a crime of violence. 
Again, we used the new resources that were available because of our 
President, George W. Bush.

  In April of 2006, the U.S. Capitol and World Bank plot: Syed Haris 
Ahmed and another one whose name is Ehsanul Islam Sadequee from 
Atlanta, GA, were accused of conspiracy, having discussed terrorist 
targets with alleged terrorist organizations. They met with Islam 
extremists and received training and instruction on how to gather 
videotape surveillance of potential targets in the Washington area. 
Their targets happened to be the U.S. Capitol--right here where we are 
standing today--and the World Bank headquarters. They were the targets 
and, again, we were able to intercept this and to bring them to justice 
under these new policies that were put in place by our current 
President.
  We had Narseal Batiste, and he had six others who were involved in a 
Sears Tower plot. They were arrested in Miami and in Atlanta in June of 
2006 for being in the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower 
in Chicago as well as FBI offices and several other buildings. Arrests 
resulted from an investigation involving an FBI informant and all of 
the rest of them working together with the new resources they had, and 
they were brought to justice. Again, this was the new system we had in 
place.
  July of 2006, New York City, the train tunnel plot: It is frightening 
to think this could have happened. There were eight suspects, including 
Assem Hammoud, an al-Qaida loyalist living in Lebanon. They were 
arrested for plotting to bomb the New York City train tunnels. He was a 
self-proclaimed operative for al-Qaida. He admitted that he was with 
al-Qaida when we brought him to justice, and he admitted to the plot. 
He is currently in custody in Lebanon and his case is pending. Two 
other suspects are in custody in other locations. The bottom line is it 
didn't happen. It was precluded from happening as a result of the new 
resources that were put in place and the coordination of all of our 
intelligence committees.
  In March of 2007, a skyscraper plot: This was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. 
He was the mastermind of 9/11 and the author of numerous other plots 
confessed in court. People think of him as only 9/11. He also had plans 
in writing to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles, and 
Chicago, as well as a plot of an assassination of Bill Clinton and Pope 
John Paul II. Again, that was stopped.
  In May of 2007, the Fort Dix plot: This was another one. I will not 
go into detail, but this was one where the Fort Dix six were thought to 
be leaderless. We found that they were a homegrown cell of immigrants 
from Jordan, Turkey, and Yugoslavia and they had ties to al-Qaida. They 
were stopped, the plot was stopped, and they were brought to justice. I 
believe this was due to the new programs that were put together by the 
Bush administration.
  June of 2007, the JFK plot: Suspects planned to hit fuel farms and a 
40-mile aviation field supply pipeline. Specifically, they targeted the 
symbolism of JFK, seeking to invoke an emotional

[[Page S370]]

reaction, saying it is like killing the man twice. We all know and 
remember that, and we were able to stop it.
  I think the bottom line has been that there hasn't been another 
successful attack on this country since 9/11. It didn't just happen. 
What this administration has accomplished in the last 5 years is 
phenomenal. In the aftermath of 9/11, he brought us together as a 
nation, prevented our enemies from striking again, and captured many 
who would have tried. President Bush woke the Nation so we could begin 
to deal aggressively with the threats that were facing us.
  Because of President Bush, we no longer treat terrorists like common 
criminals but as enemy combatants. We no longer turn a blind eye to 
nuclear proliferation by negotiating without the real threat of 
military action. We fully funded a readiness-challenged, cold-war-
equipped, and organized military that had suffered from a decade of no 
modernization. We have removed threatening regimes in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, freeing 50 million people. We have weakened the al-Qaida 
network and its affiliates. We have disrupted terrorist plots and built 
a coalition of more than 90 nations to fight terrorism. We have 
transformed our approach to combating terrorism after the 9/11 attacks.
  So we ask the question: Would all of these terrorist attacks have 
been successful? Obviously, no, but I honestly believe--it is my 
judgment from having the background of years of serving on the Armed 
Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, that some of these--
to me, it is not conceivable that none of these would have occurred. I 
believe this invisible legacy--keep in mind, it is an invisible legacy 
of George W. Bush because they didn't happen. If they didn't happen, 
they are invisible, but nonetheless they were stopped.
  The bottom line is this: The New York Stock Exchange was not bombed, 
the military academies were not bombed, the Brooklyn Bridge was not 
bombed, New York and DC financial centers were not bombed, Penn Station 
was not bombed, Los Angeles synagogues were not bombed, and New Jersey 
Standard Oil refineries were not bombed.
  The transcontinental pipeline was not bombed. The World Bank was not 
bombed. The Chicago Sears Tower was not bombed. New York City train 
tunnels were not bombed. JFK Airport was not bombed. And our Nation's 
Capitol Building was not bombed. Clearly, the Bush invisible legacy may 
go down in history as perhaps the greatest legacy in history. I know 
people don't want to give credit where credit is due. This is something 
that took almost all of his energies at a time when otherwise something 
could very well have happened. It is my honest judgment that had it not 
been for his changes in our intelligence process, that one or more of 
these terrorist attacks would have been successful. I believe that in 
my heart. I think history will treat that as the case. Clearly, the 
Bush invisible legacy may go down as the greatest legacy in history.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an Oklahoman 
editorial dated January 13, 2009, and a Heritage Foundation 
Backgrounder No. 2085.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows;

                  [From the Oklahoman, Jan. 13, 2009]

           History Will Credit Bush With Keeping Country Safe

       George W. Bush surely is right when he insists the fairest 
     histories of his presidency will be written years from now--
     contrasting with the quick assessments and snapshot rankings 
     that are being done even before he hands the Oval Office keys 
     to Barack Obama.
       The president asserted that and more in his last official 
     news conference Monday, parrying with reporters over the 
     accomplishments, mistakes and disappointments of eight years 
     in the White House.
       The Bush years have been difficult, which he acknowledged. 
     Bush is a war president, and thus has been challenged to make 
     momentous decisions that involve sacrifice, trial and loss.
       In Bush's case, a war against the forces of terror that 
     lacked the usual metrics--territory to be gained, discernible 
     armies to be defeated--made it difficult for Americans to see 
     progress, much less victory. This very much tints 
     contemporary views of the 43rd president.
       It will take years to create perspective and permit 
     credible historic assessment of Bush's response to 9/11 and 
     his forward-leaning strategy against terrorists and their 
     allies, exemplified in the decision to topple Saddam 
     Hussein's regime in Iraq.
       If democracy or something like it thrives in Iraq, creating 
     a democratic bulwark in the Middle East, Bush ultimately will 
     be awarded praise. If free government fails and Iraq descends 
     into ethnic chaos--or worse, becomes a new base for 
     terrorists--then the expenditures in blood and treasure under 
     Bush no doubt will be seen as a waste, to his historic 
     detriment. Same for Afghanistan.
       Economically, the Bush years were mixed. His stewardship is 
     marked by the recession he inherited and the one he bequeaths 
     to Obama. While there were 52 months of uninterrupted job 
     growth in between, Bush likely is to be remembered for 
     failing to control government spending and not more 
     forcefully monitoring various institutions and certain 
     sectors of the economy that collapsed last year, triggering 
     the current downturn.
       Even so, our early assessment of President Bush invariably 
     returns to his performance as commander in chief. Bottom 
     line: Since 
     9/11, the United States hasn't suffered another terrorist 
     attack.
       That alone is remarkable. While critics would attribute 
     that to blind luck, we think history will credit bush for 
     strengthening U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities and 
     for refusing to run away from Iraq when conditions there were 
     most grave.
       Instead of delegating American security to allies or 
     international organizations, he accepted the obligation 
     knowing it probably would consume his presidency.
       Certainly, President Bush made mistakes, and he conceded a 
     few Monday. But in the supreme test of his watch he was 
     steadfast, and the country is safe for it--which most likely 
     will be history's focus.
                                  ____


  [From the Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2085, Nov. 13, 2007]

    Thwarted Terror Plots Against the U.S. Since September 11, 2001

       Sept. 11, 2001. Nineteen terrorists hijack four commercial 
     jetliners and aim them at targets in New York and Washington, 
     DC. Two airplanes strike the twin towers at the World Trade 
     Center and one strikes the Pentagon. Passengers in the fourth 
     airplane fight back, and the plane crashes in rural 
     Pennsylvania. More than 3,000 people die in the attacks.
       Dec. 2001, Richard Reid. Attempts to blow up an airplane 
     heading to Miami from Paris using explosives hidden in his 
     shoes.
       May 2002, Jose Padilla. Charged with conspiring with 
     Islamic terrorist groups, planning to set off a ``dirty 
     bomb'' in the U.S.
       Sept. 2002, Lackawanna Six. Six men from the Buffalo, NY, 
     area are arrested and charged with conspiring with terrorist 
     groups.
       May 2003, Lyman Faris. A naturalized U.S. citizen from 
     Columbus, Ohio, Faris is charged with plotting to collapse 
     the Brooklyn Bridge using blowtorches.
       June 2003, Virginia ``jihad'' Network. Eleven men from 
     Alexandria, VA, are charged with conspiracy to support 
     terrorists.
       Aug. 2004, Dihren Barot. Members of a terrorist cell led by 
     Barot are accused of plotting to attack financial institions 
     in the United States and at other sites in England.
       Aug. 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj. Charged 
     with plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square 
     Garden in New York.
       Aug. 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain. Albany, NY, 
     mosque leaders are charged with plotting to purchase a 
     grenade launcher to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New 
     York.
       June 2005, Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat. California father-
     son team is charged with supporting terrorism.
       Aug. 2005, Kevin James et al. Four men in Los Angeles are 
     accused of conspiring to attack National Guard facilities in 
     Los Angeles and other targets in the area.
       Dec. 2005, Michael C. Reynolds. Arrested and charged with 
     planning to blow up refineries in Wyoming and New Jersey and 
     a natural-gas pipeline.
       Feb. 2006, Mohammed Zaki Amawi et al. Three men from 
     Toledo, Ohio, are arrested and charged with providing 
     material support to terrorist organizations.
       April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee. 
     Atlanta natives are accused of conspiring with terrorist 
     organizations to attack targets in Washington, DC.
       June 2006, Narsearl Batiste et al. Seven men are arrested 
     in Miami and Atlanta and charged with plotting to blow up the 
     Sears Tower in Chicago.
       July 2006, Assem Hammoud. Arrested and charged with 
     plotting to bomb train tunnels in New York City.
       Aug. 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot. British authorities stop 
     a plot to load 10 commercial airliners with liquid explosives 
     and attack sites in New York, Washington, DC, and California. 
     Fifteen men have been charged.
       March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Senior operative for 
     Osama bin Laden, already in custody, confesses to planning 
     Sept. 11 attacks; he said he had also planned attacks in Los 
     Angeles, Chicago, New York, and other sites.
       May 2007, Fort Dix Plot. Six men are arrested and charged 
     with plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ.
       June 2007, JFK Airport Plot. Four men charged with plotting 
     to blow up jet fuel in residential neighborhoods near John F. 
     Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

[[Page S371]]

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 248 are 
located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and 
Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                          The Bush Presidency

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to offer some thoughts and 
observations about the Presidency of George W. Bush as his time in 
office comes to a close. This is truly a time to thank God for our 
country, for our system of government, and for our liberty--
unparalleled in the history of the world.
  President Bush served at a time of great challenge and even crisis 
for our country and I wish to focus on him both as a President and a 
person.
  When America's Founders gathered in Philadelphia in 1787, it is said 
someone asked Benjamin Franklin, the Constitutional Convention's oldest 
delegate, what form of government was under construction. He famously 
answered: A republic, if you can keep it. James Madison defined a 
republic as a government which derives its powers from the people, a 
principle enshrined in the Declaration of Independence.
  One way we work to keep our Republic is by the people choosing those 
who will govern them. In his farewell address in 1837, President Andrew 
Jackson said:

       But you must remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal 
     vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you 
     must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.

  Elections and transitions of power are part of that vigilance; part 
of keeping our Republic in order that we might, in the words of the 
Constitution's preamble, secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
and our posterity. Every transition goes from something to something 
and is an occasion to look at what is concluded as well as what is 
beginning. With the inauguration of President-elect Obama around the 
corner and the flurry of confirmation activity in the Senate regarding 
his nominees and the intense focus on economic and other challenges, 
much of our attention is rightfully focused on the future. But we look 
to the future from a present shaped by the past. Only by understanding 
where we have been can we have the ability, perspective, and confidence 
to act today and plan for tomorrow.
  Although a Presidency has a beginning and an end, it is simply part 
of the flow of events. Presidents inherit situations they did not 
create and create situations that they then leave to their successors. 
They may get credit for successes they did not produce and escape blame 
for failures that do not materialize until after they leave office. 
That is the nature of political life in America. While we focus on the 
individual--the President--I think it is more appropriate to speak of 
an administration--the Presidency.
  There are hundreds and hundreds of people who serve at the pleasure 
of the President to develop and implement his agenda. All this makes 
very difficult even describing, let alone evaluating, something as 
multifaceted as the Bush Presidency. Some of President Bush's critics 
almost reflexively look at opinion polls, noting his approval rating 
has sunk. I do not have to tell anyone serving in public office about 
the allure as well as the danger of this particular reflex. Polls are 
snapshots, they are not motion pictures. The pollster is the 
photographer. He chooses the subject, the lighting, and the angle. He 
frames the shot and determines how the final picture turns out.
  The Bush Presidency was book-ended by national crises--the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001, and the financial crisis before us 
today. Not surprisingly, as the Washington Post pointed out a few days 
ago, President Bush enjoyed the highest approval rating in late 2001 
and nearly the lowest in late 2008 in the history of the Post's 
reporting. Once again, that is the nature of political life in America 
and comes with the Presidential territory.
  While President Bush's approval rating has many ups and downs, one 
thing has remained absolutely constant: His approval rating has been 
consistently higher than ours in the Congress. The Web site 
pollingreport.com shows that dozens of national polls in the last 
couple years have given Congress an approval rating in the tens, down 
to a measly 12 percent, while President Bush has never had one that 
low. We in the Congress have the advantage of getting lost in the crowd 
when we want to, blaming such dismal public sentiment on the 
institution, while insisting that as individual Members we are 
certainly much more popular. The President never has that luxury.
  The polls do not ask whether Americans approve of his administration 
but whether they approve of him. President Bush knows it is tough to 
lead if you follow the polls. As he said in an interview last month, he 
did not compromise his soul to be a popular guy. George W. Bush is not 
leaving the Presidency with chapped fingers from holding them up to the 
political wind. His critics spin that as stubbornness, saying he wants 
to go it alone. I fully expect many of those same Bush critics will 
praise the next President for the very same thing.
  One man's principle, I suppose, is another man's inflexibility.
  But as President Bush said at Texas A&M University, popularity is 
fleeting but character and conscience are sturdy.
  The only test that matters, he said, is going home at night, looking 
in the mirror and being satisfied that you have done what is right.
  Politics, of course, is about disagreement and competing ideas, 
priorities, and policies. Conservative leader and thinker Paul Weyrich, 
who passed away last month, has written about what he called 
constructive polarization.
  That is the idea that clearly defined, and clearly different, choices 
and alternatives can be constructive for the electoral and political 
process.
  Disagreement and competition help us to focus and refine ideas, to 
work harder at finding the best solution.
  But I regret to say that there is often today more effort at enraging 
than engaging, and that along with disagreement has come disrespect.
  Too often an opponent is treated not simply as wrong but as rotten, 
and that is when the distinction between an office and the individual 
who holds it breaks down and political objectives take precedence over 
institutional principles.
  I have seen that destructive trend over the last 8 years and I hope, 
for the sake of the next president and for our country, it does not 
continue.
  I join President Bush who has said that the tone in Washington got 
worse rather than better during his presidency and I urge my 
colleagues, and all others who participate in so many ways in our 
political process, to do some real soul-searching about this.
  In addition to looking at the polls, it is easy when looking back at 
a presidency to look no further than the most recent events.
  The financial and economic situation has deteriorated so fast in the 
last several months, and the difficulties have spread so quickly and 
loom so large, that it is difficult to see anything that came before.
  The truth is, however, that we experienced a record economic 
expansion before that downturn occurred, 52 months of uninterrupted job 
creation.
  Another mistake in evaluating a Presidency is a simple one.
  We act as if we know everything that can be known, that the jury 
could possibly have already come back with the verdict.
  The jury is still out, and will remain there for a long time, which 
is why we more properly talk about history judging a President.
  As President Bush put it in one interview, folks are still writing 
books analyzing President George Washington.
  President George Bush is not going to worry about it.
  President Harry Truman's own party discouraged him from running for 
re-

[[Page S372]]

election and he left office with an approval rating even lower than 
President Bush will, yet today is mentioned among the twentieth 
century's best presidents, and one of my personal favorite Presidents 
of all time.
  The facts of what President Bush has done, not to mention their 
effects, will not be fully understood or even known by most Americans 
for many years to come.
  In evaluating a Presidency, we should also look not only at 
individual programs or neatly numerical accomplishments but also at the 
challenges than cannot be reduced to charts, graphs, or bullet points.
  President Bush certainly came into office with goals to achieve, 
problems to solve, and situations to handle.
  He had offered concrete proposals and made campaign promises.
  There is a long list of bills he signed, programs he initiated, 
appointments he made, and other concrete achievements that can be 
measured and listed.
  I will mention some of those in a minute.
  But the President-elect has already shown us how quickly those 
promises get tossed on the cutting-room floor.
  The Washington Post just reported that, before Mr. Obama has even 
taken the oath of office, his proposal for a tax credit for job 
creation, which he had touted on the campaign trail, has been dumped 
from the economic stimulus package now under construction.
  But in addition to specific programs or proposals, President Bush has 
worked hard to get us to think differently, to shift paradigms, to re-
order our understanding of America, the world, and our relationship to 
it.
  That is more qualitative than quantitative, and perhaps it is harder 
to measure with numbers or notches on a board somewhere, but it is as 
much a part of leadership and vigilance that is necessary to keep this 
Republic as anything else.
  We are in the eighth year since the terrorist attacks of September 
11, 2001.
  What a way for a President to begin his first term.
  The world changed, and American changed with it.
  Previous generations saw the struggle against global communism define 
much of what America did and how we did it.
  Today, it is the struggle against global terrorism.
  It may have begun in earnest with President Bush in office, but it 
will continue long afterward.
  And so national security has defined the Bush Presidency.
  Not simply the subject of national security, but the reality of 
national security. From retooling the Department of Justice and FBI, 
creating the Department of Homeland Security, revamping the 
intelligence community, to engaging dozens of other nations, and 
liberating millions in the Middle East, President Bush took bold steps 
to confront this new international menace.
  In short, he led.
  President Bush has sought to lead us to think differently about war 
and terrorism, and to understand both that terrorism is a global threat 
and that freedom is terrorism's worst enemy.
  He has said throughout his Presidency that freedom comes from God and 
is a universal human right.
  Freedom is better than tyranny, liberty is better than oppression.
  I am so grateful that President Bush refused to accept this moral-
equivalency nonsense that one way of life is just as good or bad as the 
next.
  Not only does that view make no sense on its face, but with it no one 
would ever see liberation from disease, hunger, slavery, or 
deprivation.
  That is a philosophical perspective, to be sure, and perhaps it is 
difficult to communicate in the 21st century, perhaps it does not lend 
itself to a text message or a posting on Facebook.
  But where you start determines the road on which you travel and where 
you eventually arrive, both for individuals and nations.
  President Bush told the American Enterprise Institute last month that 
a President's job is not only to tackle problems but to look over the 
horizon.
  That is real leadership.
  Let me move to some of those concrete accomplishments.
  Though some may wish to forget it, I remember when so many dismissed 
President Bush's strategy in Iraq that we have come to call ``the 
surge.''
  Once again, he was thinking outside the box, changing the way we 
think about dealing with challenges and problems.
  The surge was more than simply sending more troops to Iraq, but 
implemented a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy.
  It provided for one of the most dramatic comebacks in the history of 
modern warfare.
  In less than 2 years, what some had said was a hopeless situation saw 
an 80 percent reduction in violence.
  Cities and provinces whose names were literal synonyms for violence--
Ramadi, Fallujah, Baghdad, and others--are now largely free of al-
Qaida's operatives.
  And let me say at this point that President Bush has reaffirmed our 
sacred commitment to our veterans.
  His administration has more than doubled funding for veterans' 
medical care, cutting the time to process disability claims almost in 
half and reducing homelessness among veterans by 40 percent.
  It is, of course, much easier, much more natural, to think about what 
has happened rather than what has not happened.
  This is true for many reasons, not the least of which is that we 
often simply do not know what has not happened. But think about this. 
We do know that America has not been attacked since September 11, 2001. 
That is 88 months.
  I know that no one listening to me speak is foolish enough to think 
this is because the terrorists, the terrorist networks, the terrorist 
movement at work today have simply lost interest.
  No one is foolish enough to think the terrorists have just moved on 
to other things.
  No, they want more than ever to attack and destroy this country, if 
only because their first attack failed to bring us down.
  It has not happened in more than 7 years.
  President Bush's leadership has helped prevent another attack.
  His leadership in creating an international coalition, in working 
with other individual nations, in transforming and redirecting 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies, has helped prevent another 
attack.
  We have fought over these issues here in Congress, and I for one 
agree with President Bush that we must, for example, monitor 
international communication involving suspected terrorists if we are to 
protect ourselves.
  Doing so is both necessary and constitutional, and I am glad 
President Bush stood firm on those principles.
  President Bush has also helped protect us here at home by reducing 
the threat of rogue nations or groups launching a missile attack 
against the United States.
  President Bush fielded an operational missile defense system, which 
will require additional investment and development.
  But because of his leadership, we have already developed significant 
anti-ballistic missile capability both on the ground and at sea.
  Also looking abroad, President Bush has led us to rethink how we 
approach foreign aid with a new model of assistance to other countries.
  He signed millennium challenge account agreements with nearly a dozen 
African nations and put more emphasis on holding governments that 
receive our aid accountable for how they treat their people and whether 
they promote economic growth.
  This approach actually invites competition, utilizes criteria, and 
requires progress, and it requires a strong link between our security 
objectives, accountability, and foreign-assistance funding.
  Linking these together serves both American and foreign interests 
better and it took bold leadership to shift into this new way of 
approaching foreign assistance.
  In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush introduced the 
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. I happened to 
have been very interested in that and worked hard to get that done, 
too, because--along with Senator Kennedy--we are the authors of these 
three anti-AIDS bills, so I take a great interest in what he has done 
and he is the first to have really done it.
  This program focuses on both prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS and 
care.

[[Page S373]]

  Billions of dollars have already gone to prevent the spread of HIV/
AIDS and opportunistic diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis that 
often kill people with AIDS.
  This program has prevented HIV transmission from mother to child 
during more than 12 million pregnancies and provided antiretroviral 
drugs for nearly 2 million people, up from only 50,000 receiving such 
drugs when the program began.
  PEPFAR has helped support care for nearly 7 million children and more 
than 33 million counseling and testing sessions for men, women, and 
children.
  This program launched by President Bush, which was reauthorized last 
year with increased funding, is the largest international health 
initiative in history dedicated to a single disease.
  Shifting the focus to right here at home, even though the downturn of 
the last year has been severe, it was preceded by a record 52 months of 
job creation.
  Productivity in his first term grew at the fastest rate in more than 
half a century.
  Before the recent spike, the average seasonally adjusted unemployment 
rate during President Bush's tenure was the lowest in 60 years.
  President Bush cut taxes for every American who pays taxes, doubled 
the child tax credit to help American families, provided marriage 
penalty relief, and began phasing out the estate tax.
  The roots of the current financial crisis extend before President 
Bush took office and his warnings went unheeded.
  In April 2001, just 3 months in office, he warned that financial 
trouble at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have strong repercussions 
in financial markets.
  In May 2002, he called for disclosure and corporate governance 
principles to be applied to those agencies.
  In February 2003, the Bush administration warned that unexpected 
problems at Fannie and Freddie could immediately spread beyond the 
housing market.
  Seven months later, the Treasury Secretary called for prudent minimum 
capital adequacy requirements for Fannie and Freddie.
  In February 2004, President Bush called for stronger regulation of 
Fannie and Freddie because of their low levels of required capital, 
that is, subprime mortgages.
  Warnings continued month after month, year after year.
  The notion that the Bush administration sat by while the problem 
developed or, worse yet, fought increased regulation is simply a lie.
  President Bush campaigned on education reform, having the courage to 
speak of what he called the bigotry of low expectations.
  He delivered education reform with the No Child Left Behind Act, and 
I can tell you what a difference it has made.
  One example is Dee Elementary School in Ogden, UT.
  Nearly every student in that school is economically disadvantaged, 
more than 80 percent are minorities, more than 44 percent are learning 
the English language, and 10 percent are homeless.
  Those are challenging demographics no matter where they are found.
  At the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, only 13 percent of Dee 
Elementary third-graders were reading at grade level.
  In just 5 years, after Dee Elementary was chosen to participate in 
the Reading First program, that figure quadrupled to 52 percent.
  The school jumped from only the 9th percentile in fifth grade reading 
to the 43rd percentile.
  And I am so proud to say that Dee Elementary has now met Adequate 
Yearly Progress standards for 3 consecutive years.
  Lives are changed, hopes are kindled, and futures are brighter as a 
result.
  Empowering teachers to help students meet higher expectations works, 
and that has become Federal educational policy under President Bush.
  The educational achievement gap between White and minority students 
narrowed and both fourth and eighth graders achieved their highest 
reading and math scores on record.
  I am hopeful that the new President's Secretary of Education will 
recognize and build on the reform-oriented approach of the Bush 
administration through supporting policies such as charter schools and 
school choice.
  President Bush campaigned on Medicare reform, and he delivered with 
the Medicare Modernization Act, the most significant reform of the 
Medicare Program since it was created in 1965.
  As a result of this law, 40 million Americans have better access to 
prescriptions and have choices in their health coverage.
  It also provided for health savings accounts, which President Bush 
insisted not be limited solely to Medicare beneficiaries.
  These accounts are portable and give people more choices and more 
ways to improve their lives.
  I served on the House-Senate conference committee on this legislation 
and attribute its success to President Bush's leadership.
  President Bush has challenged all Americans, and his own party, to 
change the way we address real human needs in this country.
  This includes increasing the impact of nonprofit organizations, 
ending discrimination against faith-based groups that can provide 
services, and promoting volunteerism.
  As a result, chronic homelessness has dropped by nearly 30 percent in 
just the last few years.
  President Bush also advanced a culture of life.
  Our Declaration of Independence recognizes that we are endowed by our 
Creator with an inalienable right to life.
  That is a foundational principle.
  In an interview a year ago, President Bush said that his belief that 
every human life has dignity has informed his policies and programs.
  I do not understand where the compassion and commitment comes from 
for hundreds of programs and billions of dollars to help millions of 
people without believing that those people's very lives are worth 
protecting.
  The conviction that life itself is sacred is the best foundation for 
liberty and prosperity, for human and civil rights.
  President Bush shares that conviction and signed into law the ban on 
the horrific practice of partial birth abortion, which the Supreme 
Court has upheld.
  He also signed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and the Unborn 
Victims of Violence Act.
  President Bush also appointed judges who know their proper place in 
our system of government.
  Our liberty depends on limited government, and that means government 
limited by a written Constitution that actually means something.
  The Constitution cannot limit government if government defines the 
Constitution. President Bush appointed judges who know that this 
principle applies to them. This is one of the most important, and most 
long-lasting, results of President Bush's leadership.
  Others believe that judges not only apply the law, but make the law 
they apply.
  Others believe that judges should decide cases based on where their 
personal empathy lies, based on the political interests that can be 
served.
  Others believe that judges should take sides in a case before those 
sides even appear in court.
  That activist, politicized view of judging will destroy our liberty 
and I am glad that President Bush sided with America's Founders and 
appointed judges who will interpret and apply the law and leave 
politics to the people.
  President Bush charted a new course for energy security.
  This is another area which the recent financial crisis can easily 
obscure, but President Bush's first order of business was producing a 
major energy plan and task force.
  That plan became the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  It included a proposal I authored called the CLEAR Act, which 
provided incentives for hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles.
  President Bush's advocacy of plug-in hybrid vehicle technology 
resulted in passage of the FREEDOM Act, which I drafted along with 
Senators Barack Obama and Maria Cantwell.
  And President Bush called for developing our Nation's unconventional 
fuel resources, including oil shale and tar sand.
  Only the most willful denial or ideological distortion will buy the 
spin from environmental extremists that

[[Page S374]]

President Bush has done nothing to protect the environment or to move 
us away from our dependence on oil.
  At the same time, knowing that our current transportation needs 
depend on oil, President Bush has led the way to doubling domestic oil 
and gas production on public lands.
  I could go on about issue after issue, listing one accomplishment 
after another, but my remarks today are intended to be more than just a 
factual recitation.
  Many others are writing and analyzing the Bush presidency and record 
from many different perspectives.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an editorial titled 
``Bush's Achievements'' from the January 19 issue of the Weekly 
Standard printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Pryor). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HATCH. Before I close, I have to say a word about our wonderful 
and gracious First Lady, Laura Bush.
  Her strength, dignity, and grace will leave a lasting mark on the 
role of First Lady.
  She was a kind, steady presence, advocating for causes in her own 
right as the President led the Nation in his.
  And in times of great tragedy, she was the voice and personification 
of comfort and kindness.
  She confidently balanced the public and private aspects of life and 
family. Like her husband, Laura Bush was just what our country needed.
  President Bush has been our leader, our chosen leader, for the past 8 
years.
  He has been a man of principle, conviction, and action.
  He has had to tackle challenges, both here and abroad, that are 
difficult even to describe, let alone comprehend.
  There have been many successes, and this has been a time of 
transition, adjustment, and change.
  President Bush, as is his way, takes a very practical view of his 
contribution to America.
  He says he will be remembered as someone who dealt with tough issues 
head on, helping our country protect itself, and who was unashamed 
about spreading certain fundamental values such as liberty.
  At home, he says, he trusts individual Americans to make the best 
decisions for themselves and their families.
  In his last State of the Union Address, President Bush said that our 
Nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and our union will 
remain strong if we trust in the ability of free people to make 
decisions.
  Protecting America from outside enemies and strengthening America 
from within.
  That is a legacy to be proud of, and I am so thankful for President 
Bush's leadership and courage and I pray for God's richest blessings 
for him, for First Lady Laura Bush, and their family in whatever lies 
ahead for them.
  Let me close with a quote from President Theodore Roosevelt, whom I 
know President Bush admires.
  President Roosevelt said this in Paris in 1910 and it expresses my 
sentiments about President Bush as his time in office ends.

       It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out 
     how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could 
     have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is 
     actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat 
     and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short 
     again and again, because there is no effort without error or 
     shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great 
     devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the 
     best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and 
     who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while 
     daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those 
     cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the weekly Standard, Jan. 19, 2009]

        Bush's Achievements--Ten Things the President Got Right.

                            (By Fred Barnes)

       The postmortems on the presidency of George W. Bush are all 
     wrong. The liberal line is that Bush dangerously weakened 
     America's position in the world and rushed to the aid of the 
     rich and powerful as income inequality worsened. That is 
     twaddle. Conservatives--okay, not all of them--have only been 
     a little bit kinder. They give Bush credit for the surge that 
     saved Iraq, but not for much else.
       He deserves better. His presidency was far more successful 
     than not. And there's an aspect of his decision-making that 
     merits special recognition: his courage. Time and time again, 
     Bush did what other presidents, even Ronald Reagan, would not 
     have done and for which he was vilified and abused. That--
     defiantly doing the right thing--is what distinguished his 
     presidency.
       Bush had ten great achievements (and maybe more) in his 
     eight years in the White House, starting with his decision in 
     2001 to jettison the Kyoto global warming treaty so loved by 
     Al Gore, the environmental lobby, elite opinion, and 
     Europeans. The treaty was a disaster, with India and China 
     exempted and economic decline the certain result. Everyone 
     knew it. But only Bush said so and acted accordingly.
       He stood athwart mounting global warming hysteria and 
     yelled, ``Stop!'' He slowed the movement toward a policy 
     blunder of worldwide impact, providing time for facts to 
     catch up with the dubious claims of alarmists. Thanks in part 
     to Bush, the supposed consensus of scientists on global 
     warming has now collapsed. The skeptics, who point to global 
     cooling over the past decade, are now heard loud and clear. 
     And a rational approach to the theory of manmade global 
     warming is possible.
       Second, enhanced interrogation of terrorists. Along with 
     use of secret prisons and wireless eavesdropping, this saved 
     American lives. How many thousands of lives? We'll never 
     know. But, as Charles Krauthammer said recently, ``Those are 
     precisely the elements which kept us safe and which have 
     prevented a second attack.''
       Crucial intelligence was obtained from captured al Qaeda 
     leaders, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, 
     with the help of waterboarding. Whether this tactic--it 
     creates a drowning sensation--is torture is a matter of 
     debate. John McCain and many Democrats say it is. Bush and 
     Vice President Cheney insist it isn't. In any case, it was 
     necessary. Lincoln once made a similar point in defending his 
     suspension of habeas corpus in direct defiance of Chief 
     Justice Roger Taney. ``Are all the laws but one to go 
     unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that 
     one be violated?'' Lincoln asked. Bush understood the answer 
     in wartime had to be no.
       Bush's third achievement was the rebuilding of presidential 
     authority, badly degraded in the era of Vietnam, Watergate, 
     and Bill Clinton. He didn't hesitate to conduct wireless 
     surveillance of terrorists without getting a federal judge's 
     okay. He decided on his own how to treat terrorists and where 
     they should be imprisoned. Those were legitimate decisions 
     for which the president, as commander in chief, should feel 
     no need to apologize.
       Defending, all the way to the Supreme Court, Cheney's 
     refusal to disclose to Congress the names of people he'd 
     consulted on energy policy was also enormously important. 
     Democratic congressman Henry Waxman demanded the names, but 
     the Court upheld Cheney, 7-2. Last week, Cheney defended his 
     refusal, waspishly noting that Waxman ``doesn't call me up 
     and tell me who he's meeting with.''
       Achievement number four was Bush's unswerving support for 
     Israel. Reagan was once deemed Israel's best friend in the 
     White House. Now Bush can claim the title. He ostracized 
     Yasser Arafat as an impediment to peace in the Middle East. 
     This infuriated the anti-Israel forces in Europe, the Third 
     World, and the United Nations, and was criticized by 
     champions of the ``peace process'' here at home. Bush was 
     right.
       He was clever in his support. Bush announced that Ariel 
     Sharon should withdraw the tanks he'd sent into the West Bank 
     in 2002, then exerted zero pressure on Sharon to do so. And 
     he backed the wall along Israel's eastern border without 
     endorsing it as an official boundary, while knowing full well 
     that it might eventually become exactly that. He was a loyal 
     friend.
       His fifth success was No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 
     education reform bill cosponsored by America's most prominent 
     liberal Democratic senator Edward Kennedy. The teachers' 
     unions, school boards, the education establishment, 
     conservatives adamant about local control of schools--they 
     all loathed the measure and still do. It requires two things 
     they ardently oppose, mandatory testing and accountability.
       Kennedy later turned against NCLB, saying Bush is 
     shortchanging the program. In truth, federal education 
     spending is at record levels. Another complaint is that it 
     forces teachers to ``teach to the test.'' The tests are on 
     math and reading. They are tests worth teaching to.
       Sixth, Bush declared in his second inaugural address in 
     2005 that American foreign policy (at least his) would 
     henceforth focus on promoting democracy around the world. 
     This put him squarely in the Reagan camp, but he was 
     lambasted as unrealistic, impractical, and a tool of wily 
     neoconservatives. The new policy gave Bush credibility in 
     pressing for democracy in the former Soviet republics and 
     Middle East and in zinging various dictators and kleptocrats. 
     It will do the same for President Obama, if he's wise enough 
     to hang onto it.
       The seventh achievement is the Medicare prescription drug 
     benefit, enacted in 2003. It's not only wildly popular; it 
     has cost less than expected by triggering competition among 
     drug companies. Conservatives have deep reservations about 
     the program. But they shouldn't have been surprised. Bush 
     advocated the drug benefit in the 2000 campaign. And if he 
     hadn't acted, Democrats

[[Page S375]]

     would have, with a much less attractive result.
       Then there were John Roberts and Sam Alito. In putting them 
     on the Supreme Court and naming Roberts chief justice, Bush 
     achieved what had eluded Richard Nixon, Reagan, and his own 
     father. Roberts and Alito made the Court indisputably more 
     conservative. And the good news is Roberts, 53, and Alito, 
     58, should be justices for decades to come.
       Bush's ninth achievement has been widely ignored. He 
     strengthened relations with east Asian democracies (Japan, 
     South Korea, Australia) without causing a rift with China. On 
     top of that, he forged strong ties with India. An important 
     factor was their common enemy, Islamic jihadists. After 9/11, 
     Bush made the most of this, and Indian leaders were 
     receptive. His state dinner for Indian prime minister 
     Manmohan Singh in 2006 was a lovefest.
       Finally, a no-brainer: the surge. Bush prompted nearly 
     unanimous disapproval in January 2007 when he announced he 
     was sending more troops to Iraq and adopting a new 
     counterinsurgency strategy. His opponents initially included 
     the State Department, the Pentagon, most of Congress, the 
     media, the foreign policy establishment, indeed the whole 
     world. This makes his decision a profile in courage. Best of 
     all, the surge worked. Iraq is now a fragile but functioning 
     democracy.
       How does Bush rank as a president? We won't know until he's 
     judged from the perspective of two or three decades. 
     Hindsight forced a sharp upgrading of the presidencies of 
     Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. Given his achievements, 
     it may have the same effect for Bush.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          TRIBUTE TO DON MEYER

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Don Meyer, men's 
basketball coach at Northern State University, in Aberdeen, SD, for his 
903rd career coaching victory. The historic win occurred January 10, 
2009, as his NSU Wolves defeated the University of Mary by a score of 
82-62. That victory placed Coach Meyer atop the NCAA men's all-time 
wins list, one victory ahead of legendary coach Bob Knight.
  Since their arrival in 1999, Coach Meyer and his wife Carmen have 
been incredible assets to the Aberdeen community and Northern State 
University. The Meyers participate in countless civic events, 
displaying great community pride. As his players, assistants, coaching 
colleagues, participants, and fans can attest, Coach Meyer is a world-
class basketball instructor. More importantly, however, he is a world-
class teacher and mentor on the fundamentals of everyday life. He is 
able to not only mold his athletes into great basketball players, but 
also into outstanding young adults equipped to have positive impacts on 
the world around them.
  Coach Meyer's courageous journey is made even more remarkable due to 
the fact he was involved in a near fatal automobile accident in 
September of 2008 on the way to an annual team retreat. Coach Meyer 
credits his team with saving his life, as players and assistant coaches 
rushed to his aid while waiting for help to arrive. Throughout his 
hospitalization, Coach Meyer maintained his selfless nature and 
admirable character by always looking for the positive and keeping his 
faith steadily intact. His strong spirit, optimistic attitude, and 
unprecedented determination remained constant even amidst the 
amputation of his lower left leg and the pronouncement of an unexpected 
cancer diagnosis. This amazing man was at his team's 5 a.m. practice 
immediately following his hospital dismissal, ready to use his life 
experiences as a tool to enrich the lives of others. Those who know him 
appreciate his wealth of knowledge, distinctive outlook on life and his 
unique sense of humor.
  Coach Meyer began his college basketball career as a standout player 
at the University of Northern Colorado, earning NCAA All-American 
status. Upon graduation, he served as an assistant coach at Western 
State College of Colorado and the University of Utah. He landed his 
first head coaching position at Hamline University in St. Paul, MN, in 
1972. After 3 years with Hamline, which included a 1975 trip to the 
NCAA Division III Elite Eight, Coach Meyer traveled to Nashville, TN, 
to become the head coach for Lipscomb University.
  During his tenure at Lipscomb, Coach Meyer amassed 665 wins. His 
teams qualified for 13 national tournaments and won the 1986 NAIA 
National Championship. He was named NAIA Coach of Year in both 1989 and 
1990. He coached 22 All-Americans and 3 National Players of the Year 
while in Nashville. In 1993, Coach Meyer was elected to the NAIA Hall 
of Fame. After 24 successful seasons, he left Lipscomb to become head 
coach for Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD.
  Under Coach Meyer's tutelage, Northern State has reached the NCAA 
postseason-play four of the past five seasons. Included in this 
postseason run are two appearances in the North Central Region 
Championship game in 2006 and 2008. His NSU teams have surpassed the 
20-win mark in seven consecutive seasons and captured four Northern Sun 
Intercollegiate Conference regular season and conference tournament 
championships. Currently, his Wolves squad holds a 12-2 record and is 
ranked 11th in the Nation in NCAA Division II.
  It is my great privilege to congratulate one of the most amazing, 
admirable, well-respected coaches of all time, Coach Don Meyer. He is a 
humble man of great integrity--a true inspiration and moral icon. It 
has been a true pleasure to have the opportunity to know him personally 
and an honor to call him my friend. On behalf of the city of Aberdeen, 
the State of South Dakota, and our great Nation, I am pleased to say 
congratulations, Coach Meyer. You have made us all incredibly proud. 
Your legacy will flourish throughout the lives that you have so 
profoundly touched. Congratulations and best wishes, Coach, and may God 
bless you.


                      lilly ledbetter fair pay act

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am so pleased to join my fellow 
Senators to press for passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In 
particular, I would like to salute Chairman Kennedy, a champion of 
equality for decades in this body, and Senator Mikulski, who has been a 
tireless leader in the effort to achieve equal pay for equal work and 
who is heading the effort to pass this legislation on the floor of the 
Senate.
  This legislation would help us deliver on the promise of equality and 
fairness in the workplace--not just for women but for all workers, men 
and women, subject to discrimination on the basis of gender, race, 
ethnic background, age, and disability. That is why I have supported 
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act so strongly--and will continue to 
support it until the Senate passes it and our new President can sign it 
into law.
  In America today, women earn only 78 cents on the dollar for doing 
the same jobs as men--far less if they are women of color. And we still 
don't value or recognize some of the hardest and most productive work 
done in our society: caring for children, elderly parents, and the 
seriously ill--work that is largely done by women.
  The disparities in income, just one important example, are not only 
harmful to women. It is not just a mother who suffers when she is 
denied equal pay for equal work; her children and family suffer too. 
Families earn an average of $4,000 less each year because of pay 
disparities. It is not just a wife who loses out when she is not valued 
for the hours she spends caring for a sick relative or a child in need; 
her husband and family lose out too.
  The failure to defend the civil rights of women and men facing 
discrimination affects real lives. That is why this act is named for 
one such person--someone who didn't have a lot of money or a lot of 
options but believed, and still believes, that we all deserve a fair 
chance to defend our civil rights in the courts.
  Lily Ledbetter was one of only a few female supervisors at a Goodyear 
Tire plant. She endured insults from her male bosses and shifts that 
ran to 18 hours. She kept her head down, worked hard in a traditionally 
male job.
  Near the end of her 20 years at the factory, she discovered she was 
being paid less than all of her 15 male counterparts--a lot less. The 
male supervisors earned 25 to 40 percent more

[[Page S376]]

than she did. And so she took her case to court, and a jury of her 
peers concluded that she had been paid less because of her gender in 
violation of the law, awarding full damages. But in a 5-to-4 decision, 
the Supreme Court reversed the jury, overturned decades of bipartisan 
rules and judicial precedent, and told Lilly that she was entitled to 
nothing. The Court ruled that if you are discriminated in your salary, 
you only have 180 days to seek action even if that discrimination is 
ongoing--and even if you didn't know about it.
  The legislation we will vote on tomorrow morning is simple: it will 
reverse the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter and take us back to 
the rule that prevailed for years, when women had a reasonable 
opportunity to sue if they were being denied equal pay. That is all 
this legislation does--restore us to the rule before 2007.
  In fact, this legislation should just be a down payment on much-
needed reform to close the wage gap. The House earlier this year passed 
the Paycheck Fairness Act, legislation that I introduced in the Senate 
to close the pay gap. The bill takes critical steps to empower women to 
negotiate for equal pay, to close loopholes that courts have created in 
the law, to create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws 
that are in place, and to strengthen Federal outreach and enforcement 
efforts.
  Our pay equity laws are replete with holes and lax enforcement that 
has prevented them from serving as a real check on pay discrimination. 
As a result, there has not been enough meaningful progress to close the 
wage gap. We need not only the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act but also 
the Paycheck Fairness Act, and I urge my colleagues to take up the 
Paycheck Fairness Act as soon as possible.
  Throughout my lifetime of public service, I have been proud to join 
many in the fight to change laws to ensure fairness and equality for 
all of our citizens. We have achieved great progress, but great 
progress, especially for women, remains to be made.
  This is part of the unfinished business of America, unfinished 
business that holds back all people, weakens our prosperity, and 
jeopardizes our progress as a nation. Now is the time to help end pay 
disparity and ensure that women earn equal pay for equal work.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Omnibus 
Public Land Management Act of 2009.
  I commend my colleagues who support this comprehensive public lands 
bill, and I thank Chairman Bingaman for his leadership. He and his 
staff should be congratulated for their perseverance and patience in 
shepherding this important bill through the legislative process.
  I would like to speak first about one of the bill's provisions, which 
has major implications for California; and that is, the legislation to 
implement the historic San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement, which 
I have sponsored with my colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
  This measure would restore California's second longest river, while 
maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the San 
Joaquin Valley the richest agricultural area in the world.
  Once enacted, this bill would bring to a close 19 years of litigation 
between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Users 
Authority, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. And it does so 
within a framework that the affected interests can accept--and have all 
agreed to.
  The Settlement has two goals: to restore and maintain fish 
populations in the San Joaquin River in good condition, including a 
self-sustaining salmon fishery; and to avoid or reduce adverse water 
supply impacts to long-term Friant water contractors.
  Consistent with the terms of the settlement, I expect that both of 
these goals will be pursued with equal diligence by the Federal 
agencies.
  This historic agreement would not have been possible without the 
participation of a remarkably broad group of agencies, stakeholders, 
and legislators, including: the Department of the Interior; the State 
of California; the Friant Water Users Authority; the Natural Resources 
Defense Council on behalf of 13 other environmental organizations; and 
countless other stakeholders who came together and spent countless 
hours with legislators in Washington to ensure that we found a solution 
that the large majority of those affected could support. Without this 
consensus, the parties would no doubt continue the fight, resulting in 
a court-imposed judgment--one which would likely be worse for all 
parties.
  I spoke at greater length about the purposes and benefits of this 
legislation during my statements upon introduction of the omnibus lands 
bill and when introducing the San Joaquin River Settlement legislation 
in December 2006 and January 2007 in previous Congresses.
  I would like to take a moment to highlight several important changes 
that were made to this version of the legislation--which improved upon 
the initial bill, first introduced in December 2006.
  First, the legislation reflects an agreement reached in November 2008 
to ensure that the implementing legislation is pay-go neutral, which 
means that the restoration program allocates no more in direct spending 
than it brings in.
  The agreement also protects the rights of third parties. These 
protections are accomplished while ensuring a timely and robust 
restoration of the river and without creating any new precedents for 
implementing the Endangered Species Act.
  Similarly, there is no preemption of State law and nothing in the 
bill changes any existing obligations of the United States to operate 
the Central Valley Project in conformity with State law.
  Second, the bill incorporates amendments made by the Energy and 
Natural Resources Committee in May 2008 to enhance implementation of 
the settlement's ``Water Management Goal'' to reduce or avoid adverse 
water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term water contractors.
  It also includes provisions approved by the committee that will 
increase the amount of upfront funding available for the settlement by 
allowing most Friant Division contractors to accelerate repayment of 
their construction cost obligation to the Treasury. In exchange for 
early repayment, Friant water agencies will be able to convert their 
25-year water service contracts to permanent repayment contracts.
  Now, I would like to speak at greater length about the legislation's 
substantial protections for other water districts and private 
landowners in California that were not party to the original settlement 
negotiations.
  I think it is important to note that these protections have been 
agreed to by all of the settling parties as well as the third-party 
water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley who requested them, and that 
they will be accomplished while ensuring a timely and robust 
restoration of the river.
  Section 10004(d) requires that the Secretary of the Interior 
identify; first, the impacts associated with the proposed action or 
actions; and sSecond, the measures that will be implemented to mitigate 
those impacts.
  Sections 10004(f), 10004(g) and 10004(j) protect third party water 
users by clarifying that implementation of the settlement will cause no 
involuntary reductions in contract water allocations to long-term CVP 
contractors--other than Friant contractors--by making it clear that the 
bill does not, except as actually provided in the settlement and this 
bill, modify the rights and obligations of parties to existing water 
service, repayment, purchase, or exchange contracts, and by specifying 
that the rights and obligations under what is known as the Exchange 
Contract--with downstream districts--are not modified.
  Further, section 10006(b) makes it clear that the bill does not 
preempt State law or modify any existing obligation of the United 
States under Federal reclamation law to operate the Central Valley 
Project in conformity with State law.
  Some third parties had expressed concerns about potential conflicts 
between the provision of flows under the restoration program, and the 
rights of the exchange contractors to water from the San Joaquin River.
  The Bureau of Reclamation has provided a letter that complements the 
language in the legislation and explains that such a conflict is 
extremely unlikely, but should such a conflict

[[Page S377]]

arise the Bureau will continue to make water available to the San 
Joaquin River exchange contractors consistent with its contractual 
requirements.
  I will ask to have the letter, dated November 6, 2008, from Mr. 
Donald Glaser, regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for the 
Mid-Pacific Region of California, to Mr. Steve Chedester, executive 
director of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority, 
be printed in the Record.
  Concerns about potential damage to downstream farmers and landowners 
from water seepage resulting from interim restoration flows under the 
settlement are addressed by section 10004(h).
  That section directs the Secretary, before releasing interim flows, 
to prepare an analysis of channel conveyance capacities and the 
potential for seepage, describe an associated seepage monitoring 
program, and evaluate possible seepage impacts and mitigation measures 
for impacts that are significant.
  The section also directs that interim flows may only be released to 
the extent they will not impede completion of the channel restoration 
work or exceed downstream channel capacities.
  And finally the section directs the Secretary to reduce interim flows 
if necessary to address material adverse impacts from groundwater 
seepage that the Secretary identifies through the Secretary's 
monitoring program.
  Some of the third-party agencies have expressed concerns about the 
effectiveness of a fish barrier in the San Joaquin River near the 
confluence of the Merced River in preventing the upstream migration of 
anadromous fish prior to reintroduction of salmon and implementation of 
the restoration flow program.
  This concern has been addressed in part with the addition of section 
10004(i)(4), which calls for an evaluation of the temporary fish 
barrier, and the funding of fish screens and facilities under certain 
circumstances.
  To further address the concerns regarding the effectiveness of the 
fish barrier, the Bureau of Reclamation and the California Department 
of Fish and Game have exchanged letters confirming their willingness to 
cooperate in the operation and evaluation of the Hills Ferry Fish 
Barrier during the interim flows period.
  More specifically, these letters discuss future efforts by these 
agencies to achieve a barrier program that effectively prevents 
unintended upstream passage of salmonids during the interim flow 
period.
  I applaud these efforts and look forward to their successful 
implementation.
  I will ask to have the agencies' letters, dated December 22, 2008, 
from Mr. Jason Phillips, Program Manager, Bureau of Reclamation; and 
January 5, 2009, from Jeffery Single, Ph.D., Regional Manager, 
California Department of Fish and Game, printed in the Record.
  Third parties had also requested that actions to increase the channel 
capacity in Reach 2B of the river be prioritized. The legislation 
directs the Secretary to implement the channel improvements that are 
listed in paragraph 11 of the settlement necessary to achieve the 
restoration goal.
  Among the highest priority restoration improvements identified in the 
settlement are modifications to increase the channel capacity of Reach 
2B of the river. I am pleased that work in that reach will be a 
priority for the restoration program and as a result will also address 
the third party concerns.
  Finally, Section 10011 of the bill provides that the Central Valley 
Spring Run Chinook Salmon reintroduced into the San Joaquin River will 
be classified as an ``experimental population'' under the Endangered 
Species Act.
  This section also makes clear that it establishes no precedent with 
respect to any other application of the Endangered Species Act, ESA.
  It also provides that the Secretary of Commerce shall issue a rule 
under section 4(d) of the ESA which shall provide that the 
reintroduction of the spring run salmon under this section shall not 
impose more than de minimis water supply reductions, additional storage 
releases or bypass flows on unwilling third parties.
  In closing, in addition to the protections listed above, I wish to 
highlight one further provision of the settlement that reflects some of 
the significant themes of this historic agreement.
  In paragraph 13(h) of the settlement agreement, the settling parties 
agreed that the Secretary of the Interior should apply to the State of 
California to protect the restoration flows from Friant Dam to the 
Delta, subject to existing downstream diversion rights.
  In my view, this underscores that this settlement is intended to 
conform to State law and that the Interior Department will seek 
appropriate actions by the State Water Resources Control Board to 
ensure that the water released for the settlement is controlled and 
managed from Friant Dam to the Delta to accomplish the restoration goal 
and water management goal purposes.
  The Bureau of Reclamation has made significant progress on 
environmental and engineering studies necessary to implement the 
settlement.
  Passage of the legislation will allow the agency to undertake 
specific programs and projects to implement the settlement's 
restoration and water management goals.
  For example, with approval of the legislation, interim flows can 
begin this fall as scheduled, once a required environmental study is 
completed.
  These limited water releases will provide essential information on 
channel capacity, fishery needs and water recovery opportunities as 
well as potential third-party impacts, such as seepage, and measures 
that may be needed to mitigate them.
  The information will be used to shape other important aspects of the 
restoration goal program, such as the release of full restoration 
flows, scheduled to begin in 2014.
  Passage of the legislation also will allow the Bureau to take 
immediate steps toward achieving the water management goal, including 
undertaking a project to restore the water-carry capacity of the 
Friant-Kern and Madera Canals and the installation of pump-back systems 
on the canals to help recapture water losses resulting from the 
settlement.
  In addition, the agency is charged with implementing a cost-sharing 
program for local groundwater recharge and recovery projects that will 
help mitigate water losses.
  Before I conclude, I would like to also briefly discuss the other 19 
California bills in the omnibus legislation approved today.
  First, wilderness provisions: The three wilderness bills in this 
package would together protect a wilderness about 735,000 acres of land 
in Mono, Riverside, Inyo, and Los Angeles Counties, and within Sequoia-
Kings Canyon National Park.
  The bills include three additions to National Wilderness Preservation 
System: Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wilderness, Riverside 
County Wilderness, and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks 
Wilderness.
  This package of wilderness bills would help expand lasting Federal 
protection for some of California's important natural resources.
  Second: water project authorizations.
  In the West, drought, population growth, increasing climate 
variability, and ecosystem needs make managing water supplies 
especially challenging.
  The nine California water recycling projects included in the omnibus 
bill offer a proven means to develop cost effective alternative water 
supply projects.
  The water projects in the bill would fall under the auspices of the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and include San Diego Intertie feasibility 
study, Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project authorization, Rancho 
California Water District project authorization Santa Margarita River 
project authorization, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District project 
authorization, North Bay Water Reuse Authority project authorization, 
Prado Basin Natural Treatment System Project authorization, Bunker Hill 
Groundwater Basin project authorization GREAT Project authorization, 
Yucaipa Valley Water District project authorization, Goleta Water 
District Water Distribution System title transfer, San Gabriel Basin 
Restoration Fund, and Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation 
Program.
  Together they will help our State reduce its dependence on imported 
water from both the Lower Colorado River and Sacramento/San Joaquin 
Delta.
  Third: other public lands bills to help preserve California's 
historic legacy.

[[Page S378]]

These include: Bureau of Land Management: Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk 
Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria land exchange; Forest Service: 
Mammoth Community Water District land conveyance; National Park 
Service: Tule Lake Segregation Center Resource Study
  There is an old saying when it comes to water: Whiskey's for 
drinking, water's for fighting over.'' There is no area where this has 
been more the case than the future of the San Joaquin River.
  The passage of this omnibus legislation means we are one step closer 
toward resolving the longstanding conflict over the future of the San 
Joaquin River.
  This is a bill whose time is long overdue, and I strongly urge my 
colleagues in the House of Representatives to promptly join us in 
approving this critical piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                        Bureau of Reclamation,

                                 Sacramento, CA, November 6, 2008.
     Subject: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement 
         Legislation--Exchange Contractors Water Deliveries.

     Mr. Steve Chedester,
     Executive Director. San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors 
         Water Authority, Los Banos, CA
       Dear Mr. Chedester: This is in response to concerns that 
     you raised during our meeting in Los Banos on October 21, 
     2008. At that meeting, you expressed concern that the 
     Settlement in NRDC v. Rodgers. which was approved by the 
     Court on October 23, 2006, and the San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Act that is currently pending in Congress could 
     be interpreted as modifying the contract between the Exchange 
     Contractors and the United States (Contract # Ilr-1144. as 
     amended February 14, 1968).
       As I said at the meeting in Los Banos, and I reiterate 
     again. Reclamation does not interpret the Settlement or the 
     proposed legislation as modifying the obligations of the 
     United States under the Exchange Contract. Instead, 
     Reclamation's obligations under the Contract remain 
     unchanged. As a result, if a situation were to occur where 
     Settlement flows conflicted with Reclamation making necessary 
     deliveries under the Contract with the Exchange Contractors, 
     which as we discuss below is highly unlikely, Reclamation 
     would make water available to meet the contractual 
     requirements, consistent with the Contract.
       My understanding is that the reason you are elevating this 
     issue now is because of a recent Federal District Court 
     decision affecting the operations of the Central Valley 
     Project (CVP) operations in the Delta. At the meeting in Los 
     Banos, a chart was handed out that was said to represent the 
     likely future CVP water supply south of the Delta given 
     pumping restrictions that result from the Federal District 
     Court's decision. The Exchange Contractors interpreted this 
     chart to show that in two out of every ten years. Reclamation 
     would not be able to fully meet the Exchange Contractor 
     demands from the Delta, thus requiring Reclamation to make 
     deliveries to Mendota Pool via the San Joaquin River from 
     Friant Dam. You expressed a specific concern that the flows 
     required by the Settlement for restoration could cause 
     interference with your water deliveries, in that available 
     channel capacity will be used to deliver the flows required 
     by the Settlement at times when the Exchange Contractors need 
     to receive water from Friant Dam.
       After further review of the chart that was distributed in 
     Los Banos, Reclamation does not concur with the findings 
     presented on the chart. Since receiving your chart. 
     Reclamation completed some preliminary analysis based on 
     information developed for our on-going consultation on the 
     continued long-term operations of the CVP and State Water 
     Project. Our assessment is that, even with the current 
     Interim Federal District Court order in place, we are able to 
     fully meet the Exchange Contractor demands from the Delta in 
     all years. I would also point out that you provided no credit 
     at the meeting as to who completed the analysis, nor could 
     anyone describe the assumptions that were used to generate 
     the chart.
       As a way to move forward with addressing your concerns. I 
     suggest representatives of the Exchange Contractors meet with 
     Reclamation to discuss the long-term CVP delivery 
     projections, as well as various operational scenarios for the 
     Settlement flows. Such discussions should alleviate your 
     concerns with regard to the risk to your water deliveries.
       I look forward to working with you as we implement the 
     restoration program. Please contact Jason Phillips if you 
     have any questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Donald R. Glaser,
     Regional Director.
                                  ____

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                        Bureau of Reclamation,

                                Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2008.
     Subject: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (S 27/
         H.R. 4074; H.R. 151)--Hills Ferry Barrier Effectiveness 
         Evaluation.

     Mr. Jeffrey R. Single,
     Regional Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, 
         Fresno, CA.
       Dear Mr. Single: Third Parties have expressed new concerns 
     related to the operation of the Hills Ferry Barrier (Barrier) 
     in response to recent amendments to the proposed San Joaquin 
     River Restoration Settlement Act. In addition, during 
     discussions among the Settling Parties and Third Parties, 
     Reclamation agreed to exchange letters with the California 
     Department of Fish and Game (DFG) regarding the evaluation of 
     the effectiveness of thc Barrier in preventing the upstream 
     migration of anadromous fish, such as adult Chinook salmon, 
     steelhead, and sturgeon. This letter explains Reclamation's 
     commitment to assist DFG in its operation of the Barrier 
     program as needed during the Interim Flows program.
       As you are aware, the relationship of the Barrier operation 
     and the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (Program) have 
     already been discussed by the Program's Fisheries Management 
     Work Group (FMWG). I propose that the issue regarding 
     evaluation of the effectiveness of the Barrier, as well as 
     all other actions associated with the relationship of the 
     Barrier operations to the Program, continue to be addressed 
     by the FMWG. The FMWG, in cooperation with DFG, will assess 
     whether alternative designs to maximize the Barrier 
     effectiveness are needed in an effort to reduce unintended 
     anadromous fish migrations upstream of the Barrier on the San 
     Joaquin River. If it is determined that any such migration 
     past the Barrier is caused by the introduction of Interim 
     Flows, and that the presence of such fish will result in the 
     imposition of additional regulatory actions against Third 
     Parties, the Secretary would be authorized under the proposed 
     legislation to assist DFG in making improvements to the 
     Barrier as necessary, or to take other equivalent actions, 
     such as assisting with the salvage of fish that get past the 
     Barrier, if DFG requests such assistance.
       I look forward to working with you as we implement the 
     restoration program. Please contact me if you have any 
     questions.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Jason Phillips,
     Program Manager.
                                  ____



                                  Department of Fish and Game,

                                      Fresno, CA, January 5, 2009.
     Subject: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (S 27/
         H.R. 4074; H.R. 151)--Hills Ferry Barrier Effectiveness 
         Evaluation.

     Mr. Jason Phillips,
     Program Manager, San Joaquin River Restoration Program, U.S. 
         Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA.
       Dear Mr. Phillips: Per your recent letter dated December 
     22, 2008, the California Department of Fish and Game 
     (Department) thanks you for communicating the U.S. Bureau of 
     Reclamation's (Reclamation) commitment to assist the 
     Department with the operation of the Hills Ferry Barrier 
     (Barrier) during implementation of the San Joaquin River 
     Restoration Program's (SJRRP) Interim Flows.
       We concur with your proposal that issue regarding 
     evaluation of the effectiveness of the Barrier, as well as 
     all other actions associated with the relationship of the 
     Barrier operations to the Program, continue to be addressed 
     by the Fisheries Management Working Group (FMWG). Such 
     actions could include assessing more effective designs for 
     the barrier, assisting the Department in making improvements 
     to the Barrier as necessary, or taking other equivalent 
     actions, such as assisting with the salvage of fish that get 
     past the Barrier, if the Department requests such assistance.
       The Department looks forward to the continued cooperation 
     and assistance provided by Reclamation and the SJRRP's 
     Program Fisheries Management Work Group to preclude and/or 
     resolve issues.
           Sincerely,
                                         Jeffrey R. Single, Ph.D.,
                                                 Regional Manager.

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly discuss the 
Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez Canyon 
Wilderness Area Act, which is included in the omnibus public lands 
package, S. 22, that we are currently considering on the floor.
  The Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area and Dominguez 
Canyon Wilderness Area Act would designate approximately 210,000 acres 
of federally-owned land on the Uncompahgre plateau as the Dominguez-
Escalante National Conservation Area, NCA, of which approximately 
65,000 acres would be designated as the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness 
Area.
  The legislation is the product of several years of work in local 
communities to find a way of better protecting these Federal lands in 
Montrose, Delta, and Mesa Counties in

[[Page S379]]

Colorado. I was proud to introduce this legislation and to work with 
Senator Wayne Allard on it in the 110th Congress. Senator Udall has 
been a great champion as well, and he is the cosponsor of the Senate 
legislation this year. Congressman John Salazar has been the leader of 
this effort in the House and again this year introduced a companion 
bill in the House of Representatives. The legislation has broad support 
in local communities and I am hopeful we will pass it in the coming 
days.
  I briefly want to make a few points about the bill.
  First, the water rights language of the bill was carefully crafted to 
strike a balance between Federal interests and State law. The area 
boundaries in the bill are crafted to specifically exclude the Gunnison 
River from the wilderness area. The bill disclaims any new Federal 
reserved water rights, instead relying principally on the State of 
Colorado's instream flow program to provide and protect the stream 
flows necessary to maintain the purposes of the wilderness within the 
conservation area in perpetuity. However, the Secretary of the 
Department of the Interior is directed to appropriate and file for a 
non-reserved Federal instream water right to ensure protection of such 
stream flows in the circumstance that the State's program proves 
unsuccessful or insufficient. Such filing must be made in Colorado's 
water court and will follow the procedural requirements of Colorado 
law. Additionally, water users' water quality concerns were addressed 
by clarifying that no higher water quality standard than would 
otherwise be appropriate is attached to the designating of the National 
Conservation Area.
  The water language in the bill will help ensure that we are able to 
protect the water resources of area streams, based on seasonally 
available flows, that are necessary to support aquatic, riparian, and 
terrestrial species and communities in the conservation area and in the 
wilderness area.
  Second, I am pleased that this bill protects the life estate of Mr. 
Billyie Rambo. Mr. Rambo lives within the boundaries of the proposed 
national conservation area so we worked to make sure that the 
legislation would have no effect on valid existing rights.
  Third, I want to enter into the record a narrative description of the 
boundary of the wilderness area that this legislation would create. 
This description is consistent with the map referred to in the 
legislation.
  Beginning at the northernmost point of the wilderness where the 
wilderness boundary adjoins private property, at Dad's Flat, and 
reading counterclockwise around the wilderness, the wilderness 
boundary:
  Follows the private property line westward to a point 30 feet off the 
centerline of the road leading to the private property from the 
southwest; follows the road, at a set-back 30 feet from the centerline 
of the road or 30 feet from select existing stockponds along that road, 
to the point at which the road and the original wilderness study area--
WSA--boundary diverge; from that point, the boundary follows the WSA 
boundary--with select set-backs for existing stockponds and roads, and 
following select drainages, rims, elevation contours, and national 
forest boundaries around Wagon Park--to the point at which the WSA 
boundary reaches Delta county road; follows the WSA boundary, 
immediately adjacent to Division of Wildlife land--no set-back--and at 
a set-back 100 feet from the centerline of the county road, to the 
point at which the WSA boundary reaches private land; generally follows 
WSA boundary, at a set-back of 100 feet from private land, adjacent to 
Division of Wildlife Land--no set-back, and 100 feet from the 
centerline of the county road, as applicable, but with three variations 
on the reference noted immediately above: from the point approximately 
38 degrees 41'35.05" N 108 degrees 18'28.91" W to the point 
approximately 38 degrees 41'38.87" N 108 degrees 18'28.98" W, the 
boundary follows the base of the first visible rim; near an existing 
structure, the boundary is moved to a point 50 feet set back from 
existing water development; near the ``stack yard'' north of the county 
road, from the point approximately 38 degrees 42'04.32" N 108 degrees 
18'01.71" W to the point approximately 38 degrees 42'04.29N 108 degrees 
17'55.26" W, the boundary follows an arc with apex 200 feet north of 
the county road; beginning at the northeast corner of the wilderness--
southwest of Escalante townsite, and continuing to the point at which 
private and Federal land adjoin at the edge of the Gunnison River south 
of Bridgeport townsite, the boundary follows a line variously 100 feet 
set-back from private land or 100 feet set-back from the centerline of 
access road, except: beginning at a point approximately 38 degrees 
45'40.11" N 108 degrees 17'00.95" W and continuing approximately 1,500 
feet northwest, follows the road at a set-back 200 feet from the 
centerline of the road; beginning at a point approximately 38 degrees 
45'48.58" N 108 degrees 17'20.32" W and continuing approximately 2,000 
feet northwest, follows the road at a set-back 200 feet from the 
centerline of the road; beginning at a point near existing cultivated 
land south of the Gunnison River--southeast of Dominguez townsite and 
continuing approximately 2,000 feet northwest, follows the trail at the 
base of the rise, beginning at approximately 38 degrees 47'07.75" N; 
108 degress, 18'50.25" W with a southern apex at approximately 38 
degress, 47'38.09" N; 108 degrees 19'21.49" W and meeting the 100 foot 
setback of the road at approximately 38 degrees 47'38.9" N; 108 degrees 
19'39.23" W beginning at a point near large side canyon that drains 
from the southwest) (southwest of Peeples townsite), and continuing 
approximately 5,000 feet northwest, the boundary follows the road at a 
set-back of 100 feet south from private land; beginning at the western 
end of the east-west private land line, where that line touches the 
Gunnison River south of Bridgeport townsite, and following the southern 
edge of the river to the mouth of Dominguez Canyon, the boundary 
follows the edge of the Gunnison River--the boundary changes with the 
river level--the river is out of wilderness, land immediately adjacent 
is in wilderness; at the mouth of Dominguez Canyon, the boundary 
circles around an existing water diversion at a set-back 100 feet; 
follows the ditch at a set-back 100 feet from the ditch to private 
land, then 100 feet set-back from private land; beginning at the 
western end of the east-west private land line, where that line touches 
the Gunnison River, and following the southern edge of the river to the 
next private land line--beginning point for full boundary description, 
the boundary follows the edge of the Gunnison River--changes with river 
level--river is out of wilderness, adjacent land is in wilderness; thus 
returning to the beginning point.
  I want to thank all the stakeholders in Colorado who worked so hard 
on this legislation. I want to thank Chairman Bingaman and his staff, 
along with Ranking Member Domenici, Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator 
Allard, Senator Udall, Congressman Salazar and their staffs, for 
helping move this bill through the legislative process. This is a 
strong, sensible bill that has broad support. I am proud of all the 
progress we have made and hope that it will pass both houses of 
Congress in the coming weeks.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to give you the 
reasons why I voted against the motion to invoke cloture on S. 22, the 
Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
  I support this legislation on its merit. The bill is a collection of 
priorities for many of my Senate colleagues, most of which concern 
public land matters specific to their home States. Indeed, I have 
actively supported two provisions in S. 22 that concern my home State 
of Pennsylvania: reauthorization of the Delaware and Lehigh National 
Heritage Corridor and the Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route 
National Historic Trail Designation Act. Moreover, I believe this 
legislation will go a long way to help preserve and protect some of our 
country's most pristine land for future generations without seriously 
compromising our national capacity to develop domestic energy.
  It is for these reasons and others that it is particularly 
unfortunate that the majority leader has decided to fill the amendment 
tree and thus demonstrate his intention to utilize in this Congress, 
procedural roadblocks to deny the rights of the minority to offer 
amendments. For more than 200 years this body has prided itself on 
careful deliberation of legislation. Free and fair debate is the 
hallmark of the U.S.

[[Page S380]]

Senate, and I am not prepared to accept the abdication of these 
traditions for the purpose of political expediency for the majority 
party.
  In the 110th Congress, the majority leader used this tactic to block 
Republican amendments on 16 different occasions. Important legislation 
such as FAA reauthorization, climate change legislation, an energy 
speculation legislation and energy speculation legislation were all 
derailed because the majority leader's decision to deviate from regular 
order and deny minority participation in the debate.
  Mr. President, as my colleagues have mentioned, it has been over 120 
days since a Republican amendment has received consideration on the 
floor. It is my hope that the Senate will return to fair procedures for 
debate, which have well served this proud institution since its 
inception.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________