[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11526-11529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         A HISTORIC COMPROMISE

  Mr. PRYOR. Madam President, I rise today to discuss something that 
happened this week in the Senate, something I was involved in, and 
something that received quite a bit of notice outside this Chamber, and 
that is a compromise that was reached. I think it was a historic 
compromise. I think it is a very good thing for the Nation. In fact, I 
would say it was a win for Democrats, a win for the Republicans, and, 
most importantly, it was a win for the American people.
  Some in my party, some in the other party, may disagree with what I 
just said, but I think when you look back through American history--and 
you can look at all the major legislative accomplishments that have 
occurred--most of those have occurred in this body.
  This body is known for its ability to compromise. I look at these 
chairs and these desks in this body, and I can see the faces of my 
colleagues and of those who have departed this Chamber. This is a body 
that has a very special role in American history and in American 
Government.
  I have heard some say they do not like compromise. In fact, I must 
say I was disappointed--I was listening to talk radio yesterday, and 
someone said some of us Senators who compromised

[[Page 11527]]

are in the middle, and no one supports the middle. I cannot disagree 
more. I think people all over this country are looking for Senators to 
show leadership, to find common ground. I think that is one result that 
has been sorely missing in the Congress. When you talk to people 
outside of the Beltway, that is one result they are hoping for, that we 
will find that common ground and we will have leadership in Washington 
that understands you do not have to sacrifice your principles in order 
to find common ground.
  In fact, in the very famous book written by John Kennedy, ``Profiles 
in Courage,'' he says:

       We should not be too hasty in condemning all compromise as 
     bad morals. For politics and legislation are not matters for 
     inflexible principles or unattainable ideals.

  This is politics. This is a human institution. This is Government. I 
feel those 14 Senators who reached this agreement--13 of my great 
colleagues who reached this agreement--took one of the most contentious 
issues in recent years off the table. Hopefully, they took it off for 
the remainder of this Congress. I feel as though we took it off for the 
remainder of the Congress because I sat in those rooms, I talked to my 
colleagues, and I know the high level of trust we have with one 
another.
  This entire agreement is based on trust. It is an example that 
amazing things can happen when Senators talk to each other--just talk 
to each other. I feel that is why the people of Arkansas sent me to 
Washington, to try to be a bridge builder, to try to be a peacemaker, 
to try to find common ground on a wide variety of issues that are best 
for Arkansas and best for the Nation and, in some cases, best for the 
world.
  Senators here in Washington, unfortunately, in the last few years 
have gotten into the habit of talking about each other and not talking 
to each other. I hope one of the results that comes from this agreement 
is a new spirit of bipartisanship, a new commitment that we can reach 
across party lines, reach across the aisle, to try to work together to 
solve the challenges that are facing America.
  There are many sensible voices in the Senate. Many, many, many--in 
fact, all--have reasonable minds. And one thing I found a little bit 
humorous, some of the press coverage about this agreement was that they 
said these were moderates who reached this agreement. Let me tell you, 
some were moderates, but many in this group were not moderates, and 
they would be offended if we called them moderates. In fact, I heard a 
number of them say ``I don't ever want to be considered a moderate,'' 
for one reason or another. But they demonstrated a spirit of 
bipartisanship that I think should be applauded.
  Sometimes when you make a compromise, you are taking the easy way 
out. But this was a compromise that required courage. This compromise 
required a lot of courage on behalf of all my colleagues, especially--
especially, might I underline--the seven Republicans who entered into 
this agreement. It was very hard for Democrats and Republicans to do. 
But I will tell you, I know my seven Republican colleagues who did 
this, who demonstrated their trust, not just of each of us but of this 
institution, demonstrated a lot of courage. I take my hat off to them 
in appreciation.
  Two more points I would like to make on this issue.
  First, I need to thank three people; that is, my wife Jill, my son 
Adam, and my daughter Porter. For all I know, they may be watching 
right now. It is getting pretty close to bedtime around our house. But 
they made the sacrifice, too, so I could be part of this Senate and be 
up here away from home. But also, Dad was not home a lot in the last 
few days because I was here trying to work through this agreement as 
best I could and trying to get this done. So I thank them.
  But in a broader sense, I did this agreement for them because I was 
very concerned that when you looked at the nuclear option, if that 
trigger was pulled, you had a nuclear winter that would follow. I was 
very concerned that the Congress, particularly the Senate, would not 
get very much done this session.
  I thought that would be a huge disservice to the American people. I 
thought it was time for reasonable minds to come together to try to 
work something out. In fact, in the Book of Isaiah, it says: ``Come 
now, let us reason together.'' And maybe that should be something we 
should take to heart. The people of our States, every State in the 
Union, only get to send two Senators to Washington.
  I think they expect us to exercise good judgment and exercise our 
discretion and also, from time to time, exercise courage to try to do 
the right thing.
  So I commend my 13 colleagues who entered into this agreement. They 
took a lot of time and made a lot of sacrifice, and it took a lot of 
courage. Many of them have taken a lot of criticism for doing this. I 
want to say publicly that I thank them and I appreciate them and I am 
proud of them for what they did.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, before our friend from Arkansas leaves the 
floor, let me also say, if his children are watching, they should be 
very proud of their father. I have had the privilege of serving with 
the Senator's father. In fact, we sat next to each other as I arrived 
here as a freshman Senator. The Pryor and Dodd families go back for 
some time.
  I want you to know that what you and your 13 colleagues did last 
week--and nobody can say for certain where this is going to lead, but 
you have given this institution an opportunity to continue its 
tradition of providing the one place in Government where all voices can 
be heard. That is not true in anyplace in the executive branch, 
necessarily, or the judicial branch. And even in the legislative 
branch, in the other body, the majority rules.
  The Senate is the one place where all voices must be listened to. 
Because of what you and our 13 other colleagues--6 other Democrats and 
7 Republicans--were willing to sit down and try to fashion, we have 
been given a chance to live up to the longstanding, historic traditions 
of this place in which we have been privileged to have been elected to 
serve. There have been 1,884 of us in 218 years who were chosen by our 
States to represent their interests and the Nation in the Senate. I can 
just say to my friend from Arkansas, you will be involved in a lot of 
issues during what I hope is a long career for you here in the years 
ahead. You will look back, and there will only be a handful of moments 
that will stand out, and I am willing to predict that what you, 
Senators McCain, Nelson, Lieberman, Collins, Byrd, Warner, Graham, 
Snowe, DeWine, Landrieu, Salazar, Chafee, and Inouye have done will 
remain one of the important memories. You will look back and think of 
the things you have been involved in and, hopefully, the list will be 
long.
  As one Senator who was not involved in the negotiations you went 
through but was watching them carefully--and again, we cannot say with 
certainty where it is going to lead--I commend you and history will 
commend you for what you are doing. I love the idea that you did it for 
your family and your children. They will look back with pride on the 
service of their father.
  Mr. President, we went through a little bit of a turmoil here. 
Obviously, coming in the wake of this negotiation, I suppose some 
people's eyebrows may be raised, wondering how can we do that 
compromise and then end up with an awkward situation on the Bolton 
nomination, which became contentious for a few minutes. I will add my 
voice to that.
  My fervent hope is that people will not misunderstand the intentions 
of 24 Senators, and others, when we raised the question going back to 
April 11 about certain information. All of my colleagues are not 
familiar with all of the details of the case, although the Presiding 
Officer was very much a part of the discussion we have had over the 
last couple of months. Whether we are for or against the nomination, 
the

[[Page 11528]]

point I was trying to make is that an institution--the Senate--has a 
right to certain information when it involves a pertinent matter before 
it.
  It has been a historic struggle between the executive and legislative 
branches. There is always that tension between these two branches of 
Government over access to information. Regardless of one's political 
affiliation, whether you are in the majority or the minority, no matter 
what administration is in the White House, my experience over 2\1/2\ 
decades, serving under every imaginable configuration, is that it is 
always healthy to insist on information that the institution thinks is 
important for its consideration of a matter--be it substantive or the 
executive branch calendar.
  I want to say to my colleagues, those who have gone through this 
process of negotiations that avoided the constitutional crisis 
regarding extended debate, what happened here in the last few hours is 
not in any way disruptive of what occurred during those negotiations. 
It is my strong hope and desire that the information we seek will be 
forthcoming in the next few days, that the committees can analyze it 
all, and when we return to this body after the break, the matter of 
John Bolton can come before this body and we will have an up-or-down 
vote on the nomination, as it should be. It is my strong desire that 
that be the outcome.
  This was not intended, in any way, to engage in a filibuster but 
strictly to determine whether this institution would say to the 
executive branch, respectfully: This is information we believe we need. 
We are asking you to provide it in an orderly way to those Members who 
are entitled to this information--the chair of the Intelligence 
Committee, the ranking Democrat, the chair of the Foreign Relations and 
ranking Democrat--for them to determine whether there is relevancy to 
this information as it pertains to this nomination.
  Again, I thank the majority leader. It probably doesn't help his 
cause to hear this, but Bill Frist made a serious effort over the last 
couple of days, not that he necessarily even supported the request, but 
he certainly conveyed the request in a serious way to leaders within 
the executive branch. I thank him for that. He didn't have to do that, 
and he did. I regret that the administration didn't reply in an orderly 
way, which could have avoided all of this in the last 48 hours. I hope 
they will take this seriously. I say to my friends on the majority 
side, having been in your shoes in other administrations, it can 
happen.
  There is always this tension between these two branches of Government 
about information. We need to be clear about it. We have a 
constitutional responsibility, where appropriate, to seek information 
that is important for our consideration.
  So it is my fervent hope that we go away for a few days and 
recognize, as so eloquently Senator Salazar said, speaking about his 
father, a World War II veteran, insisting upon being buried in his 
uniform, that we recognize those who have given a lot more to provide 
the freedoms we enjoy as Americans, that we are very much living up to 
what they fought and died for over this Memorial Day break as we 
recognize their contributions. They fought and died for exactly what we 
are doing here.
  This doesn't happen miraculously. A democracy is won by each and 
every generation in this country. There is no guarantee that it exists 
in perpetuity. Each generation of Americans will confront, one way or 
another, a challenge to our democratic values and principles. 
Certainly, the generation that fought and died for this country over 
the years has proven that categorically.
  We are going to be challenged as well from time to time. So I 
fervently hope--and Members who have served with me know I am the least 
comfortable with getting involved in opposing a nominee. The only 
trouble I have gotten into in nominations is when I have been for 
nominees to the disappointment of colleagues on this side. I was told I 
had no business to be for John Ashcroft and John Tower. I am not 
comfortable not being for somebody. I took the position I did, and I 
hope we can resolve this matter over the next few days and get back to 
the business of voting up or down and move on to other business that is 
important to our constituents.
  I was heartened to hear that Democrats and Republicans were able to 
work out differences on an energy bill. That is going to be exciting to 
deal with; it is an issue in which our constituents are interested. I 
would be remiss in not recognizing the Presiding Officer in the 
tremendous work he has done, along with Senator Jeffords and Senator 
Reid and Senator Baucus. There is a lot of work in front of you. Those 
are the issues we need to work together on here. So while there may be 
some bruised feelings right away over a vote we just took, I hope we 
can put those behind us and resolve the matter and get about doing the 
business the people sent us here to do.
  To my colleagues, I wish them a healthy, happy, and safe Memorial 
Day, and I look forward to seeing them on our return here and moving 
forward with the business at hand.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). The Senator from Alaska is 
recognized.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am sorry that our colleague from 
Arkansas has left the floor because I was sitting there listening to 
his comments and his recognition and acknowledgements of the 14 
Senators who worked on the compromise this past week and all the 
efforts they had made.
  I commend him and all the others of that group and all those who 
encouraged us as a body, as Senators--not as Republicans, not as 
Democrats but as Senators--to move forward so that we could get through 
what I certainly believe was a great impasse in this body, to work 
through the issues, to get us to the point where we cannot only move 
through the President's judicial nominees, but that we can do the rest 
of the work with which the Senate is tasked.
  The good Senator from Connecticut has just mentioned the Energy bill 
and the Transportation bill--these issues the country is waiting for, 
the country is asking for, and the work that is incumbent upon us as a 
body to get to.
  So I am pleased that we are at the point where we are, not spending 
hours on the floor today to discuss nuclear options or constitutional 
options, but that we are talking about the work before us as we look 
forward to these upcoming months. I do see a sense of compromise that 
will be necessary if we have any plans at all to accomplish that which 
I think this country expects us to do.
  I am pleased that we have gotten through to this point. I do 
recognize the bump in the road we just had this afternoon, but I 
believe that with the same amount of determination that got us to a 
resolve on the judicial nominees, we will be able to do the work of the 
country.


                                  BRAC

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise this evening for just a few 
minutes to talk about the upcoming BRAC and the impact we are seeing in 
my State of Alaska, up in the interior, in the communities of Fairbanks 
and North Pole. They call this the golden heart of the State of Alaska.
  The people of Alaska are strong and very consistent supporters of a 
strong national defense. They are even stronger supporters of the men 
and women who serve in our military and their families. In a State 
where support for our servicemen and servicewomen and their missions is 
both given and constant, the golden heart of Alaska probably beats 
strongest in the areas of Fairbanks and North Pole.
  So on the morning of May 13--Friday the 13th, oddly enough--the 
people of the interior of Alaska awoke to the news that the Department 
of Defense had proposed to realign Eielson Air Force Base. Under the 
terms of this realignment, all of the Air Force active-duty operations 
would be transferred elsewhere. The realignment would cause the 
relocation of about 2,800 Air Force personnel and 3,300 dependents. It 
would cause the loss of 4,700 jobs, both military and civilian jobs, 
within the Fairbanks area. It would mean the full transfer of A-10 and 
F-16 aircraft

[[Page 11529]]

to bases in the lower 48. It would wreak havoc on the local economy and 
force major changes upon the Fairbanks North Star Borough School 
District.
  To the people of interior Alaska, they do not look at this as a 
realignment. It sounds to them, to us, exactly like a closing.
  Two weeks after the fact, the people of interior Alaska are still 
scratching their heads and wondering why, what is going on here, what 
has happened up here? General Billy Mitchell prophesied back in 1935. 
He said:

       In the future, he who holds Alaska holds the world.

  General Mitchell characterized Alaska as the most important strategic 
place in the world, and this is as true today as it was in 1935.
  Alaska is closer to the European and Pacific theaters by air than 
perhaps any other place in North America. Our armed services can deploy 
forces from Alaska to Asia much more quickly than units on the west 
coast of the United States. And if future developments limit overseas 
basing, Alaska will be even more critical in America's ability to 
respond to a crisis within a specific area of responsibility.
  Yet 2 weeks after we learn of this news, the Air Force cannot--or 
will not--tell the people of Fairbanks why. Immediately after the BRAC 
list was released, my staff contacted appropriate staff members in the 
Office of Legislative Liaison for the Secretary of the Air Force. We 
asked for a copy of the entire administrative record which supports 
their recommendation to realign Eielson.
  For the better part of 2 weeks, there was no response to that 
request. Then suddenly this week, we get an e-mail from an Air Force 
legislative liaison saying the material could not yet be provided 
because it is undergoing what they call security review. The Air Force 
legislative liaison could not hazard a guess on when the material would 
be released.
  They are still in no position to explain to me or to the people of 
interior Alaska why a base that we thought was of such strategic 
importance to our Nation's defense would become little more than a 
refueling station for fighter aircraft based somewhere else.
  The people of interior Alaska deserve to know why, and I certainly 
deserve to know why. The answers to these questions are more than just 
academic interest. On June 15, the Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission will conduct a hearing on the recommendations pertaining to 
Eielson Air Force Base. The community has enlisted the president of the 
University of Alaska, retired Army MG Mark Hamilton to take the lead in 
presenting its case. The community is working very hard at this moment 
to put together a very thoughtful and well-researched presentation.
  At this point, we are less than 30 days, a couple of weeks from the 
date upon which that presentation, that do-or-die presentation, must be 
delivered to the BRAC Commission. And yet still the Air Force cannot 
release the detailed analysis which supported their recommendations.
  This is unfair to the community that has offered nothing but 
unconditional love and support for the military. It goes beyond 
conscionable.
  So I have joined with Senator Snowe from Maine, as well as other 
colleagues, to tell the Defense Department that their lack of candor 
with the community that will suffer under the BRAC process has worn 
thin. I am proud to join with Senator Snowe and other colleagues to 
sponsor legislation that requires the Department of Defense to turn 
over the records supporting its BRAC recommendations and particularly 
the information supporting its conclusions as to the military value of 
the bases on the list.
  We expect through this legislation that this information will be 
provided to the Congress within 7 days of the passage of the 
legislation. If the Defense Department cannot do this, then the 
legislation requires that the BRAC process should stop.
  Also this evening, I signed onto a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, 
cosigned by a number of my colleagues who are expressing the same 
concern, seeking full justification for base closures in their areas. I 
would like to read one paragraph of this letter:

       The failure of the Department of Defense to provide all of 
     the justification data used to recommend closing or 
     realigning installations in a timely fashion is anything but 
     ``fair, open or equitable.'' The Department of Defense has 
     had over two years to review and collect this data and people 
     associated with the installations selected foreclosure should 
     have at a minimum two weeks to review prior to any BRAC 
     hearings or site visits. Sufficient time to review this data 
     is necessary to ensure they can make an appeal based on the 
     criteria established by the Department of Defense.

  Again, yet one more effort from Senators, from those who are 
concerned about the effect that BRAC closures will have on our 
respective communities, a request for information, a request for the 
data that is supposed to be provided to us. We have to sign on to 
letters, we have to sign on to introduce legislation saying you must do 
this within this time period or the close BRAC process stops. We should 
not have to be going to these measures to get the information.
  The BRAC commission process was never intended to be a rubberstamp of 
the Department of Defense recommendations. The Congress intended that 
it be an open process, a thoughtful process, but most importantly an 
intellectually rigorous process.
  While the economies of many of our communities are at stake, this is 
not the most important reason that we have a BRAC process. This process 
is intended to assure the Congress and the people that our national 
security objectives are not compromised in the quest to save money. We 
know the BRAC process is well underway. It is high time that the 
Defense Department shed some sunlight on the reasons for their 
recommendations. The good people of interior Alaska should not be left 
in the position of defending the future of Eielson Air Force Base on 
June 15 with both hands tied behind their back, and they should not 
have to be burning the midnight oil in the hours leading up to that 
hearing studying material that should have been provided weeks earlier. 
They do not deserve it, we do not deserve it, and our Nation's security 
certainly deserves better than this.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. 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 majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________