January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S25 

one that is durable and sustainable; in 

other words, that represents a real resolution of some of the issues in conflict 

and that also deals with the smuggling 

into Gaza of additional weapons which 

are being used to attack innocent civilians in Israel. 

I know Secretary Rice will be expressing exactly this position. Yes, 

America wants a cease-fire but, no, not 

one that leads nowhere. We want a 

cease-fire that is durable and sustainable and will include a ban on smuggling, activities to carry out a ban on 

smuggling of weapons by Hamas in 

Gaza. 

I am very pleased, very encouraged 

that as the initial action of this Senate 

this year, the majority leader, Senator 

REID, and the Republican leader, Senator MCCONNELL, are working together 

in a bipartisan way—totally bipartisan 

way—to bring before this body, hopefully in the next day or two, a resolution that does exactly what Senator 

KYL has said: to express our unwavering commitment to the security, wellbeing, and survival of the State of 

Israel and recognizing its right to act 

in self-defense to protect its citizens 

against terrorism, that will reiterate 

again that Hamas must end the rocket 

and mortar attacks against Israel and 

hopefully do what the Palestinian Authority has done, which is to accept 

the right of Israel to exist and renounce terrorism and to begin to work 

toward a two-state peaceful solution. 

This resolution really will, in essence, I think, say, as Senator KYL has 

said, in this hour of crisis to the people 

of Israel, our allies, that we will stand 

with you, and also say to the peace-loving Palestinian people that we stand 

with you, too, and we continue to support a two-state solution—Israel and a 

Palestinian state—living in peace one 

against the other, but the Government 

of the United States—the Secretary of 

State, the President, but the Secretary 

of State who is at the United Nations 

is not speaking simply for the executive branch of Government but that 

the Senate, and we have reason to believe our colleagues in the other body, 

the House, will have an opportunity to 

say to not just the Israelis we stand 

with you, but to say to the world community that we as the representatives 

of the people of America, across party 

lines, stand together with Secretary 

Rice as she expresses the position of 

our Government: Yes, a cease-fire, but 

only one that is sustainable and durable and deals with the smuggling of additional weapons into Gaza. This will 

be critically important. 

I thank our leaders on both sides. I 

thank Senator KYL for the work he has 

done. Again, it has been a privilege to 

work with him. 

I also say in a larger context that 

there is a lot of speculation about why 

Hamas broke the cease-fire and initiated the rocket fire against Israel 

deeper into Israel than they have ever 

done before. I do think, as Senator KYL

suggested, that the answer to that 

question probably comes as much or 

more from Tehran than it does from 

Gaza City and Hamas; that Hamas has 

become an agent of the Iranian Government. It is trained and supplied by the 

Iranians and secondarily by the Syrians. Therefore, there is a larger conflict being played out. 

Iran is noted by our State Department to be the most significant state 

sponsor of terrorism. The leaders of 

Iran regularly not only call for the extermination of the State of Israel, but 

also lead tens of thousands in Tehran 

and elsewhere in Iran in chants of 

‘‘death to America, death to America.’’ 

We have long since learned from the 

lessons of history that you cannot simply ignore statements that seem so extreme and fanatical that they are unbelievable because very often the people making them do believe them, and 

given the chance, as we have seen from 

Osama bin Laden in recent times, who 

told us throughout the nineties exactly 

what he intended to do—he happened 

to have done it on 9/11, but he did it 

earlier in other places—we have to 

take these threats seriously. 

I want to say that a precipitous 

cease-fire simply for the sake of a 

cease-fire will allow Hamas to claim a 

victory. A victory for Hamas is not 

simply a victory for Hamas; it is a victory for Iran. And a defeat for Hamas, 

which is in reach if we allow the Israeli 

action to continue, is a defeat for Iran 

and a victory for the United States and 

for the forces of democracy as against 

terrorism and for the forces of moderation and the rule of law in the Islamic 

world as against fanaticism and violence. 

This is all that is being played out. 

This is why I am so encouraged this 

resolution is coming forward. It is, yes, 

a statement of support for our ally 

Israel, but it is also a statement of policy for the Members of the Senate, 

across party lines, and I hope with an 

overwhelmingly positive vote that says 

the security of the United States is on 

the line in how this conflict ends. We 

cannot let it end in a way that 

strengthens Hamas and Iran. 

I repeat, there has been a lot of speculation: Did Hamas break the ceasefire because of the end of the Bush administration? There has been some interesting speculation that has said the 

best thing that could happen for the incoming Obama administration is that 

Hamas be defeated here because then 

whatever happens between the new administration and Iran, Iran will not approach that next chapter with a sense 

of triumphant, but the country would 

have seen one of its major clients and 

agents of terrorism defeated. 

We have the opportunity to speak to 

all that on this resolution in the days 

ahead. Most immediately, I hope we 

will speak to the Members of the Security Council and in the most direct way 

say: We stand with President Bush; we 

stand with Secretary Rice. This is not 

simply the position of a few people at 

the top of the executive branch of our 

Government. This position the American Government has taken with regard to the crisis in Gaza is the position embraced by an overwhelming majority of Members of both parties of 

both Houses. 

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE). The clerk will call the 

roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

PAROCHIAL SPENDING 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would 

like to be recognized for a period of 

time. The majority leader has been 

very gracious to offer me an opportunity to have some discussions about 

some amendments that he is going to 

possibly allow on a bill that he is going 

to introduce this evening. 

I wanted to take some time now 

rather than later so that we would not 

keep staff here, and that way we could 

be efficient with our time. I want to 

talk about several things. I want to 

preface it with a statement, that I have 

been very pleased to see a man I respect a great deal, even though not in 

office as of yet, but the Presidentelect, be very firm in the principles he 

outlined as he ran for President and 

now is about to be sworn into that office. 

One of the themes that has characterized his campaign and has characterized him ever since I have known 

him has been the idea of hope and 

change. So I, like many other Americans, look forward in great anticipation to the leadership that will be 

brought forth in the next few weeks 

and what that means to the millions of 

Americans who are going to look to 

Washington this month with a level of 

hope and excitement that we have not 

seen in this country in decades. 

While most of the attention is going 

to be focused on the White House, the 

institution at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, this Congress, will arguable have a greater role in determining 

whether President-elect Obama’s invocation of change is remembered as an 

election slogan or a true new era in 

American politics. My hope and prayer 

is it is a new era. 

While many commentators have 

noted, with some justification, the concepts such as hope and change were 

never defined much and were not given 

a specificity during the campaign, I believe the American people have already 

defined those concepts very clearly in 

their hearts and minds. 

I believe what hope, change, and optimism represent to the average voter is 

very simple: It is a real expectation 

that Washington will be different. Voters have not undergone an ideological 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S26 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

shift nearly so much as they are demanding that Government be more 

competent, that we be more mature, 

that we be less corrupt, and that we be 

less selfish. That last part is one of the 

things that has driven us to do things 

that are not very good. The concept of 

self-promotion, the concept of promoting one’s career at the expense of 

our country. 

I believe what both parties in Congress must do, and do very quickly, is 

ask themselves the hard question of 

why Congress has a historic low approval rating of 9 percent. Why do we 

have an approval rating of 9 percent? 

That is according to a recent Rasmussen Poll. 

Both parties are accustomed to analyzing what they and the other party 

did right or wrong in recent election 

cycles, but yet neither party has come 

to terms with the fundamental public 

rejection of how Congress as an institution has governed and behaved in recent decades. 

In many respects the American people understand us far better than we 

understand ourselves. While politicians 

tend to believe the public is put off by 

ideologic debate, what alienates voters 

is the truly debilitating division in 

Congress between statesmen and those 

who view reelection as the ultimate 

goal. 

Careerism is not driven by any set of 

ideas but by pure parochialism and the 

short-term pursuit of power for power’s 

sake. The real division, then, that 

blocks progress and commonsense solutions is not between ideas or parties 

but between every Member’s self-promoted interests. 

The American people understand this 

intuitively, which is why Congress has 

had historic low approval ratings long 

before we entered this recession. What 

the public knows is that a Congress 

that debates ideas tends to develop the 

best solutions, while a Congress that is 

driven by careerism and parochialism 

builds bridges to nowhere and fails to 

conduct oversight over entities like 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

In short, the American people can 

handle serious debate, but they cannot 

handle incompetence, corruption, stupidity, and self-interest put above that 

of the Nation. Congress’s handling of 

an economic stimulus bill will no doubt 

be an early test. Although the policy 

may be suspect, Congress seems willing 

to try to avoid embarrassing the new 

President by turning the package into 

an orgy of parochial porkbarrel spending. He said today there will be no earmarks in the stimulus package. 

Congress’s real test, though, will 

come next and will be repeated hundreds of times over the next 4 years 

with each piece of legislation. So far 

Congress has signaled little desire for a 

long-term commitment to change. 

Some would ask why would I say that? 

I would say that because here in a little while this evening we are going to 

reintroduce a bill that nobody knows 

right now how many other bills it has 

in it—that is going to be the first order 

of business of this Congress—that allocates $10 billion, some to some very 

worthy projects but tons of that money 

to projects that do not have a priority 

anywhere close to what we ought to be 

doing. 

This is an omnibus lands bill that indulges the worst habits of a parochial 

Congress. The bill, which is a holdover 

from the last Congress, includes such 

things as a $3 million road to nowhere 

through a wildlife refuge, a $1 billion 

water project—$1 billion—designed to 

assure that 500 salmon will be repopulated. It does not take long to divide 

500 salmon into $1 billion to see that 

what we have is $2 million a salmon. 

They are worth more than gold. There 

is $3.5 million to give to the City of St. 

Augustine, FL, so they can prepare a 

celebration 6 years from now to recognize their 450th birthday. I hardly see, 

in the midst of the economic times we 

face, how that can be a priority for the 

Nation as a whole. I know it is a priority from a parochial standpoint, but 

is it in the best interest of the Nation? 

It has been claimed that this bill is 

noncontroversial, and it should pass essentially without amendment, without 

debate. However, it is to note that over 

100 different organizations on both the 

left side of the political spectrum and 

the right side of the political spectrum 

are opposed to this bill because it is 

controversial, a point noted by the 

nonpartisan Congressional Research 

Service. 

The earmarks in this bill have angered many groups, as has the significant, anti-energy, more foreign dependence on oil programs that are in this 

bill. This bill contains a provision that 

will eliminate 8.8 trillion cubic feet of 

known natural gas reserves, proven reserves, today that we will not be able 

to take for our consumption. What 

that means is we are going to import 

8.8 trillion feet of natural gas because 

we are going to say: You cannot have 

this. 

It also contains 300 million barrels of 

proven oil that we are no longer going 

to take. We just went from $146 oil to 

$35 oil, $40 today. If we have learned 

anything, we ought to be about as 

much energy self-sufficiency as we can. 

The controversy over whether we get 

off fossil fuels is a debate for another 

time. But no one can deny the necessity of us discontinuing sending our 

fortunes to countries that are supplying us oil and are also ultimately 

our enemies. 

The energy resources walled off by 

this bill will match the annual production levels of our two largest natural 

gas-producing States, Alaska and 

Texas. My worry about bringing this 

bill—and, again, I am thankful the majority leader has reached out that we 

might be able to offer amendments—is, 

what does this send as a signal to the 

American public? Here is what it sends. 

It says: There may be change in the 

White House, but there is absolutely no 

change in Congress. Why would we 

bring a bill that is going to spend $10 

billion of our money—at least $9 billion 

of that is not a priority in terms of the 

priorities facing this Nation—why 

would we bring that to the floor as the 

first order of business of the 111th Congress? The only reason we could be 

bringing it to the floor is because it 

makes us look good at home with multiple parochial projects. 

If our country has a failing that will 

cripple us forever, it is the fact that we 

have allowed parochialism, not the 

oath we saw all new Members and 

newly reelected Members take today, 

where we uphold the Constitution. 

What we do is, we uphold the future of 

our own political careers. 

History is interesting. The 1994 Republican revolution unraveled not because they made a lot of big mistakes— 

some were made—but because Republicans made a ton of little mistakes 

they didn’t realize they were making. 

The new and expanded majority will realize that with greater numbers comes 

a greater share of the responsibility 

and blame for whatever happens in this 

country. If we go back to that 9-percent approval rating, it has to do with 

this: Congress, we don’t believe you are 

going to do at every turn, at every opportunity, what is in the best longterm interests for this Nation. And we 

are going to prove it. Because this bill 

ultimately will probably pass out of 

this Chamber and be passed, and we are 

going to spend, at a time when we are 

going to have a $1 trillion deficit this 

year, another $800 billion trying to 

stimulate the economy. We are going 

to say: Priority doesn’t matter but parochialism does. Looking good at home 

matters more than the long-term interests of the country, matters more than 

the financial future of our grandchildren—my political career, my 

party, me, me, me. 

The historical basis of our country is 

built on sacrifice. It is built on sacrifice by one generation for the generations that follow. Our political history 

used to be that as well. My worry, my 

concern is we can’t live up to the hope 

and the change the President-elect has 

set before us. By bringing this bill to 

the floor as the first order of business 

in the 111th Congress, we have confirmed to the American public that 

business as usual is business as usual, 

that we don’t recognize the severity of 

the situation we find ourselves in, that 

we are not going to change our habits, 

that we will continue to promote those 

things that promote us rather than 

promote the long-term good and benefit of the country. It is pure selfishness. It is saying what I want and what 

I need and my political future or my 

State has to come above the long-term 

interests and the best interests of this 

wonderful country. 

The real challenge doesn’t come from 

any of the parties. It comes from parochialism. The public has told Congress 

it is time to start acting in the best interest of the country rather than the 

best interest of our next election. The 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S27 

sooner Congress realizes change requires a cultural shift in both parties, 

the sooner that change will come. 

I would like to spend a moment outlining a few components of this bill. We 

have not actually gotten to see the 

bill, but I have been told by the majority leader that we have added, I think, 

12 or 13 other bills to it. But from what 

we have known in the past, let me go 

through and explain to the American 

public what is in this bill. 

The national parks today face a severe shortage of money to maintain 

them at their current level. It is about 

$9.8 billion. In this bill we add four new 

national parks. The U.S. Arizona Memorial in Hawaii is sinking. The visitors center is sinking. We haven’t put 

the money in to repair it, but yet we 

are going to create more national 

parks that will further dilute the maintenance budget of the National Park 

Service so we can’t even maintain what 

we have. We have a $700 million backlog just on The National Mall in Washington. We didn’t address any of that 

in terms of the priority of fixing that. 

Yet we are going to add four new national parks. 

We are going to add 10 new heritage 

areas. It is great for us to protect and 

think about the environment. But we 

never talk about how that impacts 

property rights, one of the rights given 

to us as our Nation was created. We are 

going to threaten that area. We are 

going to threaten through eminent domain. We are going to threaten 

through councils that will impact individual ownership of what you can do 

with your own property because you 

might be in proximity to a heritage 

area. We have 14 studies that would 

create or expand future national parks; 

in other words, 14 more. That is what 

we are funding in this bill. We don’t 

have the money to take care of the 

parks we have today, but yet we are 

going to put into this and spend money 

to potentially create 14 more. 

There are 17 provisions in this bill 

that will totally prohibit any exploration, oil extraction, coal extraction, 

natural gas extraction from 2.98 million acres in this country, many of 

which have proven reserves underlying. 

There are 53 rivers that are designated 

or portions of which are designated as 

scenic rivers. We have a great scenic 

river in Oklahoma called the Illinois. I 

am glad it is a scenic river. But with 

scenic river designation comes a trampling on the rights of people who are 

far away from it. We didn’t change scenic rivers designation in light of our 

energy needs. Once a river is designated a scenic river and we need to 

move natural gas or a coal slurry or oil 

from point A to point B, we are totally 

prohibited from ever doing that on a 

scenic river. So it is another strike at 

any sort of increasing in our independence on energy because we are going to 

designate scenic rivers. Why not designate scenic rivers with an option to 

make sure we don’t handcuff ourselves 

when it comes to energy? 

There are 65 new Federal wilderness 

areas. Here is an important matter we 

came across as we studied this bill. In 

the United States today, right now, before this bill, there are 107 million 

acres of wilderness. All the developed 

land—cities, suburbs, towns—across 

the whole rest of the country is only 

106 million acres. We are going to be 

adding to that and limiting our opportunity to the resources we have. 

There are 1,082 pages in the bill. I understand it is now 1,200 pages. There 

are 1.2 million acres in Wyoming that 

are withdrawn from mineral leasing 

and exploration. There are 1.93 million 

acres of Federal wilderness land. There 

are 3 million additional acres withdrawn from leasing and energy exploration. There are 331 million barrels of 

oil that we know are there and we are 

never going to take. We are just going 

to help those who drive up our energy 

costs because we are going to know it 

is there but we can’t touch it because 

we are going to make it off-limits. 

There are 592 spending and 15 new 

State and local water projects. There is 

nothing wrong with State and local 

water projects, as long as they are a 

priority, but these are earmarked, specific projects for specific Members. 

There is $10 billion of total spending 

money we don’t have. We are going to 

borrow it. 

There are 8.8 trillion cubic feet of 

natural gas that we know is there that 

we will never touch. What the Department of Interior tells us is there is 

much more there, but these are the 

proven reserves. 

I will end my conversation, only to 

be continued in a more thorough manner as the bill actually comes to the 

floor by asking the American public: 

What would they hope we would do in 

terms of trying to change, trying to 

meet what they see as the problems in 

front of us? Would it be that we would 

be about passing things that are small 

but make us look good that we can’t 

pay for or would it be that we should 

attend and address the pressing and 

also long-term needs of the country? 

It is about trust. The reason we have 

a 9-percent approval rating is because 

we are not trusted. We are addicts. We 

are self-indulgent addicts over our 

power. 

My query to the body and to the 

American people is, will you hold us 

accountable? You have to do an intervention with us, each one of us, every 

time we are home: Are you being a 

good steward with the limited dollars 

we have? Are you making choices that 

may not look good for you as a politician but are truly the best choice for 

the country? Are you putting yourself 

second and our country first? Are you 

acting as a statesman or are you acting 

as somebody who wants to get reelected? 

The real paradox is, with trust comes 

confidence. With that confidence comes 

the involvement and support of the 

very people we actually do represent. 

We have a choice. I hope the introduction of this bill does not portend 

that we will not take President-elect 

Obama’s lead and offer the American 

people real hope, real change, that we 

will get away from our addicted self-indulgence to look good at home and 

start making the hard, tough decisions 

that will right our ship and put our 

country first. Anything less than that 

says the people who took their oath 

today and those of us who have taken 

it before, we violate it. We raise our 

hand and put one on the Bible and say 

we will uphold it, but then when it 

comes to the first tough choice, look 

good at home or do what is in the longterm best interests of the country, we 

swivel, we back down, and we opt for 

the short term, the self-aggrandizement, and the stroke on our own back. 

We are better than that. The people in 

this body are better than that. 

My hope is we can prove to the American people over the next 6 to 9 months 

that we got the message, that it is 

about making the tough choices. It is 

about doing what is right in the long 

term. It is not about what makes us or 

our party look good; it is about what is 

best for the country as a whole. 

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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

BROWN). Without objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would 

raise objection to the filing of the bill 

at the desk, the Bingaman land package. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I note 

the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO CHARLES KIEFFER 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise 

today to commend and congratulate 

one of the best and brightest gentlemen I have ever had the privilege of 

employing. That man is Mr. Charles 

Kieffer who has served as staff director 

of the Senate Appropriations Committee for the last 2 years, and as deputy staff director for 6 years prior to 

that. 

Chuck Kieffer is a marvel of intelligence, wisdom, tact, coolness, and an 

extraordinary knowledge of appropriations and budget matters. He is personable, polite, and a pleasure to work 

with. He has been invaluable to me, to 

the leadership of the Senate, and to all 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE