Senate Record - February 12, 2007
From dKosopedia
| Congressional Record | |
|---|---|
| Senate - February 12, 2007 - week 7 | |
| 110th - United States Congress | |
| |
| Senate Majority Leader | Harry Reid |
| Minority Leader | Mitch McConnell |
| Previous | Thursday - February 8, 2007 |
| Next | afternoon session (cont.) |
These are consolidate excerpts from the Congressional Record, covering the major actions of the United States Senate in the 110th United States Congress on February 12, 2007. For the daily summary of the actions in the Senate click here. For a summary of the actions in the House click here, and for Congress as a whole on this date, click here.
Only major action or debates are usually included in these excerpts. For the complete Congressional Record for this date, click on the THOMAS link (i.e. the date within the title of the opening header) in the article below.
Contents
|
On the Floor
Afternoon Session - Monday, February 12, 2007
The Senate met at 1 p.m. and was called to order by the Honorable Ben Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
Schedule
The Acting President pro tempore - The majority leader is recognized.
Harry Reid-D (NV), Majority Leader
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, today, following whatever time the leaders utilize, the Senate will be in morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each. Last Thursday, we began consideration of the continuing resolution. I then filed cloture, and that cloture vote will occur tomorrow morning, which is Tuesday.
As Members are aware, the current funding resolution expires at midnight on Thursday, February 15. We have to complete action on this matter so it can be signed by the President. This is important. Members have until 2:30 p.m. today to file any first-degree amendments to the resolution. As I previously announced, there will be no rollcall votes today.
The Economic Future of America
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, today I wish to talk about the economic future of our country.
The economic future of our country is bleak. During the last 3 years of the Clinton administration, this Federal Government was spending less money than it was taking in. We actually retired the national debt by half a trillion dollars. Since President Clinton left office, we have had the highest deficits in the history of our country. The Bush budgets have been recordbreakers but in the wrong way. We are $3 trillion in new debt in the last 6 years. We have doubled the amount of money we owe China and Japan, and we owe money—to Saudi Arabia, Singapore, on and on—to other countries. We even had to borrow money from Mexico in recent years.
Senator Conrad has indicated—and I have spent hours with him. I have spent hours with him and Judd Gregg-R talking about what we can do for the long-term economic future of this country. I had hopes and anticipation, but then these hopes were washed away. As Vice President Cheney says, we are doing nothing to change revenues in any way. It is a one-way street, this administration—all for the rich, nothing for the poor, and in between the poor and the rich, the middle class is being squeezed. The rich are getting richer, far richer, and the poor are getting poorer.
I am disappointed—and that is an understatement—in the budget we received recently from the President. It is like Iraq: He refuses to reverse course. The budget is the same, more of the same.
Let's see why we should be concerned about this budget. It wasn't long ago that Vice President Cheney insisted that deficits don't matter. I was speaking today to a publisher of a large newspaper—owns newspapers all over the country—and he and I lamented that we always thought Republicans were for fiscal conservatism, fiscal integrity. That is gone. No one believes anymore that they care—red ink as far as you can see. And, as Vice President Cheney insisted, deficits don't matter. But he is wrong. I know he and many on the other side of the aisle obviously believe deficits don't matter. The Republicans obviously believe this. Senate Republicans and House Republicans may believe that but a lot fewer now than before November 6 because Republicans all over the country believe deficits do matter. They do believe in fiscal integrity, that you pay your bills, you don't spend money you don't have.
We Democrats agree with mainstream Republicans across the country.
We believe in fiscal responsibility because history proves that it works, and we are convinced that massive deficits allowed to continue will undermine growth and weaken America's future. It is no different from your own personal bank accounts, how you take care of your home, your family. Sure, there may come times when you have to borrow money, but you need to pay it back. You can't have deficit-spending as far as the eye can see. How has the Republican Party gotten off on allowing these huge deficits to keep building?
The administration's budget it just gave us shows they are still trapped in an outdated and discredited ideology. Rather than accepting the need for discipline, President Bush's budget continues to reject the strong pay-as-you-go rules. What does this mean, pay-as-you-go? This is the rule we had in the Clinton years. What it means is that if you are going to lower taxes, you have to figure out a way to pay for it. If you are going to have a new spending program, you have to have a way to pay for it. You just can't borrow money, which is what has happened under President Bush. Pay-as-you-go rules during the Clinton years promoted fiscal responsibility.
Rather than reducing our debt, as the Democrats did under President Clinton, the Bush budget calls for an additional $2.5 trillion in new borrowing, causing our debt to balloon to almost $12 trillion. I am not making up these numbers. They come directly from the President's budget. The real numbers are even worse than those you find in the President's budget, which leads me to my second major concern about the President's budget—its refusal to be honest with the American people.
Let's begin with the cost of the Iraq war. While the President continues to resist bipartisan efforts to reverse the political and military course in Iraq, his own budget takes a very different approach. In fact, the budget contains $50 billion only for the war in 2009 and nothing thereafter. Does that mean the administration really wants to pull the troops out? Of course not. They want to have it both ways—they want the war, but they don't want to pay for it. And their deceptive budget isn't playing it straight. It is not being honest.
The war costs, unfortunately, are only one example of the budgets deception. Their budget also uses rosy assumptions about expected revenues. In 2012 alone, the President assumes that revenue will be $155 billion more than projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. So instead of a rosy surplus, Bush's budget would run a huge deficit.
Beyond rosy assumptions, the budget also claims to reach balance by assuming deep future cuts in domestic priorities such as education. But how? Few details. Exactly which programs will be cut? No details. By how much? Not for sure. Few details. And who will be affected? The budget doesn't say. We know some.
Perhaps even more important than its debt and deception, the Bush budget is simply disconnected from the needs of middle-class America. Too many families today are struggling with stagnating wages and rising prices for everything from health care to the groceries we buy. That is certainly true in Nevada. But instead of developing new ways to meet these needs, the budget offers few, if any, new ideas that would help. In fact, many of its cuts would make matters worse. For example, the budget underfunds the State Children's Health Insurance Program which would jeopardize existing health coverage and leave millions of children uninsured. Its ill-conceived health proposal would threaten existing private health coverage and actually drive up premiums, the experts say. The budget cuts $300 billion from Medicare and Medicaid and thus increases health care costs for many seniors. The budget cuts education by $2 billion, and it even cuts programs that are important to veterans and police officers.
These cuts would have a major impact on many of my constituents and many of the Presiding Officer's constituents. Every State in the Union would feel the impact. There are already over 100,000 children in Nevada without health insurance. The Bush budget would increase that number. At the same time, its deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid threaten about 300,000 Nevadans who rely on Medicare and 170,000 Nevadans who depend on Medicaid.
Unfortunately, at the same time the administration is cutting programs important to the middle class and the poor, they are insisting on spending hundreds of billions of dollars for handouts for multimillionaires. I know the administration generally believes that the very wealthy are the engine of economic growth. Democrats disagree. We believe the real engine of growth is a strong middle class, and we think it is wrong to burden middle-class taxpayers with the cost of massive spending for those at the top of the economic pyramid.
Consider the President's tax breaks for people with incomes over $1 million. They are huge—more than $150,000 a year if you make more than $1 million. In 2008 alone, that cost will be $50 billion. Who gets the $50 billion? The millionaires, Mr. President, the millionaires. Think about that—$50 billion. Where does it go? To the millionaires. At the same time he wants to cut education by $2 billion, the President wants to spend $50 billion on tax breaks for those with incomes over $1 million. That is not just fiscally irresponsible and it is not just bad economic policy, it is wrong. It is just plain wrong.
Unfortunately, tax breaks for multimillionaires are only one example of the many special interest handouts in this budget we just got.
It contains wasteful royalties and tax breaks for oil and gas companies. This industry is making more money this year than ever before, last year it was more money than ever before, and the year before it was more money than ever before.
It continues Medicare overpayments to HMOs and other managed care plans.
This budget grants drilling rights to Alaskan wilderness.
It continues tax breaks for multinational corporations that outsource jobs overseas, and remarkably it continues to call for the privatization of Social Security with the deep benefit cuts and massive debt.
These discredited and outdated policies will not promote economic growth, they will not strengthen the middle class or make our country a better place. On the contrary, they will weaken our Nation and make middle-class life harder.
We must do better. In coming weeks, led by our remarkable Budget chairman, Senator Conrad, we will work together with our colleagues to produce a better budget; a fiscally responsible budget based on the philosophy that, yes, deficits do matter; a budget that returns the tough pay-as-you-go discipline of the 1990s and balances the budget using real numbers, not pretend numbers; a budget that puts the middle class first and starts to address the real problems facing working families, such as exploding health care costs and rising tuition; a budget that reflects the best of our core values, American values, and lays the groundwork for a strong and prosperous future.
Achieving such a budget won't be easy. Members on both sides of the aisle would have to work together and make some tough choices and compromises, and the President must be willing to rethink obsolete approaches and help move his party and our Nation in another direction.
But speaking for Democrats, while we know the challenge is great, we are going to try. It is my hope that in the end we can finally move toward a new fiscal policy that combines old-fashioned values of fiscal discipline with the new and forward-looking approach that puts the middle class first.
I ask my time not interfere with the time that has been set aside. Would the Presiding Officer remind me, do we have a certain period of time for morning business today?
The Acting President pro tempore - Under the previous order, there will be a transaction for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
Mr. Harry Reid - I yield the floor.
Morning Business
The Acting President pro tempore - Under the previous order, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - I think the Senator from North Dakota wanted to be recognized.
Mr. Dorgan-R, North Dakota - I ask unanimous consent that following the presentation of my colleague Senator Grassley of Iowa, I be recognized for a period of 20 minutes in morning business.
The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Alternative Minimum Tax
Chuck Grassley-R (IA)
Mr. Grassley-R, Iowa - Mr. President, lately we have heard a lot about the alternative minimum tax and the difficulties involved in fixing it. Right now is tax time so a lot of people are going through the process of determining whether they owe the alternative minimum tax. I will visit with taxpayers about that. At another time I will go into greater detail regarding some of these problems and what we need to do to fix the alternative minimum tax.
Right now I want to explain how we got into this situation. Of course, as with anything, it would be foolish to go forward on this issue without looking back to see how we got to where we are now, after 40 years of the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax, then, obviously has been with us for that long a period of time.
The individual minimum tax was the original name of the alternative minimum tax and was enacted first in 1969. This chart I am displaying highlights a few of the important and most recent milestones in the evolution of the AMT. I will not go into each of those milestones in detail, but by looking at the chart you can see the AMT has not been a constant. There has been an alternative minimum tax, but it has had some changes in the last 38 years.
First, the history of the AMT. In the 1960s, Congress discovered only 155 taxpayers--all people with incomes greater than $200,000 a year--were not paying any taxes whatever. These taxpayers were able to use legitimate deductions and exemptions to eliminate their entire tax liabilities--all legally. To emphasize, what they were doing was not illegal, but Congress could not justify this at that time and it determined at that time that wealthy Americans ought to pay "some" amount of tax to the Federal Government regardless of the amount of legal ways of not paying tax.
When Congress decided to do this, it was calculated only 1 in 500,000 taxpayers would ever be hit by the alternative minimum tax. According to the Bureau of Census, we had at that time about 203 million people compared to 300 million today. Making the assumption that every single American was a taxpayer, the individual minimum tax was originally calculated to affect only 406 people. We get that by dividing 203 million by 500,000. In 1969 Congress was motivated by the situations of the 155 taxpayers to enact a tax calculated to impact about 406 people.
Clearly, the situation has changed dramatically in the last 30 years because this year the AMT is going to hit several million taxpayers. Although not its only flaw, the most significant defect of the alternative minimum tax is that it was not indexed for inflation. If it had been indexed for inflation, we would not be dealing with this tax problem and millions of people this year would not have to figure out if they owed the alternative minimum tax.
The failure to index the exemptions and the rate brackets, the parameters of the AMT, is a bipartisan problem. Perhaps a most notable opportunity to index the AMT for inflation was the passage of the Tax Reform Act in 1986. That law was passed by a Democratic House, a Republican Senate, and signed by a Republican President. It is worth pointing out at that time, because of the bipartisan cooperation, indexing was a relatively new concept, and even though they had a bipartisan opportunity, they did not take advantage of it. One can argue that indexing of the AMT should have received more attention, but the fact is it did not then or any time since then, so we have the problems I am discussing today.
Today it is impossible for anyone to use the excuse that indexing is a new concept. Maybe it could be used in 1986. In a regular tax system, the personal exemptions, the standard deduction, the rate brackets are indexed for inflation. Government payments such as Social Security benefits are indexed for inflation and people would be hard pressed to go into most schools and find a student who does not at least know that inflation was something to be avoided or at least to be compensated for through indexing.
Despite what must be a nearly universal awareness of inflation, though, the alternative minimum tax, the Internal Revenue Code equivalent of a time capsule, remains the same year after year as the world changes around it. It must be obvious to everyone that the value of a buck has changed a lot in the last 38 years, and all here are experienced enough to have witnessed that change.
More than anything else, the problem posed by the alternative minimum tax exists because of a failure to index that portion of the Tax Code for inflation. Although $200,000 was an incredible amount of money in 1969, the situation is different today. I am not saying that $200,000 is not a lot of money—because it is, obviously, to most middle-income people a lot of money—but $200,000 is certainly going to buy less today than it did in 1969.
I also emphasize that I am not the only one saying the failure to index the alternative minimum tax for inflation is what is causing it to consume more and more of the middle-income taxpayers. On May 23, 2005, the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, the Committee on Finance, held a hearing entitled "Blowing the Cover on the Stealth Tax: Exposing the Individual AMT." At that hearing, the national taxpayers advocate Nina Olson said:
[t]he absence of an AMT indexing provision is largely responsible for increasing the numbers of middle-class taxpayers who are subject to the AMT regime.
Robert Carroll, who is now Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for tax analysis and then was in the acting position, same title, testified:
[t]he major reason the AMT has become such a growing problem is that, unlike the regular tax, the parallel tax system is not indexed for inflation.
We also had at that hearing Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who at that time was director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office:
If the 2005 [increased AMT] exemptions were made permanent and, along with other AMT parameters, indexed for inflation after 2006, most of the increase over the coming decade in the number of taxpayers with AMT liability would disappear.
Clearly, there is a consensus among knowledgeable people that the failure to index the AMT for inflation has been and continues to be a serious problem and, in fact, for the most part, would be a solution to the problem if you want to maintain the AMT. If you want to argue for doing away with the AMT, that is another ball game.
What makes the failure to index the AMT in 1986 and other years more disastrous is repeated failure to deal with the problem in additional legislation that has actually compounded the problem posed by the alternative minimum tax.
Before I continue, I will catalog the evolution of the alternative minimum tax rate for a moment. The 1969 bill gave birth to the alternative minimum tax which established a minimum income tax rate of 10 percent in excess of the exemption of $30,000. In 1976, the rate was increased to 15 percent. In 1978, graduated rates of 10, 20, and 25 were introduced. In 1982, the alternative minimum tax rate was set at a flat rate of 20 percent and was increased to 21 percent in 1986. This is not a complete list of legislative changes and fixes, and I am sure no one wants me to recite a full list but, very importantly, I want to make sure that everyone realizes Congress has a long history of trying to fiddle with the AMT in various ways but without doing anything permanent to it. Hence, we are here again this year considering what to do.
Now, a great detail on recent bills impacting the AMT. In 1990, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act is a result of the famous Andrews Air Force summit between President Bush and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Probably Republicans were involved, as well. That legislation raised the alternative minimum tax rate from 21 percent to 24 percent and did not adjust the exemption levels. That means every person who had been hit by the AMT would continue to be hit by the AMT but be hit harder.
Then we had the same title, but in 1993 we had the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. The exemption level was increased to $33,750 for individuals and $45,000 for joint returns, but that was accompanied by yet an additional rate increase. In 1993, the tax increase passed this Senate with just Democratic votes for it.
No Republican voted for it.
Once again, graduated rates were introduced, except this time they were 26 percent and 28 percent. By tinkering with the rate and exemption levels of the alternative minimum tax, these bills were only doing what Congress has been doing on a bipartisan basis for almost 40 years, which is to undertake a wholly inadequate approach to a problem that keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
Aside from this futile tinkering that has been done every few years, Congress has, in other circumstances, completely ignored the impact of the tax legislation on taxpayers caught by the alternative minimum tax. In the 1990s, a series of tax credits, such as the child tax credit and lifetime learning credit, were adopted without any regard to the alternative minimum tax. The alternative minimum tax limited the use of nonrefundable credits, and that did not change. In other words, because of the AMT, we did not accomplish the good we wanted to with those credits for lower middle-income and lower income people. Congress quickly realized the ridiculousness of this situation and waived the alternative minimum tax disallowance of nonrefundable personal credits, but it only did it through the year 1998.
In 1999, the issue again had to be dealt with. The Congress passed the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. In the Senate, only Republicans voted for that bill. That bill included a provision to do what I would advocate we ought to do right now: repeal the alternative minimum tax. If President Clinton had not vetoed that bill, we would not be here today. But we are here today with a worse problem.
Later, in 1999, an extenders bill, including the fix, to fix it good through 2001, was enacted to hold the AMT back for a little longer; in other words, not hitting more middle-income people.
In 2001, we departed from these temporary piecemeal solutions a little bit—at least a little bit—for 4 years with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. That 2001 bill permanently allows the child tax credit, the adoption tax credit, and the individual retirement account contribution credit to be claimed against a taxpayer's alternative minimum tax. While this certainly was not a complete solution, it was a step in the right direction.
More importantly, the 2001 bill was a bipartisan effort to stop the further intrusion of the alternative minimum tax into the middle class. The package Senator Baucus and I put together that year effectively prevented inflation from pulling anybody else into the alternative minimum tax through the end of 2005.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.
The Acting President pro tempore - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Grassley - Our friends in the House originally wanted to enact a hold harmless only through the end of 2001, while Senator Baucus and I were trying to do it through 2005. We got the final bill the way Senator Baucus and I wanted it. So it was not a problem then until the year 2005.
Since the 2001 tax relief bill, the Finance Committee has produced bipartisan packages to continue to increase exemption amounts to keep taxpayers ahead of inflation, with the most recent being the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, which increased the AMT exemption to $62,550 for joint returns and $42,500 for individuals through the end of 2006.
These packages put together since 2001 are unique in that they are the first sustained attempt undertaken by Congress to stem the spread of the AMT through inflation and hitting more middle-income taxpayers. Admittedly, these are all short-term fixes, but they illustrate a comprehension of the AMT inflation problem and what needs to be done to solve it.
So this leads us to the present day and the situation we currently face. In 2004, the most recent year for which the IRS has complete tax data, more than 3 million families and individuals were hit by the AMT. And those figures for each State are shown on this chart behind me. You can see a breakdown by State of families and individuals who paid the alternative minimum tax, even with our hold-harmless provisions in place.
This does not even begin to hint at what will happen if we do not continue to protect taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. Barring an extension in the hold harmless contained in the 2006 tax bill, AMT exemptions will return to their pre-2001 levels. At the end of 2006, provisions allowing nonrefundable personal tax credits to offset AMT tax liability expired. If further action is not taken, it is estimated that the AMT could claim 35 million families and individuals by the end of this decade. That is just 3 years away. Think of it: a tax originally conceived to counter the actions of 155 taxpayers in 1969 could hit 35 million filers by the year 2010—a well-intentioned idea 40 years later with unintended consequences. Some analyses show that in the next decade, it may be less costly to repeal the regular income tax than the alternative minimum tax.
Aside from considering the increased financial burden the AMT puts on families, we also should consider the opportunity cost. Because the average taxpayer spends about 63 hours annually complying with the requirements of the alternative minimum tax, that is an awful lot of time that could be more productively used elsewhere.
As I have illustrated, the AMT is a problem that has been developing for a while. Thirty-eight years down the road are we now. On numerous occasions, Congress has made adjustments to the exemptions and rates, though not as part of a sustained effort to keep the alternative minimum tax from further absorbing our Nation's middle class.
Despite these temporary measures, the AMT is still a very real threat to millions of middle-income taxpayers who were never supposed to be subjected to a minimum tax. That the alternative minimum tax has grown grossly beyond its original purpose—which was to ensure the wealthy were not exempt from an income tax—is indisputable and that the AMT is inherently flawed would seem to be common sense.
Despite a widespread sense that something needs to be done, there is still disagreement on what needs to be done. Over the course of a few more remarks on this floor, in days to come, I will address some of those things we ought to do. But this is a case where well-intended legislation not being paid attention to has turned out to be a major tax problem in this country.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Acting President pro tempore - The Senator from North Dakota is recognized under the consent for 20 minutes.
Continuing Appropriations
Byron Dorgan-R (ND)
Mr. Dorgan-R, North Dakota - Mr. President, I rise to talk about two issues today. First, I will talk about the continuing resolution that will be on the floor of the Senate that we will likely finish this week.
I know there is some consternation about the fact that a continuing resolution is being done, but there was no choice. We were left with an awful mess. This Congress was left with a mess where 10 appropriations bills were completed by the Senate Appropriations Committee but never brought to the floor of the Senate. They should have been done by October 1, signed by the President. We are now months into the new fiscal year, and those appropriations bills, done by the previous majority here in Congress, were not completed, and so we are left with a mess.
We have put together, as best we can, a continuing resolution. We have made some adjustments to that continuing resolution. Earmarks are gone. These are adjustments to avoid some catastrophic things that would have happened without adjustments.
I wish to mention with respect to the energy and water chapter of that resolution that we have done a number of things to try to preserve some funding for renewable energy. We have an energy issue that is very compelling in this country. We need to stimulate more renewable energy, so we are trying to keep the accounts which do that intact. We have tried to find the funding to preserve the Office of Science, which is the cutting-edge science that keeps us competitive in the world. That office would have had to lay off people had we not made some adjustments there. In the energy supply and conservation account, which is ongoing and very important, we have made some adjustments.
The fact is, we have tried to find a way to address the mess we were left. We are doing it the best way we can. I believe the best approach is to pass this continuing resolution. It is true there are no so-called earmarks or what is, in effect, legislative-directed spending. But it is also the case that adjustments have been made in a number of areas, including the energy and water accounts, that will try to remedy some of the otherwise very significant changes, in some cases catastrophic changes to the issues we care a lot about--energy independence, energy conservation, renewable energy, science, and so many other areas.
I am pleased to support this continuing resolution. I wish we were not doing it this way. If I had my druthers, we would have passed the appropriations bills last year on time. That did not happen. So we are now faced with this mess of fixing a mess that was created by last year's majority. We do not have a choice. We have to do that. The Government would shut down if the funding were not available for the agencies, so we have a responsibility, and we will meet that responsibility.
Accountability in Government Contracting (Iraq)
Mr. Dorgan-R, North Dakota - Mr. President, I also rise to talk about a piece of legislation dealing with contracting. The Federal Government is the largest contractor in the world. The U.S. Federal Government contracts for a lot of things. I am going to be introducing a piece of legislation that is entitled the Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act. There are some 23 Senators who have joined me as cosponsors on that bill, and I will return to the floor to speak about this later in the week. But I wish to talk a little today about what this means and why we are introducing it.
I held 10 oversight hearings in the Democratic policy committee, as chairman of that committee, on the issue of contracting abuses in Iraq. I held two oversight hearings on the issue of contracting abuses with respect to the response to Hurricane Katrina. We have put together, as a result of the abuses we have seen with this contracting, a piece of legislation which will do the following: It will punish those who are war profiteers. And there are some. It will crack down on contract cheaters. No more of this slap on the wrist, pat on the back, have another contract. It will force real contract competition for those who want to do contract work for the Federal Government. And it will end cronyism in key Government positions--having unqualified political appointees put in positions that require people who know what they are doing.
Let me talk about some of the things we have found. I do this knowing, last week, there were some oversight hearings on the House side chaired by Congressman Waxman. I commend him. There has been a dearth of oversight hearings, almost none in the last couple of years--I guess the last 5 or 6 years, actually--because a majority of the same party as the President do not want to hold hearings that embarrass anyone. So there have been very few oversight hearings. But the hearing held this past week in the House that caught my eye is one that followed a hearing I held in the Senate with the policy committee. They talked about the fact that $12 billion in cash--most of it in stacks of one-hundred-dollar bills--had been sent to Iraq; 363 tons of U.S. cash currency flown in on wooden pallets on C-130 airplanes. That would be, by the way, 19 planeloads of one-hundred-dollar bills; 363 tons.
Nearly half of that cash was sent in the final 6 weeks before control of the Iraqi funds were turned over to the Iraqi Government. These were Iraqi oil funds, funds with frozen Iraqi assets here in the United States. The last shipment of $2.4 billion was the largest shipment. It was the largest shipment ever in the Federal Reserve Board's history. And that was 1 week before the government was turned over to the Government of Iraq.
Cash payments were made from the back of a pickup truck. One official was given $6.75 million in cash and told to spend it in 1 week, before the interim Iraqi Government took control of the funds.
I had a person testify at my hearing who said it was similar to the Wild West. Our refrain was bring a bag because we pay in cash. That is the way we do business.
In fact, I have a photograph of a fellow who testified at the hearing I held. These are one-hundred-dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap in brick form. This was in a building in Iraq. This is the fellow who testified. He said people used to play catch with them like football. He said it was the Wild West. Bring a bag, we pay in cash.
We know a substantial amount of cash disappeared--some American taxpayer money, some belonging to the people of Iraq--with almost no accountability.
I wish to talk about accountability. If there was a lack of accountability--and there certainly was, with respect to what happened in Iraq and also here at home with Katrina--what will be the accountability going forward? How do we ensure accountability? How do we ensure that someone is in charge going forward?
Let me talk about Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root, its subsidiary. I know the minute you mention Halliburton, someone says you are criticizing the Vice President. No. He used to be president of that company. He has been gone a long while. This has been Halliburton that gets big contracts from the Defense Department and then doesn't perform.
Bunnatine Greenhouse is a woman who rose to become the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers in charge of all the contracting, the highest ranking civilian official who always got great reviews on her performance evaluations, until the point when the Pentagon decided to award a massive no-bid, sole-source contract to Halliburton's subsidiary called RIO, Restore Iraqi Oil. She protested that this was done in violation of proper contracting procedures. She was appalled when Halliburton was found by auditors to have overcharged nearly double for fuel purchases. And then the Defense Department, the folks in charge of that, instead of being concerned about it, rushed to provide the company with a waiver. This waiver was provided without the approval of the contracting officer who was responsible, Ms. Greenhouse. She was kept in the dark about that decision. She learned about the waiver when she read it in the newspaper.
When she did speak up, she was bypassed, ignored, and ultimately forced to resign or face demotion. Here is what she has said publicly, the highest ranking civilian official in the Corps of Engineers who blew the whistle on the good old boys network for contracts awarded, she felt, improperly:
I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career.
For saying this, this woman was demoted. She lost the job she had for being honest. And she, by all accounts, was a top-notch contracting official. So this 20-year contracting official, responsible for all this, was ignored and then demoted when she was critical of people whom she felt were violating the rules. What happened then to fill her job? The Corps of Engineers decided to replace her with a Pentagon official who had 40 years of Government experience but none of it in Government contracting. At a hearing of the Senate Energy Committee, General Strock admitted the person who replaced Ms. Greenhouse was not certified as an acquisition professional. He stated that Ms. Riley required a waiver in order to apply for her new position. Ms. Riley has now "gone to school" and has been brought up to speed about what she needs to know as a contract official. Sound familiar? It does to me. It is happening all too often.
Let's take a look at what I found in some of the hearings. Yes, it is about Halliburton because they are the biggest contractor, but it is about other companies as well. An $85,000 brand new truck abandoned beside the road because they had a flat tire in an area where there were no hostilities at all, but they didn't have the right wrench to fix it; $85,000 brand new truck abandoned because they had a plugged fuel pump. It didn't matter. With a cost-plus contract, the American taxpayers pick up the tab. A case of Coca-Cola, $45. Gasoline was delivered by Halliburton for twice the cost that the internal part of the Defense Department said they could have provided it for. Halliburton charged 42,000 meals a day, when they were delivering 14,000 meals, overcharging by 28,000 soldiers a day. They leased SUVs for $7,500 a month.
Halliburton supplied troops with hand towels and the person who ordered the hand towels was in Kuwait. He came to a hearing I held. He said he was ordered to purchase towels that were nearly three times more expensive than regular towels. Why? Because the company, KBR, wanted their name embroidered on the towels used by the troops. Their attitude was, the American taxpayer pays for it; it doesn't matter, it's cost plus, don't worry about cost.
It is unbelievable when you see what has happened with some of this contracting. We heard from Rory Mayberry, former food production manager. He also was at KBR. He said:
Food items were being brought into the base that were stamped expired or outdated by as much as a year. We were told by KBR food service managers, use the items anyway. The food was fed to the troops. For trucks that were hit by convoy fire and bombings, we were told to go into the trucks, remove the food items, and use them after removing the bullets and any shrapnel from the bad food that was hit. We were told, by the way, to turn the removed bullets over to the managers for souvenirs.
How about water? Contaminated water, more contaminated than raw water taken from the Euphrates River, delivered as non-potable water to our troops to shower, shave, and so on, more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River. Halliburton says it never happened. I have an internal Halliburton report that says it did happen, and they nearly missed having a catastrophe of mass sickness or death. I also have an e-mail sent to my by a captain, a young physician serving in Iraq. She said: I read in the newspaper about your hearing. What you alleged is exactly what is happening at our base.
Let me describe a couple of those. This is an internal Halliburton report written by the top water quality manager Wil Granger, May 13, 2005:
No disinfection of non-potable water was occurring [at camp Ar Ramadi] for water designated for showering purposes. This caused an unknown population to be exposed to potentially harmful water for an undetermined amount of time.
It didn't just happen at Ar Ramadi. It happened at every base in Iraq.
The deficiencies of the camp where the event occurred is not exclusive to that camp; meaning that countrywide all camps suffered to some extent for all or some of the same deficiencies noted.
This is from an internal Halliburton report written by the top water quality person at Halliburton. These are contracts we pay for. We pay a company to provide water to the military installations that now exist in Iraq. Who is accountable for having water sent to our troops, non-potable water that is more contaminated than water in the Euphrates River?
CPT Michelle Callahan, who is currently serving in Iraq--at least she was when she sent me an e-mail--found exactly the same cases of bacterial infections among the troops, traced the problem back to contaminated water that KBR was not treating properly. She had one of her officers follow the lines to find out where that water came from and why. So water to the troops, that is a health issue. Food to the troops, that is a health issue.
Two guys show up in Iraq--one's name is Custer, and the other is Battles--with not much experience and no money. But they understand you can make a lot of money in Iraq, American money. So they started a company. Within 2 1/2 years, my understanding is, they have had contracts of over $100 million. They got into trouble. It has been in the courts. Among other things alleged, they took forklift trucks from the Baghdad airport, moved them to a warehouse, repainted them blue and sold them back to the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was us. This company got a contract for security at the Baghdad airport. Let me show you what the director of security at the airport said about Custer Battles:
Custer Battles have shown themselves to be unresponsive, uncooperative, incompetent, deceitful, manipulative and war profiteers. Other than that, they are swell fellows.
Once again, who is accountable for the amount of money we are spending for these kind of contractors?
How about the Iraqi physician, a doctor from Iraq who came to testify at my policy committee hearing. We spent a couple hundred million dollars on the Parsons Corporation to rehabilitate 142 health clinics in Iraq. This Iraqi doctor went to the Iraqi Health Minister and said: I want to see these rehabilitated health clinics. Because he knew the money had all been spent. An American contractor got the money to do it, and it was gone.
He said: I want to see these 142 rehabilitated health clinics for the people of Iraq. The Iraqi Health Minister said: You don't understand. Most of these are imaginary clinics. The money is gone, but apparently the clinics don't exist.
Does that bother anybody? Is there any accountability for that? Seems to me there ought to be accountability for something like that.
I held hearings not just on contracting in Iraq, which I found to be a cesspool of unbelievable problems, but hearings with respect to contracting to deal with the problems of Hurricane Katrina. I wish to show you a picture of a man named Paul Mullinax. I sat in a grocery store parking lot one Sunday morning talking to Paul on the phone, asking if he would come to testify at a hearing. He wasn't anxious to do it, but he finally did. This is Paul Mullinax. This is his truck, an 18-wheel truck. Let me tell you the story Paul told.
Hurricane Katrina hit. And one of the things that was necessary to be provided to the victims of the hurricane was ice. So Paul was contracted by FEMA to pick up ice. He drove his truck from Florida to New York to pick up a load of ice. Then he was told he should take that ice to Carthage, MO. He went to Carthage with his truck and his refrigerated container full of ice. When he got to Carthage, he was told he should proceed to Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, AL. When he got to Montgomery, he discovered there were over 100 trucks sitting there, refrigerated trucks there with ice. So for the next 12 days, this was Paul's life. There were victims of the hurricane waiting for relief, waiting for the cargo in his truck. For 12 days, he sat in front of this truck waiting. He finally said to them: If you are not going to tell me where to go or let me do this, I am going to go on my own and drop off the ice to some people who need it. They said: You can't do that. He said: I had no idea when I parked the truck I would be there for the next 12 days, my refrigerator unit running the entire time. Each truck cost the American taxpayer $6 to $900 a day.
You can see him sitting here with a cooler and a little girl for nearly 2 weeks waiting. Finally, he was told: You should take your ice to Massachusetts. So this man from Florida, who to New York to pick up ice, went to Missouri and then went to Alabama and then waited, then was told to take the truck to Massachusetts. Unbelievable. What was the American taxpayers' role in this, $15,000. It cost $15,000 for this incompetence.
Why does all of this happen? It happens because in this case with FEMA, a bunch of cronies were put in place to run the place. Were they qualified people? No. Most of them had political connections. They didn't have any emergency or disaster preparedness experience. That is what happens.
Who is accountable for that? Who ultimately is going to be accountable? How can we restore accountability? I have described a few of the problems. I have described a very few of the problems. The problems are unbelievable. I think it is the most significant waste, fraud, and abuse, perhaps, in the history of this country, billions and billions of dollars with no one accountable. At the hearings last week, the answer was: It is wartime. So we distribute cash from the back of a pickup truck. We say it is the Wild West, bring a bag. We pay in cash.
And it is wartime. I don't understand that. I have tried to find out who was responsible for having a Florida trucker pick up ice from New York to take to the victims of Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico and have the ice dropped off in Massachusetts, and we get stuck with $15,000, and the victims of the hurricane get nothing. But there is no accountability for anything.
So we will be introducing legislation, with 23 cosponsors later, this week. It is going to punish war profiteers--and, yes, there has been rampant profiteering going on. There will be substantial punishments for war profiteers. This antiprofiteering provision is based on a piece of legislation that Our bill will also restore a Clinton administration rule on suspension and disbarment, which prohibits awarding Federal contracts to companies that exhibited a pattern of failing to comply with the law. That provision, by the way, was done away with by the current administration.
It seems to me it is time to say that you only get one chance, and if you cheat us, no more contracts. This notion of a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back is over. There was a time when exactly the same company had been in Federal court in Alexandria, VA, with allegations of fraud against the American taxpayer against that company; and on the same day, they were signing a new acquisition contract with the Department of Defense. That ought to never happen again.
We ought to crack down on contract cheaters. We ought to force real contract competition. When somebody such as Bunnatine Greenhouse speaks up and says "this is the most blatant abuse in contracting I have seen in my career," that ought not to be a cause for penalty. This woman risked her career and we are still trying to get to the bottom of who is accountable for her demotion. She was given a choice of being fired or demoted because she spoke out against contract fraud and abuse.
We think we need to strengthen whistleblower protection. We think it is important to have full disclosure of contract abuses and to restore the provision that says if there is a pattern of abuse, you don't get to engage in contracting anymore with the Federal Government.
This is very simple. I come from a small town, a town of slightly less than 300 people. There is a very simple code in towns such as that. If you are a business man or woman on Main Street and someone cheats you, you don't do business with them again. That is simple. That is a lesson apparently lost on a behemoth Federal Government.
The contracting provisions we will introduce are common sense, and this Congress ought to adopt them quickly. There will be a substantial number of cosponsors in support of the legislation that is filled with common sense, at the very time that we have witnessed the most significant waste, fraud, and abuse in this country's history. Accountability? What about accountability for what happened? What about accountability for what is about to happen? We are still spending a lot of money. We will have $100 billion requested of us and another $150 billion to replenish accounts, much of it through contracts. We say with this piece of legislation that it is long past the time for this Government to be accountable to the taxpayer and accountable to the citizens of the United States.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Alexander-R, Tennessee - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Head Start Reauthorization
Lamar Alexander-R (TN)
Mr. Alexander-R, Tennessee - Mr. President, later this afternoon, several of us will be introducing legislation to reauthorize Head Start. Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, Senator Dodd, and myself will be the cosponsors of the legislation. We have been working on it for a long time, all through the last Congress. We have heard from lots of parents, children, and Head Start operators. I wish to talk about that.
The Head Start program is an enormously popular and successful Federal initiative. It began in the 1960s when Lyndon Johnson was President of the United States. In fact, I have always thought it was a part of the story of the American dream that President Johnson went back to Cotulla, TX, near the Mexican border, where he taught first grade, to announce the Head Start program. It exemplifies one of the great principles of what it means to be an American--that we believe in equal opportunity. For that President of the United States to go back to where he was a first grade teacher reminds us that other children could succeed, as he did, in becoming President.
Today, Head Start has grown to a nearly $7 billion Federal program. That amount was spent last year. It served 900,000 children. In my State of Tennessee, 20,000 students or so were served. The funding was $118 million for Tennessee. This is a program that touches a lot of people. It deserves the Senate's attention, and it has had the Senate's attention.
During the last Congress, I made clear, as did several other Senators, that we want to see Head Start serve more children. But first, we wanted to make sure the program is accountable, financially solvent, and meeting the purpose for which it was formed. President Bush, in his message to Congress, said much the same thing 2 years ago. "Great program," he said. "But let's make it more accountable. Let's recognize that now we expect children to learn more and be able to do more before they arrive at school." The President said we want to get the States more involved, which was a good suggestion because when Head Start was founded, it was almost the only program to help preschool children. Today, while it is a large $7 billion program, there are $21 billion more in Federal dollars being spent to help preschool children in one way or the other, and there are a great many State and local programs that are Head Start or preschool programs.
The President's objective, as was ours, was to find a way to make all of these programs work well together. We listened carefully and I believe, as Senators Kennedy-D, Enzi-R, and Dodd-D believe, we have made significant improvements to the bill.
For example, the bill will establish 200 new Centers of Excellence that will serve as model Head Start programs across the country. The Governors will be involved in this. Hopefully, we can learn over the next 5 years from the States how, from these models, we can put together State efforts, local efforts, Federal efforts, and Federal Head Start efforts in a more efficient way to help children who are of preschool age.
Second, our legislation requires grant recipients to recompete for new grants every 5 years to help ensure a constant high level of quality.
Third, we clearly define what we mean by deficiency. We don't aim to catch people doing things wrong; we would rather catch them doing things right. When there are things that are wrong, the Head Start providers deserve to know what the standards are so they can make sure they meet them.
Fourth, this legislation provides clear authority to the governing boards to administer, and be held accountable for, local Head Start programs while ensuring that policy councils on which parents sit continue to play a crucial and important role.
Finally, as I mentioned earlier, this legislation continues to encourage State standards especially that cause there to be more cognitive learning, more emphasis on what children should be able to know and be able to do before they get to first grade--make sure they are ready to learn.
Americans uniquely believe that each of us has the right to begin at the same starting line and that, if we do, anything is possible for any one of us. We also understand that some of us need help getting to that starting line. Most Federal funding for social programs is based upon an understanding of equal opportunity in that way.
Again, Head Start began in 1965 to make it more likely that disadvantaged children would successfully arrive at one of the most important of our starting lines--the beginning of school. Head Start, over the years, has served hundreds of thousands of our most at-risk children. The program has grown and changed, been subjected to debate; but it has stood the test of time because it is very important. We have made a lot of progress. Only a few professionals had studied early childhood education when it began. Even fewer had designed programs specifically for children in poverty with the many challenges.
The origins of Head Start come from an understanding that success for these children wasn't only about their education. The program was designed to be certain that these children were healthy, got their immunizations, were fed hot meals and of crucial importance--that their parents were deeply involved in the program.
From the beginning, comprehensive services, including medical, dental, and nutritional services--and parent and community involvement were a part of Head Start programs, and that is still true today. In the early days, teacher training and curriculum were seen as less important. Now we know a lot more about brain development and how children learn from birth, and we understand that even for these very young children, teacher training and curriculum are very important.
Today, young children are expected to learn more and be able to do more in order to succeed in school. Many public schools now offer kindergarten. When this program started, Tennessee didn't have a public school kindergarten program. Now 40 States offer early childhood programs.
As Congress prepares to reauthorize Head Start, it is important that we recognize the program's importance and work to make it stronger. But we need to recognize also that today it is not fulfilling its promise as well as we would like. It is not meeting the purpose of serving our children who are most at risk as well as we would hope. I am not satisfied with the current practices, which fall short of the standards the taxpayers should expect, and that is why there are some changes in the bill.
We address this issue, first, by holding up successful local programs as models so others may follow their example, and by clarifying lines of accountability so any corrupt practices may be rooted out. The bill creates ways for States to help strengthen and coordinate Head Start, but would continue to send Federal funds directly to the nearly 1,700 grantees that provide services in over 29,000 Head Start centers that serve just over 900,000 disadvantaged children.
Let me talk about the Centers of Excellence first, because this is one of the most hotly debated parts of the bill--or it was. I think it is pretty well accepted now. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create a nationwide network of 200 Centers of Excellence in early childhood built around exemplary Head Start programs. These Centers of Excellence would be nominated by the Governors. Each Center of Excellence would receive a Federal bonus grant of at least $200,000 in each of 5 years, in addition to base funding.
The Centers' bonus grants could be used for some of the following:
One, to work in their community to demonstrate the best of what Head Start can do for at-risk children and families, including getting the children ready for school and ready for academic success.
Two, it can coordinate all early childhood services in the community. As I mentioned earlier, we are spending $21 billion in Federal dollars for these children. Many States and local governments are spending money. We need to spend it together.
Three, we can offer training and support to all professionals working with at-risk children.
Next, we can track Head Start families and ensure that their services are provided seamlessly to children, from prenatal to age 8.
Next, they can be models of excellence held accountable for helping our most disadvantaged children.
Finally, to have the flexibility to serve additional Head Start, or early Head Start children, or provide more full-day services to better meet the needs of working parents.
Head Start centers are uneven in performance, but usually they excel in two areas critical to success for caring and educating children: No. 1, developing community support and, No. 2, encouraging parental involvement. Alex Haley, one of my closest friends, and the author of ``Roots, lived by these words:
Find the good and praise it.
For me, that was an invaluable lesson. My hope is these Centers of Excellence will find the good and praise what is best about Head Start and show it to the rest of us.
It also helps to get the Governors involved. The President had suggested that we turn more of the funding over directly to the States. I and others are not willing to do that, at least at this stage.
One of the beauties of Head Start is that it is very decentralized and for a long time it has worked well that way. So our compromise was that the Centers of Excellence, which will get the Governors involved, will help coordinate the programs more effectively and maybe we can learn something over the next 5 years that we can put then in the next reauthorization of Head Start.
Also, this bill goes a long way to help make the spending of that $7 billion of taxpayers' money more accountable. First, it requires recipients to recompete for grants every 5 years. This ensures that after 5 years, each program is still meeting its standards.
I recognize there are concerns about this recompete requirement. Some people say we need continuity and it will create anxiety among children, among teachers if they are afraid they may lose their right to continue serving after 5 years.
Many Head Start grant recipients are doing a very good job, and rather than causing a disruption every 5 years, I hope this recompete process will highlight their success. To help streamline the process for successful programs, grant recipients that are neither deficient nor have been found to have an area of noncompliance left unresolved for more than 120 days will receive a priority designation during the recompetition process.
Second, the bill defines what makes a local program deficient. Right now, the deficiency standard is very general and inconsistent across the Nation. But if an action threatens the health, safety, or civil rights of children and staff, denies the parents the exercise of their full roles and responsibilities, misuses funds, loses its legal status or financial viability, or violates other standards specified in the bill, those are the more specific standards that are now a part of the bill. It will help make it possible for grantees to have a clearer idea of what they are expected to do.
Finally, the bill makes clear that the governing board shall be the body that is charged with running local programs and which will be held accountable for those programs. This may seem like a little bit of inside baseball, but it is actually not. It goes straight to the heart of several of the problems we have had in some Head Start grantees around the country.
Perhaps the most effective witness I heard in any of our hearings was the mayor of Shelby County, TN--that is around Memphis--A.C. Wharton. A.C. Wharton testified, as did other witnesses, that the dual governance structure between the governing board and the policy council was inadequate and neither body had adequate decisionmaking authority. Here is what he told the committee:
What we're faced with is not merely a benign situation in which an errant agency through no bad intent runs afoul of the guidelines. In many instances the wrongdoings and shortfalls are calculated to bring about the political empowerment or financial enrichment of those who profit from the wrongdoing.
I believe we fix that problem based on the advice we received from Mayor Wharton and other witnesses. This bill gives governing boards direct authority and holds them accountable. That is an important element of the bill, and I think it is a necessary step. But Mayor Wharton and others reminded us that we need to be careful about how we handle this issue. Mayor Wharton said the governing body should not ``be allowed to ride roughshod over the dignity that should be accorded all participants in Head Start programs whether they are grantees, policy councils, policy committees, or certainly children and parents.
I appreciate the mayor's concern, and I appreciate that note of caution. I thank him for his straightforward testimony. Perhaps he will know that long trip from Memphis to Washington was not in vain because his concerns are right in the middle of the bill that we will introduce later today.
We all understand the importance of parental involvement and parental responsibility over the operation of the Head Start Program. We want to preserve that parental responsibility, but we also want to make sure we preserve fiscal accountability of the program at the same time, and we believe we have done that. We have crafted a careful balance. We give the governing board fiscal and legal responsibility, while ensuring policy councils on which parents sit continue to play an important role in the running and operation of local Head Start Programs within the framework the governing board sets. It is a fair compromise and one that will strengthen the program.
I learned about the importance of preschool education in a very personal way. When I was growing up in Maryville, TN, at the edge of the Great Smokey Mountains, my mother operated the only preschool education program in our town--well, there may have been one other. I think Mrs. Pesterfield also had one. But she operated this program in a converted garage in our backyard. She had 25 3- and 4-year-olds in the morning and 25 5-year-olds in the afternoon. I think she charged $25 a month for this care for these children.
This was before Head Start. This was before we understood very much about preschool education and the early development of the brain. But parents instinctively knew that was a good place for their children. When Alcoa moved executives to our little town, they usually would find a way to get their children into Mrs. Alexander's nursery school and kindergarten before they looked for a home because those parents knew then that preschool education was important to their children's success.
We all understand that for all of our children. We understand that the earlier this starts--at home first--and
then with all the extra help we can give that home, these children will be ready to get to the starting point.
I am the only U.S. Secretary of Education, I think, Mr. President, who spent 5 years in kindergarten. The reason I did was that my mother had no other place to put me than the kindergarten she operated in our backyard. Looking back, there probably wasn't a better place for me to have been than that 5 years of intensive preschool education. It is something we should hope for virtually every child growing up in this country. We believe anything is possible. We believe in free enterprise, we believe in competition, and we believe in the starting line. But there is no Federal program that exists that does a better job of helping disadvantaged children get to the starting line than Head Start.
I congratulate Senator Kennedy, Senator Enzi, and Senator Dodd, and the other Senators who have worked on this legislation. We look forward to introducing the legislation this afternoon. I thank all those who have taken time to come to the hearings, and I especially thank the mayor of Shelby County, Mayor Wharton, for his testimony because it has made its way directly into the legislation to help make sure Head Start not only helps children but that there is accountability to the taxpayers.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Carl Artman (Indian Affairs)
Craig Thomas-R (WY)
Mr. Thomas-R, Wyoming - Mr. President, I will talk about something very important which will soon be pending before the Senate; that is, the nomination of Carl Joseph Artman as Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs.
The Indian program in this country is very important. As part of the Government, we have part of the Interior Department working on it. I rise to offer my strong support for the nomination of Carl Artman for Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs in the Department of the Interior. Mr. Artman is an excellent candidate with diversity and experience in both the public and private sectors and has the leadership and the academic credentials needed for this extraordinarily demanding position.
This position is unique in that many of the issues with respect to Indian affairs are unique. Yet it has to be someone who has background in government and operations. The Assistant Secretary implements Federal Indian policy set forth by the Congress and facilitates the government-to-government relationships with 561 Indian tribal governments. That is a large challenge.
The Assistant Secretary is responsible for a variety of activities and programs in Indian communities, including economic development, law enforcement, trust assessment management, social services, and education. In discharging these duties, the Assistant Secretary must balance many competing interests and needs in working with the States, in working with the tribes, and in working with the Federal Government. Mr. Artman has pledged to facilitate more vibrant communication among the Indian tribes and their neighbors. I believe that is helpful in terms of furthering Federal policies of interaction with the Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis and encouraging Indian self-determination and self-government. That is our challenge and the challenge the tribes take, to become more independent economically and from a government standpoint so they can operate as they choose with self-government.
The job of Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs has been made exponentially more difficult by the methamphetamine plague that has ravaged the Indian tribes and the Indian communities. I am encouraged by Mr. Artman's commitment to fighting and defeating this epidemic, which may require aggressive efforts by the agency he will lead as well as other Federal and tribal partners to achieve measurable results.
Mr. Artman is also committed to assisting tribal governments develop the socioeconomic infrastructure and fight the obstacles in many of our Indian reservations that foster hopelessness and despair. One of the issues is to provide opportunities for the tribal members to have jobs, to be somewhat sufficient and self-supporting in terms of their economy.
Although many Indian tribes have made tremendous gains through tribal self-governance and some have managed to flourish materially in recent years through economic development, it is a common misperception that most tribes have experienced economic prosperity as a result of successful gaming facilities. In fact, poverty and unemployment are sill prevalent in far too many communities in Indian Country. A robust and diversified economy is essential to improving the quality of life of these communities and to providing the people living in them with alternatives to such heartbreaking problems of suicide and substance abuse, of which there is an abundance.
I am confident that Mr. Artman will provide outstanding leadership in this daunting challenge. I urge my friends in the Senate to approve his confirmation, which I hope will come before the Senate in the very near future.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Oregon.
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000
Gordon Smith-R (OR)
Mr. Smith-R, Oregon - Mr. President, I came here today knowing we were in morning business but looking to find a time to make a case of my State before the United States on an issue of great emergency. The clock is running out. I am speaking of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000.
I am pleased to state that in my conversation with my friend, the majority leader, he did indicate that he has become aware of this issue with some intensity through his conversations with Senator Wyden-D and now with me, and that Senator Wyden and I have little choice but to use all of our rights and privileges as Senators to focus the attention of the United States on this dire issue. I know many of my colleagues want to speak. I do not mean to disrupt their schedules, but as long as I can be allowed to speak today and at future opportunities, I intend to speak and to take a lot of time. I came prepared to speak for 5 hours today. I have a long speech, a lot of phonebooks in the cloakroom. I have a tale to tell that I believe America needs to hear about the Pacific Northwest and the people I am privileged to represent.
I want Members to understand my position in the Senate, how a rural businessman from eastern Oregon was elected to the Senate, the first time someone with my profile has been elected in my State in over 70 years. It is because my political base was heard and through my candidacy has tried to be heard. It is a political base the cornerstone of which consists of farmers, fishermen, and foresters.
The rural people I live with in rural Oregon, my hometown of Pendleton, OR, are counting on me to do everything I can to bring to the attention of this Senate and to the Congress in general the dire situation in which our State finds itself.
I talked about the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. That program actually expired last December. Despite many efforts in this Senate and from my colleagues in the House, efforts to extend the safety net have simply failed. Senator Wyden is working the way I did with my leadership before when we were in the majority. I hope he finds something different from what I found. What I found was people willing to listen, your cause is just, but we can't do anything for you unless and until everyone is in agreement.
The problem for this particular bill is that it isn't Republican and Democratic; it is the United States against the Pacific Northwest. It is State versus State. It is Idaho complaining about Oregon's formula allocation or Washington about Oregon or Montana or California or Mississippi or all the States in the Southeast that look for county funding from this act. It is really more parochial. It is more local. It is more about individual constituencies.
The formula complained about was a formula derived from this bill that Senator Craig-R, Senator Wyden, and myself, as the original sponsors, authored. It is a formula based on historic harvest off of public lands. By that historical formula, Oregon got about half of the money allocated under this program. There is disgruntlement now with that formula. The problem is no one can agree on another formula without doing great damage to the historical position in which Oregon finds itself.
As I speak today, thousands of layoff notices are being prepared by rural counties in my State. These include law enforcement officers, county road crews, surveyors, assessors, clerks, public health workers, district attorneys, among others. These are the basic units of our extended democracy. These services are required by the Oregon State Constitution to be provided by our counties. Now those units of government are in jeopardy.
My amendment cannot be called up because the amendment tree has been filled by the majority, as is their right—a practice that is coming, though, under increased scrutiny. I will briefly describe the amendment. It provides a 1-year extension of the safety net. Literally, what we are talking in the totality of this budget is a .09 percent across-the-board cut to other programs funded in this bill. I realize the majority would prefer to have this Chamber acquiesce to the preexisting contents of the bill. The fact that we are only now considering it, just hours before the Federal Government shuts down, illustrates this point.
Some have said to me: How can you try to look for opportunities to filibuster the continuing resolution? How can you do that, Senator, and shut down the Government? I believe this Senate should know my heart and feeling is the United States will shut down Oregon in many respects if the continuing resolution is allowed to go forward without, literally, $360 million. That is what we are talking about—in a $1.7 trillion budget, $365 million. That is a lot of money to you and me individually; it is a rounding error in a $1.7 trillion continuing resolution. When that is translated to what it means to Oregon counties, it means shutdown.
This is not a pure continuing resolution, though. The Committee on Appropriations of both the House and the Senate have shifted billions of dollars between accounts in support of their priorities.
Many of those adjustments are laudable and reflect the Nation's priorities. But the fact that the county payments safety net was not addressed in this bill requires me to come to this floor and do what I can to change it. It may also reflect that many of my colleagues do not understand what this program means—not only to my State but to 8.5 million schoolchildren, 557,000 teachers, and 18,000 schools nationwide.
But to fully understand the safety net and this Government's moral obligation to rural counties, a history lesson is in order. My colleagues need to understand why Federal forest management decisions make or break my State and why the consequences of these decisions have moral implications for this Chamber to consider and to act upon.
The Oregon story is a history of trees and timber, of boom and bust. The Federal Government plays a central role in this account, both as protagonist and antagonist.
Alexis de Tocqueville, writing about democracy in America in the 1830s, believed that any history--of men and nations alike--must begin at infancy. He wrote:
A man has come into the world; his early years are spent without notice in the pleasures and activities of childhood. As he grows up, the world receives him when his manhood begins, and he enters into contact with his fellows. He is then studied for the first time, and it is imagined that the germ of the vices and the virtues of his maturer years is then formed.
This, if I am not mistaken, is a great error. We must begin higher up; we must watch the infant in his mother's arms; we must see the first images which the external world casts upon the dark mirror of his mind, the first occurrences that he witnesses, we must hear the first words which awaken the sleeping powers of thought, and stand by his earliest efforts if we would understand the prejudices, the habits, and the passions which will rule his life. The entire man is, so to speak, to be seen in the cradle of the child.
Like Alexis de Tocqueville's America, the Oregon story must be told from the beginning.
Many of my colleagues are familiar with the slogan "54-40 or fight!" This referred to the territorial dispute between Great Britain and the United States over the Northwest Territory, lying south of the parallel 54 degrees, 40 minutes.
In 1846, Great Britain conceded absolute jurisdiction to the United States, and in 1848, Congress formally declared this land "the Oregon Territory," albeit below the 49th parallel.
Joseph Lane, of Roseburg, OR, became the first territorial Governor of Oregon Territory. Soon thereafter, the Columbia River divided it into two territories, with Washington Territory demarcated north of the river.
Two days from now will mark the 148th anniversary of a great act of this body. By the way, Oregon's birthday is Valentines Day every year.
Let me read from the Congressional Record—then called the Journal of the Senate—from February 14, 1859:
Mr. President: The House of Representatives has passed the bill of the Senate (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union.
Mr. Jones reported from the committee that they had examined and found duly enrolled the bill (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union.
A message from the President of the United States by Mr. Henry, his secretary:
- Mr. President: The President of the United States this day approved and signed an act (S. 239) for the admission of Oregon into the Union.
Mr. Pugh presented the credentials of the honorable Joseph Lane, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of Oregon.
The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. Lane and he took his seat in the Senate.
Mr. Gwin presented the credentials of the honorable Delazon Smith, elected a senator by the legislature of the State of Oregon.
The credentials were read; and the oath prescribed by law was administered to Mr. Smith and he took his seat in the Senate.
I note that my colleague, Senator Wyden, is on the floor. As a matter of interest to him and me, I sit in the seat of, I suppose appropriately, Delazon Smith. Senator Wyden sits in the seat of Joseph Lane.
Mr. President, as an aside, I have always thought the best movie I had ever seen as a little boy was "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Apparently, I am going to be denied that opportunity today, but I do want to begin this 5-hour speech which the Senate will hear in its entirety eventually and on other pieces of legislation inevitably.
Mr. Gwin submitted the following resolutions; which were considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to:
Resolved, That the Senate proceed to ascertain the classes in which the senators from the State of Oregon shall be inserted, in conformity with the resolution of the 14th of May, 1879, and as the Constitution requires.
Resolved, That the Secretary put into the ballot box two papers of equal size, one of which shall be numbered one, and the other shall be numbered two, and each senator shall draw out one paper; that the senator who shall draw the paper numbered one shall be inserted in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the 3d day of March, 1859, and the senator who shall draw the paper numbered two shall be inserted in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the 3d day of March, 1861.
Whereupon—The papers above mentioned, being put by the Secretary into the ballot box, the honorable Joseph Lane drew the paper numbered two, and is accordingly in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the third day of March, 1861. The honorable Delazon Smith drew the paper numbered one, and is accordingly in the class of senators whose term of service will expire the third of March, 1859.
That is the end of the citation.
This is how Oregon entered the Union and its first two U.S. Senators were welcomed into this great deliberative body—148 years ago this Wednesday.
On February 14, 1859, Oregon had a population of 52,465 people. Congress passed and President Lincoln signed into law the Homestead Act in 1862. That law offered 160 acres to any citizen who would live on frontier land for 5 years. By 1866, Oregon's population was nearly doubled by those answering the Federal Government's call into the fertile valleys and along the fish-filled rivers of Oregon. Even when the land in the valleys and along the rivers was all taken, there was another wave of pioneers ready to head into the mountains.
One such story is recounted by Jessie Wright in her book "How High the Bounty." Jessie and Perry Wright were granted the first of five homesteads in the Umpqua National Forest. This story—as were thousands of others—was a call to the Manifest Destiny, embodied in our State song, "Oregon, My Oregon." By the way, if I get a chance to get back at this, eventually I will read the whole book, "How High the Bounty," here in the Senate. But our State song embodies this Manifest Destiny. It sings like this. I will not sing it to you, Mr. President.
Land of the Empire Builders,
Land of the Golden West;
Conquered and held by free men,
Fairest and the best.
Onward and upward ever,
Forward and on, and on;
Hail to thee, Land of Heroes,
My Oregon.
Land of the rose and sunshine,
Land of the summer's breeze;
Laden with health and vigor,
Fresh from the Western seas.
Blest by the blood of martyrs,
Land of the setting sun;
Hail to thee, Land of Promise,
My Oregon.
When Oregon entered the Union in 1859, the State itself was given roughly 3.5 million acres of the 62 million acres lying within its boundaries. The remaining 95 percent of the land base was retained by the Federal Government as national public domain lands. Think of that, Mr. President. Just like your State, I suspect, the Federal Government owns most of it.
Over a period of 75 years, following Oregon's statehood, the U.S. General Land Office sold, exchanged, donated, or otherwise disposed of 23 million acres of Oregon's land—reducing Federal ownership from 91 percent to 52 percent.
The Federal Government continues to hold ownership to 33 million acres of Oregon land, wielding autocratic control over a majority of my State—a practice exercised only against Western States, holding them in what can only be described as a form of economic bondage. Neither the State of Oregon nor its counties can tax federally controlled land or exercise any control whatsoever over them. But since 1908, with the passage of the 25 Percent Act, the Federal Government has paid counties 25 percent of the income generated from timber, mining rights, grazing leases, and other benefits from the land it owns in Oregon. Twenty-five percent; that is what we are talking about. That is what has gone away through timber law changes and court decisions and administrative Executive orders.
Since 1937, the Bureau of Land Management has shared 75 percent—and more recently 50 percent—of its timber receipts with affected counties.
It was out of the 33 million acres of Federal land that were created, first, the forest reserves and then the national forests. The General Revision Act in 1891 allowed Presidential withdrawal of forest reserves. The Organic Act and the Forest Reserve Act followed, expanding the National Forest System and Federal assertion over the management of these forests.
In creating these Federal forests, President Teddy Roosevelt had a clear policy. This is what Teddy Roosevelt said:
And now, first and foremost, you can never afford to forget for one moment what is the object of our forest policy. That object is not to preserve the forests because they are beautiful, though that is good in itself; nor because they are refuges for wild creatures of the wilderness, though that, too, is good in itself; but the primary object of our forest policy in the United States, is the making of prosperous homes. Every other consideration comes as secondary.
Unlike other Western States with national forests, Oregon has a unique tract of Federal forestland. Its official name is the Revested Oregon and California Land Grant and the Reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands, or O&C for short. These forests have a fascinating history of their own. To capture this history, I will borrow from the book "Saving Oregon's Golden Goose," interviews with Joe Miller. It reads as follows:
Think of railroads as the internet of America's Gilded Age. .....
Am I done, Mr. President? I am just getting to the good part. You would really enjoy this.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator has used his 20 minutes. It has been good.
Mr. Smith - I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and the majority leader for his courtesy. I was informed by the majority leader that after Senator Wyden and other Senators who have reserved time speak, I could again ask for time, and would indicate that being my intention because I do not want you to miss this. This is really getting good, Mr. President. There is about 4 1/2 hours to go of it.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Oregon.
Ron Wyden-D (OR)
Mr. Wyden-D, Oregon - Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from Virginia has time reserved at about 3:45. I ask unanimous consent to be able to speak up until 3:45, when the distinguished Senator from Virginia has his time allotted.
The Presiding Officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Wyden - Mr. President, before he leaves the floor, let me tell my colleague from Oregon that I very much appreciate his comments with respect to the county payments legislation. The top priority—the top priority—for Oregon's congressional delegation in this session is getting this program reauthorized.
I wrote this law in 2000 with Senator Craig-R because it was my view in 2000 that without this program, Oregon's rural communities would not survive. I am here today to tell the Senate that if this program is not reauthorized, there is a serious question today whether these rural communities will be able to survive. Now, I want to bring the Senate up to date on three developments with respect to the reauthorization of this critically needed program.
The distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, Mr. Reid-D, has been the majority leader for just over 1 month.
I have had many conversations with the majority leader about this program. He vacationed in our beautiful State this summer. He saw the importance of our bountiful forests. I explained to him that the Federal Government owns more than half of our State. He has told me that he is determined to work with me until our State gets a fair shake with respect to this critically important program.
Second—and this is something that the distinguished Senator from Montana knows something about—we have a good bipartisan group of Senators on the legislation I have authored to reauthorize the program. Both Senators from Oregon, both Senators from Washington, and both Senators from California, the distinguished Senator from Montana, and the distinguished Senator from Alaska have all joined us in the effort to reauthorize this program.
Third, as the chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee, I would like to announce that the first hearing we are going to have in the Forestry Subcommittee is to reauthorize this program. Because it is so important, because it is a lifeline to rural communities across our State, we are making this the subject of the first hearing. We have pink slips going out now, county commissions trying to make decisions about schools and law enforcement. These programs involved are not extras. They are not the kind of thing that you consider something you would like to have. These are programs that involve law enforcement, that raise the question of whether we are going to have school in our State other than three times a week in some of these rural communities. I am committed to making sure that doesn't happen. Senator Smith is committed to it. The whole Oregon congressional delegation is committed to it.
In Curry County, for example, on the Oregon coast, they are looking at the prospect of laying off all nonessential workers, including patrol officers, some of whom would be left to perform only their mandated correction duties. In a few months, they will have laid off 20 percent of their county workforce. My judgment is—and this comes directly from those folks in Curry County—there is a real question about whether they are going to be able to continue as a county without this essential program.
We have seen similar cuts put on the table all through the rural part of our State. A lot of Senators—I know the Senator from Montana knows a little bit about it—can't identify with something like this. In most of the East, they don't have half of their land in public ownership. They essentially have private property. A piece of private property is sold, revenue is generated, taxes are paid. That is how they pay for services. We have not been able to do that in our State because the Federal Government owns more than half of our land.
People ask: How is it—and Senator Smith-R has touched on this this afternoon—that Oregon depends on these revenues for essential services? Well, God made a judgment that what we ought to do in Oregon is grow these beautiful trees. And, by God, we delivered. That is what we do. And we do it better than anybody else. So we didn't come up with some arbitrary figure back in 2000 and say, well, let's just give the State of Oregon a whole bunch of money because we decided to exercise raw political muscle. It was essentially based on a formula that is decades old, built around the proposition that where the Federal Government owns most of the land, we ought to make it possible for those communities to get help, at least at that time, through timber receipts. But when the environmental laws changed, suddenly those counties were high and dry.
So I went to the Clinton administration. Frankly, I was pretty blunt. I have been blunt with the Bush administration, but I was even more blunt with the Clinton administration.
I said: You don't pass this program, you might as well not come to our State because you are not going to be able to make a case for cutting off this program when those communities are getting hammered through no fault of their own. They did nothing wrong.
What happened in this country is that values changed. Environmental priorities changed. All of a sudden those counties had nowhere to turn. So you are seeing that in Montana, in Oregon, throughout these small communities.
Senator Smith has seen this as well. You can't go to a small community in rural Oregon, such as John Day, and tell them they ought to set up a biotechnology company in the next few months. They are making a big push right now to diversify and get into other industries. But these resource-dependent communities, communities that are looking at the axe falling on them, not in 6 months, not in a year, but coming up in a matter of weeks, they have nowhere to turn. So we consider ourselves the last line of defense.
What we are asking for is what I and Senator Reid, the majority leader, have been talking about. And that is a fair shake for our State, not a death warrant for rural communities in our State, not a program that, in effect, has them shrivel up and disappear. We want a fair shake.
This is an extraordinarily important issue. I just had a big round of townhall meetings across my State. We are all going home for the recess. I will start another round of those townhall meetings in rural Oregon this weekend. What happens at these meetings is you have law enforcement people. I had Sheriff Mike Winter from southern Oregon—I am sure Senator Smith knows Mike Winter—talking to us about what the cuts would mean in law enforcement in rural areas. We are talking about law enforcement, the fight against methamphetamines, which I know the Senator from Montana knows something about. It is a scourge that is clobbering the whole West. We can't leave our communities defenseless. We can't leave our communities without the resources they need to fight meth and these other critical problems.
I have open meetings, one in every county every year. I am sure the Senator from Montana will be starting something like that. Folks in these rural school districts used to come up and say: Ron, we are not going to have school but for 3 days a week if we don't have this program. So what we are talking about is any serious semblance of public instruction in rural communities in our State. We don't see how we are going to be able to achieve it without this particular program.
The consequences here are very real. The consequences are tragic. This is not a question of the Oregon congressional delegation, Senator Smith and myself, crying wolf and coming out and just being alarmists on the floor of the Senate. This is what we hear from our constituents. I heard it at town meetings a little bit ago, just a little over a week. I am going to hear it again this weekend. Suffice it to say, over 700 counties in 39 States are involved. Many of them are in parts of the country where the Federal Government owns most of the land. That is certainly the case in Oregon where we have many rural communities where significantly over half of the land is owned by the Federal Government.
Mr. Smith-R, Oregon - Mr. President, I wonder if my colleague will yield for a question.
Mr. Wyden - I am happy to yield.
Mr. Smith - My colleague is the author of this legislation. As he has worked in the 109th Congress from the minority side, and I worked the majority side, I suppose he found, as I did, that many people said: Well, the cause is just, but just work it out. There weren't a lot of folks who wanted to work it out. Now, as we come to the final business of the last Congress in this Congress, in a congressional resolution, is it not true that we only have this piece of legislation and the emergency supplemental that we have to attach this to? And if we don't, the pink slips are for real?
Mr. Wyden - The Senator is right with respect to how critical this question is. As he knows, because he and I have made this a top priority now for quite some time, we didn't get a fair shake in the last session of Congress. I put a hold on several appointments from the Bush administration because I wanted to make sure that they got the wake-up call. I lifted that hold and, frankly, I wish I hadn't because I think they have never put the effort into trying to get this warranted program reauthorized. So Senator Smith is correct in terms of saying that this program should have been reauthorized some time ago. He and I have put it at the top of our priority list.
This is not an abstract question. Decisions are being made by rural school officials, by county commissions at this time. They are looking at cuts that are going to affect our ability to protect the communities from serious matters as it relates to criminal justice, to adequate public education. And we are not talking about extras. We are talking about basics, as Sheriff Mike Winter from southwestern Oregon has noted, and local school officials as well. We want to make it clear just what the consequences are going to be.
I mentioned Curry County on the Oregon coast, for example. A number of our other communities—Douglas County, Lane County, in particular—are going to see direct and painful consequences as a result of this program and the failure of this program to be reauthorized. County payments legislation is supported by a diverse coalition. We are pleased to see that this is a top priority of the National Association of Counties. A number of labor organizations have also said that they believe this is critically important.
I will just wrap it up by saying that I believe these cuts in payments to rural counties are going to hit the rural part of my State and rural America like a wrecking ball. They are going to pound these communities. And it doesn't have to happen. Senator Smith has made that point. I have made that point. The whole Oregon congressional delegation, every member of our House delegation, we don't have 50 Members representing us in the House of Representatives like California, but we are going to be heard.
I have been gratified that Senator Reid, our majority leader, has been willing to spend so much time with me. He is a westerner. He knows what the impact is in a public lands State. He was in our State. He saw what the forests mean to us. He is an honorable man and a man of his word. He said he would work with me to make sure that our State gets a fair shake. We are going to make sure that message is heard loudly and clearly when we have the hearing in the Forestry Subcommittee. We will make sure the legislation that the Senator from Montana has joined me on will get a thorough hearing at that particular discussion.
I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer for being a cosponsor of this bill. We are glad to have him in our bipartisan coalition.
I wanted to wrap up by saying I appreciate Senator Smith's remarks here on the floor. He is going to hear from the Oregon congressional delegation and Oregon Senators again and again and again, until this critical program is reauthorized.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding officer - The majority leader.
Mr. Harry Reid-D, (NV) Majority Leader - Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding officer - The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Wyden - Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The Presiding officer - Is there objection to calling off the quorum?
Mr. Warner - No. Before the Senator begins to speak, I want to make this clear. I ask the Presiding Officer, am I not to be recognized for the time between 3:45 and 4:30?
Mr. Wyden - Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I think, will be pleased with my request.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be recognized at this time for up to 60 minutes and, following that, Senator Murray-D be recognized for 15 minutes, a Republican Senator be recognized next for 10 minutes, then Senator McCaskill-D be recognized for 10 minutes, and then Senator Smith be recognized for up to 75 minutes. I will be joining Senator Smith during his 75 minutes. That is my request.
The Presiding officer - Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Iraq - Senate Resolutions
John Warner-R (VA)
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I shall be joined by a number of colleagues and the purpose of our taking this time is as follows: We have decided to put in an amendment to H.J. Res. 20, amendment number 259 which will be printed in today's record. This amendment mirrors S. Con. Res. 7, a resolution prepared by myself and others sometime last week, which expresses certain concerns we have with regard to the President's plan as announced on January 10 of this year.
This amendment, to H.J. Res. 20 is cosponsored by Mr. Levin-D, Ms. Collins-R, Ben Nelson-D of Nebraska, Mr. Hagel-R, Ms. Snowe-R, Mr. Smith-R, Mr. Biden-D, and as other Senators return to town, we may have further cosponsors.
We are concerned that the fighting rages on throughout Iraq, and particularly in Baghdad. It is very important that the Senate should, as the greatest deliberative body—certainly in matters of war and peace—in a prompt way address the issues regarding Iraq.
Our men and women in the Armed Forces are fighting bravely in that conflict, as they are in conflicts elsewhere worldwide. Our concerns are heartfelt, not driven by political motivation. As we gathered as a group in the past 2 weeks to work on this, we took note of the fact that the President, on January 10, in his message to the Nation explicitly said that others could come forward with their ideas. I will paraphrase it—the exact quote is in the amendment we are putting in today—that he would take into consideration the views of others. So in a very constructive and a respectful way, our group said we disagreed with the President and we gave a series of points urging him to consider those points as he begins to implement such plan as finally devised throughout Iraq but most specifically in Baghdad.
We are very respectful of the fact that the plan put in by the President was in three parts: a diplomatic part, an economic part, and a military part. We explicitly stated in the resolution our support for the diplomatic and economic parts, and we are hopeful it can be put together in a timely fashion. There is some concern as to whether the three main parts can progress together, unified, in this operation, given the short timetable to implement it. So two parts of the program we wholeheartedly support and so state in this amendment.
The concern is about the military section. We state the explicit nature of our concerns. Some Senators have suggested the resolution expresses matters which I can find no source whatsoever in the resolution for those complaints. Nevertheless, I will address in the course of this time each and every one of those concerns.
Indeed, on the weekend talk shows, one Senator said: My problem with the Warner proposal and others that criticize the surge is, what is your plan? All right. That is a legitimate question. I say that our amendment states a clear strategy. It says as follows:
The Senate believes the United States should continue vigorous operations in Anbar Province specifically for the purpose of combating an insurgency including elements associated with the al-Qaida movement and denying terrorists a safe haven.
Secondly, the primary objective of the overall strategy in Iraq should be to encourage Iraqi leaders to make political compromises that will foster reconciliation and strengthen the unity government, ultimately leading to improvements in the security situation.
Next, the military part of the strategy should focus on maintaining the territorial integrity of Iraq, denying international terrorists a safe haven, conducting coun�ter�ter�ror�ism operations, promoting regional stability, supporting the Iraqi efforts to bring greater security to Baghdad, and training and equipping Iraqi forces to take full responsibility for their own security.
Likewise, another part of our amendment states:
The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to these goals and should charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence.
The United States Government should engage selected nations in the Middle East to develop a regional, internationally sponsored peace and reconciliation process. Overall, military, diplomatic, and economic strategies should not be regarded as an open-ended or unconditional commitment, but rather, as a new strategy, hereafter should be conditioned upon the Iraqi government meeting benchmarks that must be delivered in writing and agreed to by the Prime Minister.
Then we spell out a series of benchmarks. Such benchmarks should include, but not be limited to, the deployment of that number of additional Iraqi security forces as specified in the plan in Baghdad, ensuring equitable distribution of resources of the Government of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the oil resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner, and the authority of the Iraqi commanders to make tactical and operational decisions without political intervention.
Further, some Senators have indicated, again incorrectly, that our resolution either fails to recognize, or disagrees with all aspects of the President's plan, namely the political and economic aspects, in addition to the military part of his plan.
In fact, our resolution acknowledges directly that the President's plan is multi-faceted. Our resolution states, whereas, on January 10, 2007, following consultations with the Iraqi Prime Minister, the President announced a new strategy, which consists of three basic elements: diplomatic, economic, and military.
As such, our resolution disagrees only with the military aspect of the President's plan, and actually supports the diplomatic and economic aspects of his plan.
Finally, some Senators have suggested that our resolution either fails to support the troops, or threatens a cut-off in funding. Actually, our resolution does neither. It states forcefully our support for the troops: whereas, over 137,000 American military personnel are currently serving in Iraq, like thousands of others since March 2003, with the bravery and professionalism consistent with the finest traditions of the United States Armed Forces, and are deserving of our support of all Americans, which they have strongly; whereas, many American service personnel have lost their lives, and many more have been wounded, in Iraq, and the American people will always honor their sacrifices and honor their families.
And our resolution, specifically protects funding for our troops in the field and states: the Congress should not take any action that will endanger United States military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funds for troops in the field, as such an action with respect to funding would undermine their safety or harm their effectiveness in pursuing their assigned missions.
In sum, our resolution aims not to contravene the Constitutional authorities as Commander-in-Chief, but, rather, to accept the offer to Congress made by the President on January 10, 2007 that, "if members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust."
It is clear that the United States' strategy and operations in Iraq can only be sustained and achieved with support from the American people and with a level of bipartisanship in Congress.
The purpose of this resolution is not to cut our forces or to set a timetable for withdrawal, but, rather, to express the genuine concerns of a number of Senators from both parties about the President's plan.
It is not meant to be confrontational, but instead to provide a sense of bipartisanship resolve on our new strategy in Iraq. It follows many of the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report by focusing on what is truly in our national interest in Iraq, and spells those goals out in detail.
I want to divide our time between colleagues. I will ask at this time that the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, be recognized and that, following his comments, I shall be recognized again to give the remainder of my remarks. I say on a personal note to the Senator how much I valued our conversation over the weekend, together with our distinguished colleague from Maine, after which we decided today to put the language of S. Con. Res. 7 in as an amendment to the pending matter before the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Chuck Hagel-R (NB)
Mr. Hagel-R, Nebraska - Mr. President, I rise to join my colleagues, Senators Warner-R, Collins-R, and others, in offering this amendment to the continuing resolution.
Last week, Senators Collins, Snowe-R, Smith-R, Voinovich-R, Coleman-R, and myself sent a letter to the Senate leadership urging our distinguished majority and minority leaders to reach an agreement so the Senate could debate the war in Iraq.
We said, and I quote from that letter:
The current stalemate is unacceptable to us and to the people of this country.
In the letter, we pledged to--again quoting the letter--"explore all of our options under the Senate procedures and practices to ensure a full and open debate on the Senate floor." That, of course, is why we are here today.
I, similar to my colleagues, am deeply disappointed that a full and open debate on Iraq remains stymied in the Senate. All Members--Members of both parties--have the right and responsibility to present their views and, if they choose, submit other resolutions regarding the war in Iraq.
I am also deeply disappointed that both sides have used procedural tactics in this process. My colleagues and I were assured that the leaders were committed to reaching an agreement on this debate. That has not yet happened, and I, similar to my colleagues, intend to do everything in my power as a Senator to ensure a full and open debate of the Iraq war on the Senate floor in front of the American people. We owe it to our soldiers and their families, and we owe it to the American people.
I wish to focus on one particular aspect of this debate and that has to do with the resolution itself--the relevancy and importance of Senate resolutions. In the last 15 years, there is ample, strong, and significant precedent in the Senate debating a President's military policies while troops are deployed overseas--Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Kosovo. In each of those situations, I and many of my colleagues here today in the Senate debated and most of us voted binding and nonbinding resolutions regarding U.S. military operations abroad. Many of these measures expressed opposition to the military operations, criticizing, for example, one, the open-ended nature of the deployment; two, the danger of mission creep or escalation of military involvement; three, the danger of deploying U.S. forces into sectarian conflict; and four, the failure of the President to consult with Congress.
It might be instructive to review some of the Senate's history on these recent debates regarding these recent resolutions. Let me begin with Bosnia.
In June of 1992, U.S. forces began to deploy to Bosnia. In December 1995, the United States was preparing to deploy substantial ground forces into Bosnia, roughly 20,000 American ground force combat troops, very similar to the number we are now looking at in the President's escalation of more American troops into Iraq today.
As a result of President Clinton's decision in 1995, the Senate considered Senate Concurrent Resolution 35, a resolution submitted by our colleague from Texas, the senior Senator, Mrs. Hutchison-R. This resolution was a nonbinding resolution. Again, this was a nonbinding resolution. This resolution said:
The Congress opposes President Clinton's decision to deploy United States military ground forces into the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina to implement the General Framework Agreement for peace in Bosnia. ...
This resolution also said:
Congress strongly supports the United States military personnel who may be ordered by the President to implement the general framework for the peace in Bosnia.
So, therefore, it is saying we support our troops, but we disapprove of the President's policy to send more troops. This resolution also said it was a continuation of the previous debate on support of the troops already deployed.
As Senator Hutchison said on the Senate floor on December 13:
There are many of us who do not think that this is the right mission, but who are going to go full force to support our troops. In fact, we believe we are supporting our troops in the most effective way by opposing this mission because we think it is the wrong one. ...
A month earlier in November 1995, Senator Hutchison framed the complexities of our military intervention in Bosnia in terms that are eerily relevant to today. She said:
I am very concerned that we are also setting a precedent for our troops to be deployed on the ground in border conflicts, in ethnic conflicts, in civil wars. ...
Opposition to the President's policy but strong support for the U.S. military—this is similar to the debate we are having today on Iraq.
Senator Hutchison's resolution had 28 cosponsors, including our friends and colleagues, Senators Inhofe-R, Craig-R, Kyl-R, Lott-R, Bennett-R, Hatch-R, Shelby-R, and Stevens-R.
On December 13, 1995, 47 Senators voted in favor of Senator Hutchison's nonbinding resolution. That day, 47 Senators believed you could oppose the President's policy but still support our troops.
The next day, December 14, 1995, the Senate considered Senate Joint Resolution 44, a binding resolution introduced by Senator Dole. This resolution supported U.S. troops in Bosnia. This resolution had six cosponsors, including our colleagues, Senators McCain-R and Lieberman-CfL.
On December 14, 1995, the Senate adopted this resolution by a vote of 69 to 30. That was Bosnia in 1995.
Somalia: In December 1992, U.S. troops began to deploy to Somalia. Nearly a year later, in September 1993, the Senate debated the objectives, the mission, and strategy of our military deployment in Somalia. Speaking on the Senate floor on September 23, 1993, Senator McCain framed the debate when he said:
Somalia is a prime example of lofty ambitions gone awry. Our service men and women have become ... part of a mission to build Somalia into a stable democracy—something, incidentally, it has never been, and shows no sign of ever becoming this decade.
The manner in which military force is to be used to further this grandiose objective has been left unclear. Without a clear military objective, our forces in Somalia have found themselves involved in a situation where they cannot distinguish between friend and foe. They have often been presented with situations where they cannot even distinguish between civilians and combatants.
On September 9, the Senate voted 90 to 7 to adopt a nonbinding—a nonbinding—sense-of-Congress resolution submitted by Senator Byrd-D. This resolution called on the President to outline the goals, objectives, and duration of the U.S. deployment in Somalia and said Congress believes the President "should seek and receive congressional authorization in order for the deployment of U.S. forces to Somalia to continue."
There are 11 cosponsors of the Byrd measure, including our colleagues, Senators McCain, Cochran-R, Bond-R, and Warnr.
One month later, after the horrible death of 18 U.S. troops in early October, the Senate considered two binding measures to cut off funds, one introduced by Senator McCain and one by Senator Byrd.
On October 15, 1993, the McCain measure, which would have terminated further U.S. military operations in Somalia, was tabled 61 to 38. That same day, the Senate voted 76 to 23 to adopt the Byrd measure to cut off all funding in March 1994 for U.S. forces in Somalia.
There are two more very clear examples, such as the examples I have given on Somalia and Bosnia, that I could discuss—Haiti and Kosovo—in some detail, and I may do that later. But the point is, the facts are clear. There is clear precedent—clear precedent—for both binding and nonbinding resolutions, as well as legislation to redirect, condition or cut off funds for military operations, and this is at the same time we have and we had military forces in those countries.
So to argue, to state, to imply this is somehow not only irrelevant but unprecedented is not the case. The Congress has always had a responsibility, not just constitutionally but morally, to inject itself in the great debate of war.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that very point?
Mr. Hagel - Yes, I yield to Senator Warner.
Mr. Warner - We had in our discussions, and Senator Collins joined in this discussion—that we could not conceive—and that I, this Senator from Virginia, could ever participate in a cutoff-of-funding in regards to this situation in Iraq.
But back to historical precedents. I have this volume, the "Encyclopedia of the United States Congress," compiled by 20 eminent historians in 1995. And on this subject that the Senator addressed, they said the following:
Another informal power of the Congress in the foreign policy field is the passage of resolutions by the House or the Senate, often called a sense-of-the-House or sense-of-the-Senate resolution. Although not legally enforceable, such resolutions are often taken seriously by the President and his foreign policy advisers because they are useful indicators of underlying public concern about important foreign policy questions. Moreover, as a general rule, the White House wants to maintain cooperative relations with the Congress and to give legislators the impression that their views have been heard and have been taken into account in policy formulation.
Clear documentation of the Senator's points in this very erudite resource of the history of the Congress. I thank the Senator.
Mr. Hagel - Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
In conclusion, I add that the American people have had enough of the misrepresentations, the politics, and the procedural intrigue in the Senate. I say again to our distinguished leaders of both our parties: It is your responsibility, as leaders of this body, to resolve this procedural dispute so that the Senate can have a full, fair, open debate on the war in Iraq. And I will continue to join my colleagues—Senators Warner, Collins, Snowe, and others—in making every effort to bring up our resolution at every available opportunity until that debate occurs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Virginia.
John Warner-R (VA)
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I have another point of history. I find this fascinating. I hope, hereafter, colleagues, pundits, and writers will at least recognize that, and I repeat it. Senate Historian documents confirm the Senate has been posing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions since 1789. Thus, our Framers of the Constitution and those who served in the early Congresses recognized the value of this type of resolution.
I yield the floor. I thank my distinguished colleague from Maine, again, for her steadfast support and advice throughout this entire process today, tomorrow, and well into the future.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Susan Collins-R (ME)
Ms. Collins-R, Maine - Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia—a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an individual who has devoted his life to the support of our military—in offering, along with a number of our colleagues, this very important resolution as an amendment to the continuing resolution. There are many differing views in this body on the road ahead in Iraq, and those views are legitimate but they deserve to be debated. There is no more pressing issue facing this country than Iraq. The public is disappointed to see the Senate avoid the debate on the most important issue of our day. The current stalemate is unacceptable. It is unacceptable to the American people. Regardless of our views on the appropriate strategy for Iraq, we have an obligation, we have a duty as Senators to fully debate this issue and to go on record on what we believe to be the appropriate strategy, the road ahead in Iraq.
I am very disappointed that the procedural wrangling on both sides of the aisle prevented that kind of full and fair debate last week. I believed strongly that we should go ahead with that debate, and I am sorry that did not occur. I hope our leaders on both sides of the aisle will work together to come up with a fair approach to debate this most important issue.
Just this last weekend, the State of Maine lost another soldier in combat in Iraq. The American people deserve to know where each and every one of us stands on the President's strategy, on whether to cut off funding, on the important issues related to this very pressing issue. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. There are those who agree with my position that a surge of 21,500 troops would be a mistake. There are those who believe that the surge is the right course to follow. I respect the views of Senators on both sides of the aisle and, indeed, this is not a partisan issue. But surely—surely this is an issue that deserves our full debate in the best traditions of this historic body. Surely—surely our constituents deserve to know where we stand.
I think this is so important that nothing should prevent us from going to this debate prior to our recessing. I think we should make this so important that if it is not done, perhaps we should reconsider our plans for next week. I think we should proceed with this most important debate without further delay. There are a number of worthwhile resolutions that have been brought forward. Let the debate begin.
Finally, I want to add just a couple of comments to those made by the distinguished Senator from Virginia and the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, and that is about the importance of these resolutions. They are by no means unprecedented, as both of my colleagues have so articulately pointed out. They offer guidance to the administration. It remains my hope that if the Senate passes the resolution that I have helped to coauthor that the President will accept our invitation to take a second look at his plan. We urge him to explore all alternatives and to work with us on a bipartisan strategy to chart a new road ahead in Iraq.
As a result of my trip to Iraq in December, I concluded that we face a number of different challenges in Iraq and the strategy depends on where you are in Iraq. In Baghdad, the capital is engulfed in sectarian violence. Yes, Baghdad is in the midst of a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. To insert more American soldiers in the midst of this sectarian struggle would, in my judgment, be a major mistake. Only the Iraqis can devise a solution to the sectarian strife that is gripping Baghdad, and I think if the Iraqis had taken the long overdue political steps, if they more fully integrated the Sunni minority into the power structures, if they had passed an oil revenue bill that more equitably distributed oil revenues, if they had held the long overdue provincial elections, we would not be in the crisis in which we are today.
Indeed, that is not just my opinion, that was the opinion of General Petraeus when I asked him that question during his nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee.
By contrast to the sectarian strife that is plaguing Baghdad, the battle is very different in Anbar Province to the west. There the fight is with al-Qaida and with foreign jihadists, and there and only there did I hear an American commander ask for more troops—only in Anbar Province—and he did so in order to capitalize on a recent positive development in which some of the local Sunni tribal leaders are now backing the coalition forces against al-Qaida.
My conclusion is that we do need more troops in Anbar, but we should reallocate from troops already in the country. I personally would choose to take troops out of Baghdad and send them west, to Anbar Province, and put the Iraqis in charge, fully in charge of security in Baghdad. I fear that by inserting thousands of additional troops into the midst of the sectarian strife in Baghdad, ironically we will ease the pressure on the Iraqi leaders to take the long-overdue steps to quell the sectarian violence, for I am convinced that the sectarian violence in Baghdad requires a political, not a military, solution.
In Basra, the third stop on our trip, I heard a British commander, a British colonel, give an excellent presentation to us. He said that initially the British and American troops were welcomed in Iraq, but as time has gone on, what he called the consent line has declined and their presence has been less and less tolerated and more and more resented.
I think perhaps the only issue on which all Members of this body can agree is that our troops have served nobly and well in Iraq, and that we need a new strategy. We disagree on the road ahead, but that is what democracy and the traditions of the Senate are all about. We should not be afraid of this debate. We should debate this issue fully and openly and let our constituents and the administration know exactly where the Senate stands.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator from Virginia.
John Warner-R (VA)
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if I could ask our colleague a question before she departs? She made reference to her trip and the discussions that she had with the senior commanders. I would like to bring to her attention testimony that came before our committee, of which the distinguished Senator from Maine is a member, at which time we heard from the Commander of the United States Central Command, General Abizaid.
In the course of his testimony to Congress on November 15, 2006—right in the timeframe the Senator made her trip—I will quote him, General Abizaid. The general said:
I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, Corps Commander, and General Dempsey—we all talked together. And I said, "In your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq?" And they all said no. And the reason is because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon us to do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.
I say to my colleague, that quote captured my own visit, which was just barely a month before that, when I came back and I described in my public comments that the situation in Iraq was drifting sideways.
That was a very serious summary. But I said it because I felt obligated to our troops who were fighting bravely and courageously and with a level of professionalism that equals the finest hour in the 200-plus-year history of our military—and the support their families give them. I felt ever so strongly that we were obligated as a country to reexamine our strategy and I called for that reexamination of strategy and it has been done.
But I say to my colleague, General Abizaid's summary about the need for more forces, does that not summarize what you learned on your trip?
Ms. Collins-R, Maine - Mr. President, if I may respond to the Senator from Virginia, I remember very well General Abizaid's testimony before the Armed Services Committee in mid-November. And as the Senator has pointed out—and he presided over that hearing—it could not have been clearer General Abizaid said that he consulted with all the American commanders and that the effect of bringing in more American troops would be to relieve the pressure on the Iraqis to step up and take control of the security themselves.
Indeed, and ironically, General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, had written an article for the Military Review in January of 2006 in which he said that one of the lessons from his tours of duty in Iraq was that you should not do too much, that you should call upon the Iraqis to take responsibility for themselves. Indeed, my experience was just as the Senator's was. About a month after General Abizaid's testimony, I was in Iraq. I talked with the commanders on the ground, and I would like to share with the senior Senator what one American commander told me.
He said that a jobs program for Iraqis would do more good to quell the sectarian violence than the addition of more American troops. He told me that some Iraqi men are so desperate for money because they have been unemployed for so long that they are joining the Shiite militias. They are planting roadside bombs simply for the money because they are desperate.
I thought that was such a telling comment, I say to my distinguished colleague, because this was from a very experienced commander who had been in Iraq for a long time.
At that moment he was not calling for more troops. None of the American commanders with whom I talked in Baghdad called for more troops. The only place where we heard a request for more troops was in Anbar Province, and as I have explained, the situation in Anbar is totally different. It is not sectarian violence. The violence is with al-Qaida, the foreign jihadists, mainly Sunni versus Sunni, and it requires a different strategy.
So my experience, when added to the distinguished Senator's, shows a consistent pattern. Whether it was the distinguished Senator's trip in October or the testimony of General Abizaid in November or my journey in December, we heard exactly the same themes, exactly the same answers to the questions of whether we needed more troops.
Finally, let me say I went to Iraq with a completely open mind on this issue, and I came back convinced that sending more troops to Baghdad would be a colossal error.
Mr. Warner - Mr. President, I thank our colleague. I wonder if at this point in the colloquy—and then I will yield the floor because I know other Senators are anxious to speak—but we, the United States, the military, and the taxpayers have trained and equipped over 300,000 Iraqi security forces composed of the professional Army, police, border security, and a group of others. The thrust of our resolution originally, and this one that is here, the amendment which is identical, was to give the Iraqis this opportunity, which the Prime Minister himself called for. He said: Give us the opportunity to show that we can do this operation.
That is the basis on which we drew up the resolution. And in our resolution we said two things: The responsibility for Iraq's internal security and halting sectarian violence must rest primarily with the Government of Iraq and Iraqi security forces. Then, specifically we said in the conclusion: The United States military operations should, as much as possible, be confined to the goals that are enumerated in the previous paragraph and should charge—I repeat—charge the Iraqi military with the primary mission of combating sectarian violence, and that is in the Baghdad operation.
So I think those facts, our resolution, now referred to as an amendment, absolutely parallels what we learned firsthand on our trips into that region.
Mr. President, I see other Senators are waiting. I see the distinguished senior Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.
The Presiding officer - The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Olympia Snowe-R (ME)
Ms. Snowe-R, Maine - Mr. President, first, I want to commend the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner-R, for his unparalleled leadership, because it is borne of a tremendous credibility based on his military and professional experience on these vital issues, and that precise credibility lends the kind of expertise to the Senate, to the Congress, and to our Nation that is so vital at this point in time. But I think in the final analysis, it is something we have to honor as we consider the most consequential issue of our time.
I am very pleased the Senator has offered an amendment that reflects his resolution that was modified and that was supported by both sides of the political aisle. I am pleased to join my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel-R, and my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins-R, because this is a critical issue. It is one of the issues that is the most significant of our time.
As we begin this week, it is regrettable we don't have the Iraq debate before the floor of the Senate in the form of considering a resolution. Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is going to proceed. They are going to proceed to debate a resolution in opposition to the troop surge proposed by the President of the United States. They will have that debate this week. The question is when and if the Senate is going to have that debate on a specific resolution, on specific issues, with specific votes.
Unfortunately, what we are witnessing today is the shrinking role of the Senate when it comes to the war in Iraq, a war that has been ongoing for 4 years. I am dismayed because I don't see any evidence. I don't see any evidence of working on a bipartisan basis to coalesce around an issue and on a position where it has been demonstrated there is a majority of support in the Senate to have negotiations, to have consultation, to work it out. I don't see any evidence of that. Have we come to the point in the Senate where we haven't been able to determine procedurally how to move forward on a nonbinding resolution? It is hard to believe the Senate would be marginalized on that point.
Now I am speaking from experience. This is my 13th year in the Senate—my 13th year. I served in the House of Representatives for 16 years. I served for more than 20 years—I think about 24 years—on Foreign Affairs, Foreign Relations, Armed Services, and currently the Intelligence Committee. So I speak from experience. You have to work across the political aisle. And there wasn't a time when we didn't discuss these issues: Lebanon, Persian Gulf, Panama before the Persian Gulf. We had Bosnia and Kosovo. We were able to work it out. The fact is I well recall a statement I had drafted back in 2000 illustrating examples of bipartisanship here on the floor of the Senate, one of which I said about the Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, in working across the aisle with the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, on the issue of Kosovo.
That has been the hallmark of the Senate. Does it mean that we disagree on a major issue of our time? No. There are differences of opinion, but what is the Senate afraid of? What are we afraid of? To debate and to vote on various positions, whether it is on our position on the troop surge, whether it is on the position of cutting out funding, the troop gaps, a new authorization? Some of those issues and positions I would disagree with. But does that mean to say the Senate cannot withstand the conflicting views of various Members of the Senate? It is not unheard of, that both sides of the political aisle will have differing views.
I came to this debate a few weeks ago when we were getting prepared ostensibly to work on this issue, to debate, which is consistent with the traditions and principles of this institution, which has been its hallmark. That is why it has been considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Unfortunately, it is not living up to that expectation or characterization, regrettably. But I joined with the Senator from Nebraska in his effort across the aisle with the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because I wanted to send a message that here and now, there will be those of us on this side of the aisle who disagree with the President on the troop surge. So I wanted to send that message. I read the resolution. I know there are some on this side of the aisle who didn't accept that language. But I thought it was important to do that. I cosponsored that resolution.
We had many meetings, as the Senator from Nebraska would note, with Chairman Biden-D and Chairman Levin-D, to work through this issue: how we could work with the Senator from Virginia, because we knew we had a majority on both sides of the aisle that could work it out, who were opposed to the troop surge. So how is it we couldn't get from here to there? And we met in good faith to negotiate, working out even the procedures. We agreed: Let's have an open, unfettered, unrestricted debate, which is consistent with this institution that is predicated on our Founding Fathers' vision of an institution based on accommodation and consensus. You have to get 60 votes. So we said: Let's work it out, and the good Senator from Virginia worked it out. He incorporated our concerns in his modified resolution so we could enjoin our efforts.
Now, it is not surprising on this side of the aisle that there are strong views that support the President, that don't believe we should have a vote. But does that mean to say we can't move forward and the House of Representatives can? So the House of Representatives is going to be debating this issue this week, and the Senate is going to be dithering. While our troops are on the front lines, the Senate is sitting on the sidelines.
I am amazed we have reached this point in the Senate. We should be embracing this moment. We are the voice of the American people. Constitutional democracy is predicated on majority rule, but a respect for minority rights. I don't see any ongoing negotiations and discussions. Maybe I missed something. I don't see that happening across the political aisle. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance, that you missed your chance with a vote—2 weeks ago—you mean that is it in the Senate? How did we pass major pieces of legislation, major initiatives without saying: That is it; there is no room for discussion, there is no room for negotiation, there is no room for compromise.
Oftentimes I am challenged on this side because I work so much across the political aisle. Senator Hagel did the same thing, as did Senator Warner. We worked across the political aisle to make it work. But I do not see that mutual trust to say: Let's see how we can move forward on the most profound issue of our time. It is unimaginable that we cannot develop a strategy for deliberating on this most consequential issue.
We are expecting to adjourn next week for a recess. I thought to myself: Why? Why, so we will get back to Iraq before we know it? That is what we have heard: Just wait. The troop surge isn't going to wait. The Iraqi war doesn't take a recess. Our men and women aren't taking a recess. Why can't we debate now and vote on these issues? Are we saying we are simply not capable of talking?
That is what the Senate is all about. It is based on consensus. It is based on compromise. It is based on conciliation. It is based on the fact that you have to develop cooperation in order to get anything done. It is not unusual. If historically we took the position: You missed your chance because there are disparate views, so that there would be no opportunity to further discuss or negotiate—we missed our chance? Are we talking about scoring political points? Are we talking about what is the best policy for this country with respect to Iraq at a time when men and women are on the front lines; at a time when the President is proposing a troop surge which I and others joined with Senator Warner because we oppose that; at a time in which we are almost a year to the anniversary of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra?
In fact, Senator Warner and I paid a visit just days after that, the first congressional delegation, and we saw all the manifestations of what exists today in the most pronounced way. And we are saying we can't get it done in the Senate. Is this about scoring political points? I read every day: Who is winning politically? Because that is what it is about. It is about winning politically on a policy with respect to Iraq where we have been mired for 4 years with a strategy that hasn't been working. And we are saying, who is winning politically?
Isn't it about Iraq? Isn't it about our men and women? Isn't it about what is in the best interests for this country?
We have given so much. Our men and women have sacrificed immeasurably. As Senator Collins indicated, we lost another from Maine this weekend, Sargent Eric Ross, 26. These men and women have put themselves on the frontlines. Yet we sit and hesitate to talk about what is in their best interests. Some say it is a nonbinding resolution that has no impact. I daresay, if it doesn't have any impact, then why is it we are not voting? What has a greater resonance in America? Is it silence or is it taking action on the most consequential issue of our time? I can only imagine, if we had an overwhelming bipartisan vote on Senator Warner's resolution--that is bipartisan, I might add—because those Members strove to make it bipartisan in the Senate, many strive to do that, so we can send a message that would be profound, that would resonate. To have a strong vote in the Senate or silence, which would have greater resonance? I think we know the answer to this question.
I am concerned we are taking a political U-turn away from the message in the last election. I was in that last election. I heard loudly and clearly. I don't blame the people of Maine or across this country for their deep-seated frustration. They are right. There was too much partisanship and too much polarization.
What we need now is leadership. We need leadership for this country. They are thirsting for a strong leadership, an honorable leadership that leads us to a common goal. No one expected unanimity in the Senate but we would give integrity to this process to allow it to work and not cynically say who is winning and who is losing today politically, so we have 30-second ads that will be run by outside groups or we are seeing them now. We are not shedding the political past. We have made a political U-turn. We are returning to it.
This isn't about party labels. This isn't whether it is good for Republicans or good for Democrats. It is what is good for America. It is not about red States and blue States. It is about the red, white, and blue.
I am dismayed we are the second month into a new Congress, after the American people resoundingly repudiated the politics of the past, the partisanship and polarization, creating a poisonous environment. They repudiated all of that. Here we are, back to the same old approach. Instead of giving confidence to the American people that we will speak, we are their voice, we give voice to their fears and to their hopes, to their concerns that they rightfully have because we are not making the kind of progress, we are moving in a different direction on Iraq that obviously has been exemplified by the continuing and ongoing sectarian warfare.
Fifteen months ago when Senator Warner came to the Senate and offered a resolution, 2006 was going to be the year of transition to Iraqi sovereignty. It was 2006 when we would turn over all the security to the Iraqi security forces. But 2006 has come and gone. We haven't made any measurable progress.
As I said, when I was there a year ago, we saw the manifestations of the sectarian warfare, a vacuum had been created politically because no new central government had been created. That took months. We allowed that vacuum to continue. We got a new government. Yet they have been hesitant—indeed, they have been an impediment—to quelling the sectarian violence and confronting and demobilizing the militias.
I heard a year ago about the graft and corruption that was running rampant in the ministries, as we saw recently with the Deputy Minister of Health funneling money to support the sectarian violence and the militias. We have seen and we have known all of that.
So Senator Warner got that resolution passed. We united around him. In June of 2006, we passed a resolution as well that called for a regional conference so we would begin the diplomatic offensive the Iraq Study Group spoke to. But that has been ignored as well. I know the administration has had a number of strategies in Iraq. They had the national strategy for victory that was also 15 months old, that represented all the issues Senator Warner has embraced in his resolution, to which they only paid lip service, regrettably.
So we are here today. We want to give voice to the concerns of the American people who want us to move in a different direction, not to commit additional troops at a time in which we have a government in Iraq that hasn't demonstrated a measurable commitment to controlling the sectarian violence and make the political changes within its Government that demonstrate a good-faith effort—whether it is the oil revenue-sharing distribution money, the provincial elections and, as I said, the demobilization of the militias; in fact, impeding our efforts to capture people who were responsible for some of the genocide and the warfare. But here we are.
I hope we can find a way. What could be of higher priority than to be able to debate and to vote on our respective positions, to give a vote on the Warner resolution that is so important that a majority of Senators support? I know we can build the threshold for the 60. It is imperative we do it. It is inexcusable, frankly, that on the process for debating, we cannot reach an agreement. We are failing the American people on a colossal scale. We are held up by arcane procedural measures that could be worked out, if only we reached across the political aisle.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - Mr. President, I thank our distinguished colleague from Maine.
The Presiding Officer - The Senator's 60 minutes has been expired.
Mr. Warner-R, Virginia - I ask for 2 minutes.
The Presiding officer - Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner - I thank the Senator from Maine. The Senator mentioned the bipartisan spirit. I am very pleased to state that Senator Levin, whom I spoke with this afternoon, Senator Ben Nelson, who has been with us steadily on this, and Senator Biden allowed with very extensive enthusiasm to have their names attached as cosponsors.
I thank my colleagues who have come over and participated in this debate and others who have listened. I thank the distinguished Senator, my good friend from Nebraska, for working so hard on this amendment. We will fight on.
We may be idealists, but we will fight on for what we believe in and the integrity of this institution because we firmly believe, to the extent we can, forging a bipartisan consensus is the extent to which we can hopefully regain the full confidence of the American people on what we are doing in Iraq.
I agree with the President, we should not let it slip into a chaotic situation, but we do have some different constructive thoughts as to our strategy ahead.
I yield the floor.
Afternoon Session (cont.)
The afternoon session of the Senate for February 12, 2007 can be found here, and continues with morning business.
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)