January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S287 

Senator MCCONNELL did not support 

the McCain-Feingold bill in the end. 

But he was passionate about there 

being a fair process. 

As another Kentucky son once said, 

Justice Louis Brandeis, ‘‘We are not 

won by arguments that we can analyze, 

but by tone and temper—by the manner, which is the man himself.’’ 

To me, that is MITCH MCCONNELL—a 

conservative to the marrow but someone who has never forgotten why we 

come here: 

To make a difference. 

So I congratulate my colleague and 

his family for reaching this remarkable 

milestone. May you continue to expand 

on it for many years to come. Thank 

you. 

f 

CONCLUSION OF MORNING 

BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

CARDIN). Morning business is closed. 

f 

DESIGNATING CERTAIN LAND 

COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL 

WILDERNESS PRESERVATION 

SYSTEM—MOTION TO PROCEED 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under 

the previous order, the Senate will resume the motion to proceed to S. 22, 

which the clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as 

components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of 

the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent to speak for up to 

10 minutes. I have conferred with the 

Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. COBURN, 

who was scheduled to speak first. That 

is satisfactory with him. I further ask 

unanimous consent that Senator 

COBURN be recognized at the conclusion 

of my remarks. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Pennsylvania is 

recognized. 

REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have 

sought recognition to speak briefly 

about foreign travel which I undertook 

over the past recess, focusing principally on the Mideast and on Europe. 

My group arrived in Jerusalem on 

December 26, late in the evening on 

Friday. The next day, the hostilities 

arose in Gaza. I had an occasion to discuss this matter with a number of officials in Israel and also with Prime Minister Fayyad of the Palestinian Authority. 

As is well known from the news reports, the Israeli action was taken in 

response to shelling by Hamas on Israel 

over a protracted period of time. 

Israel’s action was legal under international law, Article 51 of the United 

Nations charter which expressly recognizes the right of self-defense under circumstances where a nation is attacked. 

And that was the factual matter there. 

In speaking to Israeli President Peres 

and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, the 

point was made that Israel was taking 

this action only as a last resort to protect Israeli citizens. 

It is highly significant that the Palestinian Authority, which has had its 

differences with Hamas, has backed the 

Israeli position. We had a discussion 

with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Fayyad, who said that the Palestinian Authority was convinced that 

Israel had acted properly and that the 

Palestinian Authority would do what it 

could to maintain quiet within the Palestinian Authority’s jurisdiction in the 

face of any demonstrations which 

might occur. 

It is worth noting that Egypt has 

backed the Israeli action, noting the 

aggressive stand taken by Hamas, and 

Saudi Arabia, too, has noted Hamas’s 

inappropriate conduct. 

We visited in Vienna with Ambassador Schulte and discussed at some 

length the International Atomic Energy Agency efforts to conduct inspections on what is going on in Iran with 

respect to any efforts by Iran to create 

a nuclear weapon. 

A year ago, I had an opportunity to 

meet with IAEA Director Mohamed 

ElBaradei. He was out of town when we 

were there. I had a conversation with 

him by telephone on the issue of the efforts by the IAEA to conduct the inspections and that at the moment Iran 

is not cooperating and, further, international action needs to be taken to be 

sure Iran does meet its obligations 

under international agreements and 

that there are adequate safeguards to 

prevent Iran from developing a nuclear 

weapon. 

When we were in Syria, Iran’s activities on that subject were discussed 

with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad. 

On the Iranian subject, President Asad 

urged that action be taken to try to 

get the inspections, and that would be 

a more productive line than challenging whatever rights Iran had asserted. 

In our discussions with President 

Asad, the subject of a potential IsraelSyria peace treaty was discussed. The 

Syrians have made it plain that they 

are interested in a return of the Golan 

Heights. Only Israel can decide for 

itself whether it is willing to give up 

the Golan with respect to whatever 

strategic advantage the Golan may 

have. Obviously, it is a different world 

strategically today than it was in 1967 

when Israel captured the Golan 

Heights. 

It is my view that there could be substantial advantages for Israel in terms 

of Syrian concessions in a number of 

directions to leave Lebanon as a sovereign nation without efforts to destabilize Lebanon but withdrawing any 

Syrian support from Hezbollah and also 

from Hamas. When we discussed with 

President Asad the issue of Hezbollah 

and Hamas, he said if the Palestinian 

issue could be resolved, those other 

matters would fall into place. 

There is also the potential advantage 

of trying to move Syria away from the 

influence of Iran. That is not an easy 

matter. But if there were to be an 

Israeli-Syrian peace treaty—and I 

think that can happen only with the 

participation of the United States—the 

prospect would be present of improving 

that situation of trying to separate 

Syria from Iran. 

In Brussels, we had a meeting with 

General Craddock, who is the NATO 

commander there. We discussed a variety of subjects, as described in a more 

extensive report that I will ask to have 

printed in the RECORD. 

With respect to our discussions with 

General Craddock, the key point was 

the issue of what is going on in Afghanistan. General Craddock made the 

point that there cannot be a military 

victory in Afghanistan but the military can be successful in securing the 

situation, that there will have to be 

improvements in the Afghanistan Government in dealing with the people of 

Afghanistan. General Craddock commented that he thought it would be a 

protracted period of time where we 

would have to have substantial NATO 

forces, in addition to those provided by 

the United States, to find a resolution 

of the issues in Afghanistan. 

I was accompanied on my trip by my 

legislative director, Chris Bradish, my 

military escort, Phil Skuta, and by Dr. 

Ronald Smith, all of whom did an excellent job. A very comprehensive trip 

report has been prepared by Mr. 

Bradish. I ask unanimous consent to 

have printed in the RECORD, as if stated 

in full on the floor, the trip report. 

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the 

RECORD, as follows: 

REPORT ON FOREIGN TRAVEL

Mr. President, as is my custom, when I return from foreign travel, I file a report with 

the Senate. 

From December 25, 2008 to January 5, 2009, 

I traveled to the United Kingdom, Israel, 

Syria, Austria, Belgium, Norway, and Iceland. I was accompanied by my wife, Joan, 

my Legislative Director, Chris Bradish, my 

military escort, Phil Skuta, Colonel, USMC, 

and Dr. Ronald Smith, Captain, USN. 

ISRAEL

I departed the United States on December 

25th and made a brief stop in London en 

route to Israel. We arrived in Israel on the 

evening of December 26th. This was my 

twenty-sixth visit to Israel since joining the 

Senate in 1981. Almost exactly a year after 

my previous visit to Israel, the domestic political landscape had changed significantly. 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert tendered his 

resignation on September 21, 2008, and general elections are set for February 10, 2009. 

One of the major questions being posed to 

the major parties is how best to approach 

the peace process. 

A 6-month truce between Israel and Hamas 

ended on December 19, 2008. United Nations 

data showed that fewer rockets were fired at 

Israeli towns in the initial few months following the onset of the truce on June 19, 

2008. The New York Times reported on December 19 that, ‘‘more than 300 rockets were 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S288 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

fired into Israel in May [2008], 10 to 20 were 

fired in July. . . . In August, 10 to 30 were 

fired, and in September, 5 to 10.’’ However, as 

reported by The Washington Post on December 23, 2008, Israeli towns were faced with an 

increasing barrage of fire as the truce neared 

its end: ‘‘[H]undreds of rockets and mortar 

shells... have been fired at Israel in the 

past month.’’ 

The day after my arrival, Israel launched 

air strikes on Gaza in response to the rocket 

attacks by Hamas. 

The rockets launched from Gaza as well as 

those from Hezbollah pose a major threat to 

Israel’s security. To counter this threat, I 

have long supported full funding for the 

Arrow Anti-Missile System, the David’s 

Sling Weapon System, and the Counter Terrorism Technical Support Working Group. 

During my tenure, I have worked to secure 

more than 80 billion for Israel, to include $1.4 

billion for the Arrow Anti-Missile System. 

On December 28th, I had a working breakfast with the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, 

James Cunningham. It is worth noting that 

Ambassador Cunningham is a product of Allentown, Pennsylvania. Ambassador 

Cunningham’s prior posts, notably at the 

United Nations, provided him a broad experience in dealing with many of the regional 

players. He briefed me on the situation in 

Gaza, the upcoming elections in Israel, Iran’s 

influence in the region, and the prospects for 

peace agreements with Syria and the Palestinians. 

Following our meeting we departed for 

Beit Hanassi to see President Shimon Peres. 

He updated me on the Gaza situation and 

stated, ‘‘We didn’t do it with great pleasure. 

We didn’t have any choice.’’ 

I asked if negotiations on a peace agreement could come to fruition with the Palestinian Authority with Hamas in the position 

it is in. Peres believed it was possible. We 

discussed the four outstanding issues that 

need to be addressed to achieve an agreement: security, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. 

When asked about the prospect for an 

agreement with Syria, President Peres did 

not express enthusiasm, citing Syria’s troubling alliance with Iran and the concern that 

Damascus may not be sufficiently interested 

in a peace agreement. He stated that Syria 

cannot have Lebanon and the Golan at the 

same time. 

I asked the President about what can be 

done on the Iran front. His best advice was to 

keep the price of oil low as that will generate lower revenues for Tehran. Broader energy independence is critical. Peres stated, 

‘‘Kill the oil, kill your enemies . . . . Oil produces pollution and craziness . . . . don’t 

shoot at mosquitoes, dry the swamp.’’ Peres 

advised us not to deal with Tehran until 

after Iran’s May elections. 

I have pushed for greater consideration of 

the Russian proposal to enrich Iran’s uranium. President Peres indicated that there is 

a broader opportunity for the U.S. to engage 

Russia. He indicated Russia is concerned 

about American’s missile defense activities 

in Europe and regional hegemony. He suggested using missile defense as an avenue to 

turn the U.S.-Russian problem into cooperation against Iran. 

Peres shared with me his views on future 

economic issues and stated there will be five 

great industries: energy, water, stem cells, 

homeland security and education. I asked 

what Israel hoped for in the new U.S. President. Peres replied that he wanted him to be 

a great President for the United States. 

On the afternoon of December 28th, I met 

with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. I asked 

Olmert where Israel and Syria stood on their 

proximity talks. He said they chose the 

Turks as mediators because they are good liaisons who are trusted by both sides. Olmert 

said there had been four rounds in which the 

issues to be discussed in a potential dialogue 

were presented such as borders, terrorism 

and Iran. He said of Syrian President Assad, 

‘‘I know what he wants from me and he 

knows what I want from him.’’ 

He expressed disappointment that Syria 

did not provide clear signals that they were 

willing to acknowledge what Israel wanted. 

It was his view that Syria was waiting for a 

new U.S. President to assume office before 

seriously engaging. Nonetheless, he said he 

was committed to carrying out the process. 

I asked the Prime Minister if Iran knows 

how dangerous it is for them to obtain a 

military nuclear capability. He replied, 

‘‘Iran feels the weakness of America.’’ He 

suggested the U.S. apply more pressure on 

Iran by ending business and commerce exchanges, particularly from the European 

Union. Olmert believes that there are plenty 

of options between the extremes of doing 

nothing and utilizing military force. On the 

question of when to engage Tehran, Olmert’s 

view differed from Peres’: ‘‘The sooner the 

better.’’ 

Following my meeting with the Prime 

Minister, I traveled to our consul general’s 

residence for a briefing on Israeli-Palestinian relations and an update on the Gaza 

situation. The recent reports indicated there 

were 280 dead and 600 injured—a figure that 

would climb. He stated there were demonstrations across the Arab world and clashes in Hebron and the West Bank. 

We discussed concerns over the potential 

for a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The consul 

general informed me that Israel had provided 

40 truckloads of humanitarian aid but a cessation of attacks did not appear imminent. 

We discussed the financing of Gazans who 

rely on the UN, Palestinian Authority salaries and Hamas to survive. 

The consul general told us that the economy in the West Bank has improved under 

the direction of Salam Fayyad 18 months 

ago. Payrolls are being met and tourism is 

getting better due to a spillover from increased tourism in Israel. 

We were then joined by Prime Minister 

Fayyad. I asked about the prospects for 

peace with Israel. The PM indicated that the 

peace process should be pursued and while it 

has not happened as quickly as some would 

like, the Bush Administration deserves credit for some of their efforts. 

He stated that U.S. support of the Palestinian Authority has had a good impact in 

terms of helping them govern and provide 

services and draw support away from Hamas. 

I pressed him on how the money was being 

spent and was told it was going toward economic development projects and infrastructure. As a result of the PA’s success in controlling expenditures and obtaining more 

revenue, they anticipate lowering their dependence on foreign assistance by 35 percent. 

He cited some of the efforts: reducing their 

payroll from 190,000 to 150,000; improving revenue collections such as utility bills; and installing prepaid meters, of which he noted 

that the city of Janin is using 100 percent 

prepaid meters. 

He indicated that the private sector needs 

to be enhanced, but that it would only be 

possible when more mobility is permitted in 

the West Bank. Fayyad stated that the Palestinian Authority must be seen as competent and able to provide for their people. 

On Gaza, Fayyad indicated that the sentiment is against Hamas because they know 

this would happen if they continued to 

launch rockets into Israel. Fayyad said he 

was upbeat about the prospects for improving life and the situation for Palestinians. 

The Prime Minister told me that it is very 

important to deal with Syria and that it cannot be ignored if one is looking for tranquility in the region. We discussed how Syria 

hosts terrorist entities and acts as a conduit 

for Hezbollah. He stated that this is a problem and that Iran was also a problem for the 

region. He believes that Israel will not allow 

Iran to obtain a nuclear weapons capability. 

He suggested engaging the Russians to make 

them a real partner in engaging Iran—something President Shimon Peres told me earlier in the day. He said it is not effective for 

the U.S. to yell at Iran. However, if others 

such as Russia started getting Iran’s attention, it may change Tehran’s calculus. 

On December 29th I traveled to the Knesset 

to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu. Joining 

us in the meeting was Yural Steinitz, a 

member of the defense and foreign affairs 

committee, and Silvan Shalom, a former foreign minister. 

On Hamas, Netanyahu stated it would be 

very difficult to peacefully engage them as 

their goal is to see Israel destroyed. I asked 

what could be done to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza. He replied that Gaza should 

not host terrorists. He further stated that 

both Abu Mazen and President Mubarak said 

the Israeli action was the responsibility of 

Hamas. 

On Syria, Netanyahu reminded me of when 

I carried a message from him to President 

Assad in 1996. There was a concern at the 

time about troop amassments on the border. 

I was able to carry the message and according to Netanyahu and Syrian Foreign Minister Muallem, may have helped to prevent a 

military conflict. He expressed doubt about a 

potential deal with Syria, citing the difficulty of engaging them while they play 

host to terrorist entities and do not make 

any effort to halt transshipment of fighters 

and weapons through their territory. 

With regard to the current situation with 

Iran, the group suggested a review of what 

happened with Libya. They stated it was not 

just sanctions or diplomacy, but rather the 

Libyan calculus that the U.S. and UK would 

attack. The threat of force, according to 

them, was the critical factor. Their conclusion was clear: Iran will only give up its nuclear weapons aspirations if the threat of 

military force is severe enough. 

Following my meeting at the Knesset we 

departed for Tel Aviv for our flight to Syria. 

SYRIA

We arrived in Damascus on the night of 

December 29th and were met by Charge d’Affaires Maura Connelly. This was my 18th 

visit to Syria. 

On December 30th, I received a briefing 

from Charge Connelly prior to the day’s 

meetings. Later that morning, we traveled 

to President Assad’s palace. 

President Assad began the meeting by expressing his concern with the situation in 

Gaza. I asked him if Hamas would ever 

change its policy or position towards Israel 

and Jews. Assad indicated that Khaled 

Mashaal, the head of Hamas who is located 

in Damascus, has said his group would accept the 1967 borders and that constituted 

recognition. Assad believes that Hamas has 

changed, that Mashaal is a moderate within 

Hamas and the best way to resolve border 

issues is for the Palestinians to have a referendum. 

I told President Assad that Prime Minister 

Olmert had said he would like to see the 

time come when he could stay at the Four 

Seasons in Damascus. Assad responded that 

going back to the pre-1967 border is the key 

Olmert needs to access such a hotel room 

and that, ‘‘the Golan is everything for us . . . 

in every bargain, I put Golan first.’’ 

In May 2008, Israel and Syria announced indirect peace negotiations through Turkish 

mediators. According to a June 25, 2008 article by David Ignatius in The Washington 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S289 

Post, ‘‘The channel opened in the fall of 2006, 

just after the summer war in Lebanon that 

had made both Damascus and Tel Aviv nervous about the destabilizing role of Hezbollah, 

Iran’s proxy in Lebanon.’’ I was first told 

about the secret talks in 2007 by officials in 

the region. 

He shared with me the Syrian view on the 

proximity talks with Israel that have been 

facilitated by Turkey. He said that they 

were still at the stage of trying to get a set 

of principles in place which would allow for 

discussions but that the violence in Gaza 

would place this effort on hold. 

I expressed my concern about Syria’s involvement in Lebanon, the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the statements made by President 

Ahmadinejad regarding his desire to wipe 

Israel off the map and the transshipment of 

weapons through Syria to terrorist entities. 

I told Assad that Damascus has a role in 

these issues and has the opportunity to act 

positively. 

On Lebanon, Assad said they had a positive 

role in supporting the formation and functioning of a government. According to an October 15, 2008 PBS report, ‘‘In August [2008], 

Lebanese President Michel Suleiman made 

an official visit to Damascus, where he and 

Assad agreed to solidify ties and demarcate 

their contentious border.’’ We discussed the 

October 15, 2008 agreement signed by Syrian 

Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallem and his 

Lebanese counterpart, Fawzi Salloukh, 

which formalized diplomatic ties between 

Syria and Lebanon for the first time since 

the two nations gained independence, Lebanon in 1943 and Syria in 1946. Syria has 

pledged to provide an ambassador by the end 

of 2008, however one had not yet been sent. 

He stated that their mission in Lebanon had 

been established and staffed with diplomats 

and that they are deciding on whom to send 

to lead the embassy. 

On Hamas and Hezbollah, Assad suggested 

that a comprehensive peace would resolve 

the issues associated with these organizations. Despite reports to the contrary, Assad 

stated that Syria is not being used to funnel 

weapons to these groups. 

On Iran, the President said that Iran is an 

influential player in the region and one that 

has supported his efforts. This, combined 

with no support from the West, leaves him 

no option but to have positive relations with 

Tehran. However, he did indicate that Syria 

has told Iran that it does not support a military nuclear program in Iran should one be 

active. 

On the nuclear question, I expressed my 

concern that the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has not had sufficient 

access to Iran and Syria. He responded by 

saying that Iran is ready for inspectors but 

that the approach taken to engage Iran is 

viewed a political game. He indicated Iran is 

open to inspections but the west must recognize Iran’s right to enrich. Assad believed 

the way to resolve this issue is through some 

type of broad package. Nonetheless, you cannot discuss the right to enrich with Iran, but 

you can discuss monitoring. 

After indicating that a nuclear Iran would 

not be tolerable and that I would like to see 

this matter resolved diplomatically, Foreign 

Minister Walid al Muallem told President 

Assad of my work during the 1990s to prevent 

and resolve conflict between Israel and 

Syria. 

I again brought up the fate of the missing 

Israeli soldiers: Gilad Shalit, Guy Hever and 

Ron Arad. I reiterated my interest in seeing 

President Assad work to help secure the release of Gilad Shalit, who has been held in 

Gaza since June 25, 2006, and in determining 

the fate of Guy Hever, the Israeli soldier who 

disappeared from the Golan Heights in August 1997, and Ron Arad, the Israeli Air 

Force weapons systems officer whose plane 

went down in 1986. In December 2007, I asked 

President Assad for his assistance in securing the release of Ehud Goldwasser and 

Eldad Regev, two Israeli soldiers who were 

captured by Hezbollah in July 2006. Regrettably, their bodies were returned to their 

families in July 2008. 

As I told Gilad Shalit’s father in a meeting 

in Washington this past summer, I remain 

committed to doing whatever I can to help 

secure the return of captured Israeli soldiers 

or, where they have perished, to obtain their 

remains. I have also requested the assistance 

of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. 

I also followed up numerous letters I had 

written to Assad requesting he allow a prayer to be said over the grave of Eli Cohen. He 

rejected the idea, claiming it would not be 

possible given that Cohen was hanged as a 

spy and that Israel remained a Syrian 

enemy. 

Following my meeting with the president, 

I was scheduled to meet with various social 

and civic leaders. In prior visits, and as recently as last year, I had the opportunity to 

meet with these leaders. However, I was not 

able to during this visit as it has become increasingly difficult for Syrians to meet with 

westerners for fear of retaliation. It is troubling that one year ago, I was able to have a 

dinner with Syrian citizens and have a meeting with Riad Seif, and twelve months later, 

Seif is in jail and others did not feel comfortable meeting with me. 

On the issue of political prisoners, it was 

apparent that there had been an even greater 

crackdown. In October, Syria sentenced 12 

prominent ‘dissidents’ to 21⁄2 years for calling 

for democratic reforms and an end to the 

Baath Party’s monopoly on power. The socalled dissidents are part of the Damascus 

Declaration National Council and are among 

Syria’s leading intellectuals and opposition 

figures. 

According to the U.S. State Department’s 

March 2008 report on Syria’s human rights 

practices: ‘‘Although the number of political 

prisoners and detainees remained difficult to 

determine due to a continuing lack of official government information, various local 

human rights groups estimated during the 

year that a total of somewhere between approximately 1,500 and 3,000 current political 

prisoners, including accused Islamists, remained in detention. Authorities refused to 

divulge information regarding numbers or 

names of people in detention on political or 

security-related charges.’’ 

Since 2006 the government has tried some 

new political detainees in criminal court, 

and once convicted on political or security 

related charges, they are treated like common prisoners. The government did not permit regular access to political prisoners or 

detainees by local or international humanitarian organizations. Human rights groups 

reported that many political prisoners serving long-term sentences remained in prison 

after the expiration of their sentences. 

Following my meeting with the President, 

Foreign Minister Walid al Muallem hosted 

me for a working lunch. The Foreign Minister discussed the situation in Gaza as he 

was preparing to depart the following day for 

a meeting of Arab countries. He indicated 

that 44 children and 80 women had been 

killed in Gaza as a result of Israel’s action. 

I raised the issue of foreign fighters traversing through Syria. The Foreign Minister 

said that Syria used to cooperate with the 

United States but that after the Hariri assassination, and the souring of relations that 

resulted, cooperation ceased. Muallem asked 

why Syria should cooperate with the U.S. 

when the U.S. sanctions Syria. He indicated 

that Syria and Iraq have cooperated and 

claimed that Syria had stopped 1,200 fighters. 

I pressed the Minister on the arrests of 

what are referred to as ‘‘dissidents.’’ He indicated that they had contacts with Syria’s 

enemies and provoking action against the regime. 

Muallem indicated he had just met with 

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to discuss a 

possible ceasefire and if Hamas would stop 

rocket attacks should Israel agree to a cessation of bombing. He said he had also been 

in contact with EU foreign ministers on the 

matter. He indicated that Hamas’ morale is 

high given the 2006 war with Hezbollah, but 

that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are willing to 

consider a ceasefire. 

I pressed him on the possibility of a peace 

agreement with Israel. He expressed, as he 

has in the past, that the issues on both sides 

are understood. However, the bombing in 

Gaza has made it so Syria ‘‘cannot jump to 

peace with Israel.’’ I asked what could be 

done to move the process forward. He replied 

that each side must respect the interests of 

one another and that dialogue is needed. 

On Iran, Muallem stated that Iran has the 

right to enrich, and that the world needs to 

acknowledge that, but that Syria does not 

approve of Iran having a nuclear weapon. He 

stated that the U.S. missed opportunities 

when Rafsanjani and Khatami were in power. 

AUSTRIA

We departed Damascus on December 31st 

for Vienna, Austria. The United States has 

three missions in Vienna: the bilateral mission to the Republic of Austria, the mission 

to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the mission 

to the United Nations. During my stop in Vienna, I called on all three U.S. Ambassadors 

stationed in Vienna. 

After arriving in Vienna, Ambassador 

David Girard-diCarlo hosted me for dinner. 

He briefed me on the mission’s dealings with 

the Austrian government and some of the 

views and issues of broader Europe. We discussed how the financial crises has impacted 

Europe as well as the United States. I shared 

with Ambassador Girard-diCarlo my recent 

trip to Damascus and Israel and efforts to 

have the United States more aggressively engage in the peace process in the region. 

I have known Ambassador Girard-diCarlo 

for many years. David is a graduate of St. 

Joseph’s University and Villanova University School of Law. He served at Blank Rome 

LLP for 16 years as managing partner and 

CEO prior to becoming chairman in 2000, and 

he also served as chairman and CEO of Blank 

Rome Government Relations LLC, 

headquartered in Washington, DC. 

Ambassador Girard-diCarlo was Pennsylvania Governor Richard L. Thornburgh’s appointee to the Board of Directors of the 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority, SEPTA, from 1979–1982 and served 

as its chairman of the board. In 1981, he was 

elected as chairman of the American Public 

Transit Association, APTA, for a 1-year 

term. Ambassador Girard-diCarlo was appointed by former President George Bush in 

1990 to serve as a member of the board of the 

National Railroad Passenger Corporation, 

AMTRAK, a position he held until 1993. 

In addition to Ambassador Girard-diCarlo’s 

professional responsibilities, his experience 

over the past 3 decades involved his active 

participation in the business and cultural organizations within the communities in which 

he lived and worked. He served in leadership 

positions at the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, the Philadelphia Orchestra 

and Academy of Music, the Walnut Street 

Theatre, The John F. Kennedy Center for the 

Performing Arts, and the Arizona Heart 

Foundation—to mention a few. In 1999, he received the Judge Learned Hand Human Relations Award from the American Jewish Committee. He served on the board of Villanova 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

University School of Law, from which he received the Gerald Abraham Award for Distinguished Service in 2003. Also in 2003, Pope 

John Paul II conferred upon him the Pontifical Honor of Knight of the Order of St. 

Gregory the Great for his work with Business Leaders Organized for Catholic Schools. 

Established as an independent organization 

under the United Nations in 1957, the International Atomic Energy Agency represents 

the realization of President Dwight Eisenhower’s ‘‘Atoms for Peace’’ speech to the 

U.N. General Assembly in 1953. President Eisenhower proposed the creation of an international body to control and promote the 

use of atomic energy. Today, the IAEA is at 

the center of the ongoing standoff with Iran 

over its nuclear program. 

On January 1, 2008, I met with Ambassador 

Schulte, the United States Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office in 

Vienna, the International Atomic Energy 

Agency, and other international organizations in Vienna. 

Ambassador Schulte updated me on the 

IAEA’s efforts on Iran and their reported 

pursuit of a military nuclear capability. He 

expressed the mission’s desire to have Iran 

respond to directives provided by both the 

U.N. Security Council and the IAEA to suspend enrichment activities and allow inspections. 

We discussed how Iran’s failure to declare 

its facility at Natanz has created a significant trust deficit not only in the United 

States, but internationally. The facility, 

combined with the revelation that Iran had 

outside assistance from the A.Q. Khan network, which it previously denied, has compounded the problem. Ambassador Schulte 

stated that by violating the Non Proliferation Treaty, Iran has given up its rights 

under the treaty. He further stated that 

Iran’s claims that their efforts are geared towards civilian purposes do not make sense 

from an economic or infrastructure capability perspective. 

He was very interested in my recent stop 

in Damascus and my dialogue with Syrian 

officials during my tenure. Ambassador 

Schulte briefed me on the IAEA’s response 

after the reported attack on Syrian infrastructure. He said Syria still denies the facility was of a nuclear nature, but that the 

IAEA inspectors believe it was. He expressed 

concern that the international community 

must ensure that Syria, and other actors, 

know that this type of behavior will not be 

tolerated and not forgotten. Ambassador 

Schulte revealed that Syria’s tactics in responding to the IAEA have a stark resemblance to the response Iran has shown. 

On the evening of January 1st, I spoke with 

IAEA Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, who I visited last year in Vienna. 

He updated me on his efforts on Iran and 

briefed me on the situation vis-a`-vis Syria. 

We discussed how the U.S. and the International Community may better address 

Iran and resolve the nuclear issue. 

While in Vienna, I hosted a meeting with 

Ambassador Julie Finley, the U.S. representative to the OSCE. 

The OSCE is a major forum for issues of 

peace, security and human rights in Europe 

and Central Asia. A legacy of the historic 

1975 Helsinki accords, it is the only fully inclusive trans-Atlantic/European/Eurasian political organization. Every state from Andorra to Kyrgyzstan is represented among its 

56 participating States. Over more than 30 

years, commitments to democracy, rule of 

law, human rights, tolerance, pluralism and 

media freedoms were hammered out at the 

OSCE and its predecessor mechanisms—and 

agreed to by all the participating states. 

Ambassador Finley briefed me on her view 

of the Georgian-Russian conflict earlier this 

year. She indicated that the OSCE has had a 

mission in the region since 1992 to aid civil 

society, enhance education and address environmental issues. 

Ambassador Finley and I discussed the bilateral relationship between the U.S. and 

Russia and how organizations like the OSCE 

can better be used to address regional and 

international matters. As relations between 

the U.S. and Russia are increasingly 

strained, Ambassador Finley pointed out 

that the OSCE could be a forum to positively 

engage Russia as this is the only regional security organization in which Russia is a full 

and equal member. 

We discussed U.S. policy more broadly and 

how diplomacy could be enhanced to pursue 

positive outcomes. Ambassador Finley confirmed my belief that dialogue is critical to 

addressing the challenges we face. 

We departed Austria the following morning 

for Belgium. 

BELGIUM

We landed in Brussels, Belgium on January 

2nd. I hosted a meeting with Charge Kate 

Byrnes and Defense Advisor Randy Hoag. 

They briefed me on the major issues we are 

working with NATO: Afghanistan, reinvigorating the alliance, dealing with Georgia and 

Ukraine, the Balkans and emerging security 

threats such as cyber attacks and piracy. 

Burden-sharing remains a concern as it 

was when I began visiting NATO in the 1980s. 

During my first visit to NATO in 1981, 3 percent GDP spending on defense was the goal 

for all member countries. Today, only five 

nations spend more than 2 percent: the 

United States, the United Kingdom, France, 

Greece and Turkey. This is a concern not 

only from the standpoint of the Alliance’s 

health and ability to address issues, but also 

from the perspective that some are carrying 

more weight than others. 

The only time Article V has been invoked 

was following the September 11, 2001 attacks 

on the United States. NATO declared that 

this attack was indeed an attack on the alliance. Today, there are currently 70,000 

troops in Afghanistan—51,000 are part of the 

NATO-led International Security Assistance 

Force, ISAF. The U.S. provides 20,000 to 

ISAF. There are concerns that some NATO 

members are only providing civil or peacekeeping support for Afghanistan and are limiting what their militaries are permitted to 

do. 

We discussed the NATO-Russia relationship with a focus on how expansion and missile defense impact the relationship between 

NATO and Russia as well as the U.S. and 

Russia. I was told that some member countries view missile defense as provocative and 

as the alliance progresses that is something 

that will have to be considered. I was briefed 

on NATO missile defense as well as U.S. missile defense in Europe and the future of missile defense on the continent. 

I was told that NATO still has an open 

door policy, codified in Article X of the charter, which states a nation may appeal for 

membership provided it meets the requirements and shares NATO values. I was briefed 

on the expansion opportunities with Albania 

and Croatia and the potential for nations 

such as Georgia, Serbia, Macedonia and 

Ukraine to join the alliance. There is considerable fatigue in Europe over expansion— 

both at the NATO and EU level. While NATO 

has 26 members and the EU has 27, only 18 

members are party to both structures. There 

are some EU countries which, while not 

party to NATO, do support the alliance and 

its efforts—namely Sweden, Finland, Ireland 

and Austria. 

We then had the opportunity to discuss the 

U.S.-Belgian bilateral relationship with Robert Kiene, our First Secretary to the mission. He said the relationship has improved 

since 2003 when the U.S. took military action 

against Iraq. 

When we left Washington, D.C., Yves 

Leterme was the Prime Minister. When we 

landed in Belgium it was Herman Van 

Rompuy. On our day of arrival, Van Rompuy 

received backing from the parliament by a 

vote of 88 to 45. Belgium like so many other 

nations is facing an economic crisis to include recession and bank disintegration. 

Mr. Kiene discussed the recent political 

changes that occurred in Belgium. He informed us that Belgium, while under the 2 

percent GDP spending NATO goal, is very 

keen on enhancing their ability to contribute to the alliance. We discussed how 

Section 1206 ‘‘Global Train and Equip’’ funds 

could be used to reward and encourage Belgium as well as enhance forces outside 

NATO. 

Belgium played a key role in helping to obtain an EU-wide agreement on arrest warrants and in facilitating extradition of terrorist suspects. A Brussels trial of al-Qaedarelated defendants ended in September 2003 

with sentences for 18 of the 23 accused, with 

another 2004 terrorist-related trial resulting 

in eight more guilty verdicts. Belgium operates within UN and EU frameworks concerning the freezing of terrorist assets, but 

has yet to develop a domestic legal framework to act independently. In support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Belgium contributed a navy frigate in the Mediterranean, 

Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) crews 

for surveillance flights over the United 

States, as well as aircraft for humanitarian 

assistance to Afghanistan. Since 2002, Belgium has contributed ground troops to the 

International Security Assistance Force, 

ISAF, the UN Security council sanctioned 

peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan. Belgium currently has 420 troops assigned to the 

ISAF. 

Mr. Kiene discussed the efforts of the Belgian government to combat terrorism. On 

December 11, 2008, Belgian authorities arrested 14 people suspected of Al Qaeda links. 

The following day, six of the individuals 

were charged with membership in a terrorist 

group. The remaining eight were released 

due to insufficient evidence. As reported by 

the Christian Science Monitor, ‘‘According 

to Belgian federal officials, at least some of 

the detained suspects had traveled to the 

Pakistan-Afghanistan border for training 

and were said to have been affiliated with 

‘‘important people’’ in Al Qaeda.’’ According 

to a December 12, 2008 Associated Press article, the six charged included one who may 

have been plotting a suicide attack. While 

Belgium faced with terrorism issues at 

home, it is also contributing to NATO efforts 

in Afghanistan. 

On the afternoon of January 2nd, I hosted 

General Craddock, Commander of the United 

States European Command. We discussed Afghanistan, the NATO-Russian dynamic, 

NATO expansion, the EU–NATO relationship, 

Kosovo, AFRICOM, and missile defense, 

among other topics. 

General Craddock reported that the government and civil society in Afghanistan 

have not come along fast enough to support 

and rule the people of Afghanistan. He 

briefed me on the challenges, from criminal 

to insurgency to corruption, faced in the various regions of Afghanistan. We discussed 

how the money from narcotics are fueling 

those opposed to the U.S. and coalition 

forces. General Craddock cited a UN report 

which indicates as much as $500 million in 

revenue from the drug trade is supporting 

those opposed to our objectives. 

General Craddock confirmed the reports 

that fighters are moving back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan and that 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S291 

the FATA region in Pakistan is hosting our 

enemies. General Craddock indicated that if 

tensions between India and Pakistan flare 

up, especially as a result of the recent bombing, Pakistan may pull resources from their 

Western border to engage India to the east. 

He estimates that Pakistan would need 

50,000–100,000 additional troops on their western border to improve the ability to engage 

enemies in the FATA region. Further, he 

stated that whatever forces Pakistan uses in 

the west, they must remain there and hold 

the territory and prevent it from being receded to combatants. 

We discussed the proposal of an additional 

20,000 troops being deployed to support efforts in Afghanistan, but General Craddock 

indicated that these forces are contingent 

upon forces being drawn down in Iraq. This is 

also true for allies, such as the UK, who may 

be adding troops to Afghanistan. 

General Craddock made it clear that the 

military cannot ‘‘win’’ Afghanistan. Rather, 

it can provide the right security conditions 

for a civil government to stand up. The government in Afghanistan needs to remove corruption, establish reliable police forces capable of providing public safety, create jobs 

and provide services such as clean drinking 

water. He predicted that a presence will be 

needed in Afghanistan for the next 30–40 

years. 

On Iran, General Craddock stated that Iran 

does not want to see the Taliban come back 

to power, but that they do desire the U.S. to 

remain tied down in the region. Iran’s eastern border with Afghanistan remains a major 

transshipment point for drugs, weapons and 

oil. 

General Craddock is dual hatted in Brussels, as he heads NATO and the U.S. European Command. On the latter, he presented 

three challenges moving forward: (1) Convincing allies to better assist and engage in 

regional and international problems; (2) define a national strategy vis-a`-vis Russia; and 

(3) resolve European missile defense issues. 

NORWAY

On January 3rd, we arrive in Oslo, Norway. 

The last time I visited Norway was in 1994 

during a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly. This time, I met with representatives from our mission, Deputy Chief of Mission Kevin Johnson and defense attache ́ Don 

Kepley. 

I was briefed on the U.S.-Norwegian relationship and some of the difficulties we have 

had this decade over foreign policy disputes, 

such as Iraq and our approach to Afghanistan. I was briefed on the status of Norway’s 

decision to buy Lockheed Martin F–35 Joint 

Strike Fighters and the current political situation in the country. Norway, like the U.S., 

has a significant global presence and has a 

history of being active on many foreign policy fronts from Middle East peace to Sri 

Lanka. 

Norway is a member of NATO and is contributing to the mission in Afghanistan. 

They currently have 500 troops deployed 

which, while not large by number, is significant given their population. In addition to 

military support, Norway has contributed 

senior diplomats and significant aid to assist 

in the building of Afghanistan. 

We discussed the Norwegian Government’s 

plans to fight the global economic crisis. 

While its large sovereign wealth fund lost a 

significant amount of money in the stock 

market, especially after the fall of Lehman 

Brothers, Norway is expected to do better 

than other Nordic and European nations during the economic downturn. Norway, which 

the CIA estimates has the world’s 21st largest oil reserves, will tap into some of its 

saved oil wealth to provide the country with 

an economic stimulus. Norwegian Prime 

Minister Jens Stoltenberg said on December 

19, 2008 that the stimulus package, ‘‘will include an ever greater increase in funding for 

public works and construction, and maintenance.’’ 

On the day of my arrival, a protest of an 

estimated 1,000 Norwegians was occurring in 

front of Parliament and the Israeli embassy. 

The protestors, who had a similar gathering 

last week, were expressing their opposition 

to Israel’s actions in Gaza. While Norway 

was long a strong ally of Israel, the bilateral 

relationship has soured since the Oslo Accords. 

The following morning I met with Benson 

Whitney, the U.S. Ambassador to Norway. 

We discussed our bilateral relationship, U.S. 

foreign policy, and our bilateral relationship 

with Russia and its impact globally. 

Following the meeting we departed for Iceland. 

ICELAND

On January 4, 2009, we arrived in Reykjavik, Iceland, where we were met by Neil 

Klopfenstein, our Deputy Chief of Mission. 

The following morning I met with Prime 

Minister Geir Haarde. Prime Minister 

Haarde graduated from Brandeis University 

and earned two master’s degrees from Johns 

Hopkins University. We discussed a broad 

range of topics: Energy; the recent financial 

crisis and its impacts on the U.S. and Iceland; the situation in Afghanistan; and our 

relations with Russia. 

Following the collapse of Iceland’s three 

main banks in October 2008, Iceland was cast 

into financial turmoil. A December 13, 2008 

article in The Economist makes clear the 

magnitude of the problem: ‘‘[T]he scale of 

what confronts . . . Icelanders is only just 

becoming clear. According to the [International Monetary Fund], the failure of the 

banks may cost taxpayers more than 80 percent of GDP. Relative to the economy’s size, 

that would be about 20 times what the Swedish Government paid to rescue its banks in 

the early 1990s. It would be several times the 

cost of Japan’s banking crisis a decade ago.’’ 

According to the IMF, Iceland’s GDP is expected to contract by nearly 10 percent in 

calendar year 2009. 

The Prime Minister was practical in terms 

of the outlook for 2009 but was optimistic 

that Iceland would see a turnaround in 2010. 

He indicated that Iceland has agreed to financing from the International Monetary 

Fund. The Prime Minister and I shared what 

each of our respective countries were looking 

to do in the form of economic stimulus. 

Prime Minister Haarde thanked me for my 

work on the judiciary committee and our efforts to ensure businessmen have visas which 

permit them the freedom to work and meet 

in the United States. Citing his personal experience during his 6 years as a student in 

the United States, Prime Minister Haarde 

asked that we do more to ensure those who 

wish to study in the U.S. have the opportunity. I concurred and feel that it is in our 

interest to have foreigners, and potential future foreign leaders, spend time and be educated in the United States. 

We returned to the United States on January 5, 2009. 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I know 

Senator COBURN is near the floor and 

should be appearing shortly. But until 

he does, 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. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that I be recognized for what time I might consume. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized. 

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we had 

an interesting day yesterday. We 

brought a lot of people to work, I believe unnecessarily, to adopt a motion 

to proceed that we could have voted on 

today. 

I want to spend some time today outlining what our new, soon to be President, President-elect Obama, said during his campaign and what he said to 

me personally several times about how 

we fix what is wrong with our country. 

If you go to his Web site or what his 

transition team has said, what you will 

find are some very significant things 

that both he and I have worked on over 

the past 4 years. 

He has a plan. It is called the Obama 

plan for restoring fiscal discipline. It is 

a good plan. What does it include? It 

includes conducting an exhaustive lineby-line review of Federal spending and 

eliminating Government programs that 

are not performing or are wasteful or 

are obsolete or are duplicative, paying 

for new spending commitments—new 

spending commitments—by cutting 

other programs—let me say that 

again—paying for new spending commitments by cutting other programs, 

slashing porkbarrel spending, rooting 

out redundancy, and requiring all Federal contracts over $25,000, including 

earmarks, to be competitively bid, to 

truly measure program performance 

without ideologic slant, and enforcing 

goals and demanding that new initiatives be selected on the basis of merit, 

not a political process that rewards 

lobbyists and campaign donors and 

makes Members of Congress just look 

good at home. 

That is President-elect Obama. I 

don’t know anybody outside of Washington who would not embrace that 

message. That is a great message for 

our country. It is a message that our 

country needs to heed. It is one that we 

need to accomplish. Unfortunately, the 

first week we are back in session, we 

are doing exactly the opposite. Here we 

have President-elect Obama who next 

week will become President Obama, 

and one of his main goals we are working to undermine in the Senate today. 

I am going to be an ally of the President-elect on these issues. Every opportunity when we are not doing what he 

suggested we be doing, I am going to be 

raising questions about it. We are 

going to work hard for the hope and 

change he promised the American people he would deliver. 

We have before us a lands package. It 

is not really a lands package. It has all 

sorts of stuff in it—165 bills. Initially, 

it spends $1 billion, but that is not even 

honest because after 10 years it spends 

$2 billion to $3 billion more on one program alone. CBO has not even scored 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S292 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

this new package. The last package 

they scored, if appropriated, would be 

$8 billion. So we have $10 billion to $12 

billion in new spending. 

The opportunity to offer amendments 

on that has been foreclosed. 

So I thought, in light of what this 

bill is and in light of what President 

Obama said he would like to see us do, 

that I would highlight some of the 

amendments I would have offered had 

the minority, the Republican Party, 

the Republican Members of the Senate, 

been given an opportunity to amend 

this bill. 

The best tradition of the Senate—the 

best tradition of the Senate—is where 

the best ideas get debated, the back 

and forth goes on, and then we settle 

on what is almost always a compromise but a compromise that is thoroughly debated and where an individual Senator has to put their stamp 

of yea or nay on ideas to either make 

it better or not. That is not available 

in this bill. As a matter of fact, it 

hasn’t been available for 124 days. It 

has been available once to Republican 

Members of the Senate in 184 days. 

So if we are to accomplish, or at 

least move in the direction that our 

soon-to-be President would like for us 

to, one of the things that is going to be 

required for that is taking tough votes. 

The idea we don’t want our Members to 

have to take tough votes is the height 

of inside political baseball and it 

wreaks of a lack of courage. As a Senator from Oklahoma, if I can’t go home 

and defend my votes in a cogent and 

reasonable manner, I shouldn’t be sent 

back up here. That is all there is to it. 

If Oklahoma citizens believe I have not 

stood on the principles of which I told 

them I would try to represent them in 

this body, they should not send me 

back to the Senate. But to not have 

the votes in the first place, so we don’t 

have to defend anything, goes against 

not just the culture of the Senate but 

it goes against the very courage that 

this whole country was based upon and 

that is the freedom to express and 

work and try to accomplish what you 

think is best for the country in the 

long run. 

One of the great qualities of our 

country is this freedom to get out and 

express. Until recently, that freedom 

has been available in the Senate. But 

this didn’t start with HARRY REID. It 

goes all the way back to George Mitchell and Trent Lott and Bill Frist. It has 

been perfected under our current majority leader. My thought would be 

that maybe we ought to take the hard 

votes rather than ruin the institution. 

Maybe we ought to do what the American people would expect us to do. 

Now, my intent has never been, in all 

my proceedings on the floor, to extend 

debate. I mean, I think I could accomplish a filibuster if I wanted to do that. 

Having delivered 4,000 babies, I know 

how to stay up all night. My goal is to 

have the opportunity to do amendments and to have a vote on them. As 

most people know, agreements to time 

on amendments are easily obtained, 

and limitation on amendments are 

most often very easily obtained. 

So the fact is we find ourselves on a 

$12 billion bill that has lots of good 

things in it and has lots of mediocre 

things that probably would be a priority if we didn’t find ourselves with a 

$1.8 trillion deficit this year and getting ready to pass an $800 billion stimulus package that is about $2,700 per 

man, woman, and child in this country, 

or about $10,000 per family, none of 

which is going to be paid for—none of 

which is going to be paid for. It will ultimately be paid for, and here is how it 

will be paid for. When we look toward 

our grandchildren, what we are going 

to find is that not so many of them get 

to go to college because they will not 

be able to afford to. When we look toward them owning a home, regardless 

of the housing crisis we find ourselves 

in now, 30 years from now the ability 

to earn an income big enough to be 

able to afford a mortgage is going to be 

limited because we have been poor 

stewards with their taxpayer money. 

So we will have shackled our grandchildren. 

So let me spend a minute talking 

about eliminating wasteful programs, 

or things that are not a priority, and 

go over a couple of the amendments we 

were going to offer simply to point out 

that we are doing the opposite of what 

I believe the intent of our new President is going to be. I might also add, it 

wasn’t that long ago that all of us were 

paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline. 

There is no question in my mind that a 

good portion of that price was because 

of speculation of the very rich in this 

country asking the very poor to pay 

out of their disposable income while 

they made millions upon billions of 

dollars manipulating the futures markets. But nevertheless, in this bill, we 

are putting a patch over our eye and 

limiting our ability in the future to increase our energy independence by taking millions of acres of land and forever closing them to any source of energy. It would not matter what any 

new technology might be, and it would 

not matter if we could do it totally 

without any environmental impact, we 

are closing that completely off. 

That set aside, one of the amendments we were going to offer in this 

bill was to strike $3.5 million to go to 

the city of St. Augustine, FL. Now, you 

might ask, what for? Well, they are 

going to have a birthday party in 6 

years to recognize the 450th year of St. 

Augustine’s existence, the longest Colonial outpost on this continent. I 

would say maybe that might be a St. 

Augustine, FL, responsibility or maybe 

the State of Florida, but when we are 

running a deficit in this country of 

$20,000 per family per year, it seems ludicrous to me that we would send $3.5 

million for a party. How does that set 

with priorities? How does that set with 

eliminating wasteful spending? It 

doesn’t. Yet it is in here, and we don’t 

have the opportunity to try to take it 

out. 

There is $12 million in the bill to 

build a new facility in Maryland for orchids for the Smithsonian. We may 

need to do that, but we certainly don’t 

need to do that right now. That is a 

luxury item. Every family in this country today is making a reassessment because everybody is afraid, and they are 

going through their budgets and saying: What is necessary? What is excess? 

What can we do without? Should we be 

putting money away in case X happens? Everybody in the country is 

doing that except the Congress. So here 

we have a new orchid building, costing 

$12 or $14 million, I don’t remember exactly which, that we are going to put 

in this bill, and we are going to say 

this is a priority. 

Now, some will say: Well, we might 

not appropriate it. We appropriate $300 

billion a year for things that are not 

authorized anyway, and most of those 

things are not priority as well. But the 

fact is, it is a clue to the American 

public that we don’t get it; that in this 

time of significant economic downturn, 

in this time of significant debt laying 

on to the next generations, we continue to want to do things the average 

person of common sense would say: 

How can that be a priority? Well, it 

can’t. 

There is $5 million in here for new 

botanical gardens in Hawaii and Florida. I don’t doubt that could be a great 

thing that we could do. No. 1, I would 

ask the question again: Why isn’t that 

a State responsibility instead of a Federal responsibility? If the State of 

Florida and the State of Hawaii think 

that is a priority, they ought to fund 

it. No. 2, if it is our priority, if it is our 

responsibility, is that something we 

should be funding now; that we should 

be authorizing; we should be saying it 

is okay to do this? 

We are in perilous times. Yet we act 

like nothing is going on out there; that 

the average family isn’t getting hit 

hard, that people aren’t worried about 

their jobs; that 573,000 people didn’t 

lose their jobs last month. That is how 

we are behaving. 

One of the other amendments we 

would have offered is to prohibit the 

use of eminent domain both in the national trails, the wilderness areas, the 

new heritage areas, and the new national parks area. It is one thing for 

the Government to have its land; it is 

totally different for it, through the 

force of law, to take your land away 

from you and tell you what they are 

going to do with it. There is minimal 

prohibition in this bill for the protection of property rights in this country—a fundamental freedom guaranteed to every American. This bill steps 

all over those property rights. 

We offered a total of 13 amendments, 

and we would have probably accepted 5 

or 6, with less than an hour debate on 

each one of them. We could have been 

finished with this bill. We could have 

accomplished it last Thursday or Friday. But because we don’t want to have 

to take tough votes or we want to protect a Member from a vote on some 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S293 

piece of pork that was put in a bill, we 

have decided to have no votes, no debate on any amendment will be the 

standard for this body. It is not a good 

day for the Senate. More importantly, 

it is a terrible day for this country because we are saying that, even though 

we have great hope and promise of 

change by an incoming President, his 

own party is going to step on that—the 

careerists, the people who think politically only, the people who think short 

term only about political gain, instead 

of thinking about what is in the best 

long-term interests of our country. 

It is interesting to know we have 108 

million acres of wilderness in this 

country right now—more than anywhere else in the world. That number 

is actually greater than the amount of 

developed land we have in this country, 

which is 106 million acres. It is also interesting to know the Government already owns 653 million acres, and we 

are going to take, at a minimum, another 2.2 million acres and totally wall 

it off—can’t ride a dirt bike through it, 

minimal access, can’t hunt on it, can’t 

do the things you have always done. If 

you happen to be unfortunate enough 

to have property next to it, you fall 

peril to having the National Park Service fund organizations that are going 

to take your property rights away, to 

limit your ability on the land you have 

that is abutting these areas. 

As we come into next week, we approach the celebration of a very great 

milestone in our country, something 

that speaks volumes about the American system: the installment and 

swearing in of the first African-American President, one who leads on these 

issues while we in the Senate say we 

are going to keep doing it the way we 

have been doing it regardless of the 

tremendous hope that he brought to 

the American people, the hope for 

change, that we would operate differently. We hope he will lead a Government that operates differently—and 

I believe he will try. He is a very dear 

friend of mine. I believe he is going to 

try to do that as here we sit in the Senate, worrying about the political consequences of taking a few votes on 

amendments because we might not 

look good enough at home. 

Talk about the lack of courage; talk 

about the decline that will be manifested in our country if we continue to 

have leadership that operates on the 

basis of fear instead of courage. 

My challenge and my hope is that 

this is the last time we are going to see 

this tactic brought forward in the Senate. My pledge to the majority leader 

is I will not delay anything if I get an 

opportunity to amend it. But if I get no 

opportunity to amend it, I will delay 

everything because the lack of an opportunity to amend says that over half 

of the people in this country, the 160 

million who are represented by my side 

of the aisle, have no voice in the matter. It says, if we don’t get it, our voice 

doesn’t count. 

I look forward with great hope to the 

leadership we are going to see at the 

other end of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

My prayer is that the leadership in this 

body can come up to the same level of 

character and courage that I believe we 

will see demonstrated at the other end 

of Pennsylvania Avenue. 

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 

call the roll. 

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the order 

for the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. 

STABENOW). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

TARP

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity of sharing 

some thoughts this afternoon. We are 

going to be moving forward, presumably even this week, with the second 

tranche. That is the second portion of 

$350 billion of the Wall Street bailout, 

the TARP money. 

And we will have that coming up, and 

there will be an attempt to move that 

through. I have believed from the beginning that it was unwise for this 

Congress to allow one individual, the 

Secretary of Treasury, to disburse $700 

billion. The way this is set up, and 

even with the way the votes might 

occur in Congress, is very troubling. 

The whole $700 billion will be spent by 

the two Secretaries of Treasury, without any real accountability, without 

any real responsibility. 

I think Congress is beginning to see 

the lack of wisdom that we displayed, 

the lack of fidelity to the responsibilities of the Senate, when we passed 

that bill with so little control. We do 

not even know where the money is 

going, and whether Secretary Paulson, 

who is a Wall Street guru, is moving 

money around among friends for 

friendship reasons, or meritorious reasons, or even if he can tell in this rushrush effort to put out money, who is 

deserving and who is not deserving. It 

is not being done in an open and transparent way. 

It is an indication and further proof 

that we in the Senate and the Congress 

were not rigorous enough when we 

passed it. I would add one more thing 

about that. It is something we ought 

not to forget. I hoped not to bring it 

up, but Secretary Paulson announced 

that he was going to buy toxic mortgages, bad mortgages from banks, in 

order to get those off their books. He 

said that most of them would be good 

and eventually they could be sold for a 

profit and the taxpayers would not lose 

any money, and that would be the way 

we would do this. 

Well, within a week—and he was specifically asked at one hearing if he 

thought we should buy stock in private 

banks, and he said, no. Within a week 

or so, he had already changed his mind 

on that. Instead of buying toxic mortgages, he was now going to buy stock 

in private American companies. And, 

in fact, he has now spent over $100 billion in one company, AIG, the insurance company. 

AIG is competing with other American companies. How should they feel, I 

ask you, that the U.S. Government is 

now providing $100 billion-plus to their 

competitors? What about the banks 

who did things right and were cautious 

and managed their money well? How 

should they feel about the Government 

injecting capital into their competitors 

by buying stock? 

And what about those of us who are 

not of the socialist bend? What should 

we think about the idea of the U.S. 

Government buying stock in a multitude of banks, at tens of billions of 

dollars, and now buying and investing 

in automobile companies? Someone 

said the newspapers are next. Well, I 

guess they are in trouble. They are not 

doing well financially. They can write 

a lot of editorials. I mean, maybe we 

ought to make them happy and give 

them money. What I am saying is, 

where does it end? 

Out of that background, I want to 

have a little discussion of the possibility of a stimulus bill that would add 

some $800 billion to the current level of 

deficit spending we already have. $800 

billion. 

There is no doubt that our economy 

is not performing well. We know that 

economies historically are cyclical; 

they go through good times and bad 

times. They normally respond. We are 

clearly going through a very difficult 

recessionary period. The unemployment rate is increasing, and businesses 

are struggling. We had a hearing before 

the Budget Committee last Thursday. 

The Director of the Congressional 

Budget Office testified, and he predicted that this would be a 2-year recession. Someone later asked him: 

Well, did that include the stimulus 

package? And he said, no. 

Well, would the stimulus package 

help? Spending another $800 billion, 

would that help? He said: Well, it 

might. That is a little less than a ringing endorsement. He did not say that if 

we did not pass this bill the economy 

would never recover and we would continue on a downward spiral forever. So 

I would say that. 

But I do think the Government can 

play a positive role in helping to shorten the length of the recession that we 

are in. 

There are some things I am prepared 

to discuss and see if we can agree on. I 

know President-elect Obama feels very 

strongly about this. He has been out 

campaigning, and he made promises to 

do all he could to recover this economy. He intends to do something, and 

he promised to do something. He is 

going to do something. 

Now, President Bush has already 

done some things that I also did not 

approve of. Doing something can be 

good. But doing something may not be 

so good if you do the wrong things. So 

I am aware that the new administration wants our country to prosper, and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S294 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

so do I. If there are reasonable, commonsense steps we can take to do that, 

I say let us do so without delay. 

But I want to share some thoughts 

with you about the fundamental truths 

that I think all of us in this country 

know, and especially the area where I 

come from. One of them is that there is 

no free lunch. Nobody can get a lunch 

and say someone did not have to work 

to put it on the table. There is nothing 

free. When something is given, somebody pays for it. 

There is another thing that is a truism: one way or the other, debts have 

to be repaid. 

You say: Well, you know, sometimes 

people go bankrupt, you do not get 

paid back. But the whole system is 

damaged when debts are not paid back. 

The next guy may have to pay higher 

interest rates because his neighbor did 

not pay his debts and the bank lost 

money and the bank has got to charge 

higher interest rates to account for 

that higher risk. 

So there are costs out there, and 

nothing is free in this country. I wish 

to focus on this question first. What is 

the best thing we can do for America in 

the long run? What should we, the responsible Senate, where we’re supposed 

to be the saucer that cools, what 

should we do and how should we approach this issue? 

Let’s be frank. The stimulus bill, the 

recovery bill as some are calling it 

now, may well provide some stimulus 

to the country. I am not sure. But I 

would say this: at its face, it is a 

spending bill. It spends money in order 

to create projects that might create 

jobs, and this is the theory behind the 

effort to stimulate the economy. 

We spend the money to try to create 

jobs. So it relies on the theory that 

ramping up government spending will 

flood the country with money, $800 billion worth, acting like a booster shot 

for a sick economy. 

This is not a new theory. It has been 

tried before all over the world. Many 

economists say this type of spendingstimulus simply does not work. They 

have cited examples of it throughout 

history. 

President Bush tried it in February 

last year, less than a year ago, when he 

began the process to send out a $600 

check. I think there is a general consensus now that the plan that was sold 

to Congress as a stimulus for the economy did not have the desired effect. 

I wish it were not so. I wish it had. I 

would point out that I did not think at 

the time that it would work. I did not 

vote for it. There were not many of us 

who did not vote for it, but I was one 

of the few. But it did not work, in my 

opinion. It cost $168 billion. Every 

penny of that $168 billion, since we 

were in a deficit and it was new spending on top of what we planned to spend, 

and we knew we were there, is a deficit 

added to the deficit. As a result, it basically, in one piece of legislation, doubled the annual deficit last year. 

Then we had some more spending 

that went on later on in the year. I will 

show this chart in a minute that sort 

of dramatizes where we are. 

So I would say both parties have 

some fingerprints on some policies that 

have not been very helpful. We did not 

ask enough tough questions when 

President Bush proposed his agenda, 

and we also did not ask enough questions when they passed the $700 billion 

bailout in October, in my opinion. I 

hope we do not make the mistake 

again of rushing to approve the second 

phase of that along with this $800 billion stimulus package. 

We need to ask the right questions. 

We should not be intimidated by it. We 

should not be panicked. The bill does 

not have to be passed in 1 day, or else 

the country is going to be permanently 

damaged. We need to try to improve 

the economy without wasting money 

or creating long-term problems for the 

Nation. 

So there is this effort to continue 

what Secretary Paulson promoted, a 

rhetoric that says we have got to do 

something and we have got to do it in 

a hurry. We have got to do it now. We 

are still hearing that. Well, I think we 

don’t need to be afraid to say, let’s 

slow this down a little bit. 

When something of such historic proportions is on the table, a bill of this 

magnitude, the Senate has a responsibility to carefully scrutinize it and to 

insist on accountability and responsibility of every single dime. That is why 

we exist. That is why taxpayers send us 

here. Someone has to ask the tough 

questions. I do not want to dampen 

anybody’s spirits. We have a wonderful 

new President. He has a positive attitude. He is proposing a lot of things 

and nobody wants to ask a lot of grim 

questions. 

I am going to ask a few, though, because it is my duty to do so. First, how 

big is this plan? How much will it cost? 

We have heard some general numbers. 

It has been stated, although we still 

haven’t seen any details, that it might 

be between $800 billion and $1.3 trillion, 

which is one thousand three hundred 

billion dollars. That is a lot of money. 

It would be the single largest Government expenditure of all time. Consider 

the enormity of a trillion dollars. It is 

the equivalent of paying for the Korean, Vietnam, and Persian Gulf wars 

at once. 

Then, my next question is: Where 

will the $800 billion to $1.3 trillion 

come from? Where will we get it? 

As I indicated, we are in a deficit 

now. So we are talking about spending 

another $800-plus billion. Where does it 

come from? We will have to borrow 

every single penny of it from whomever 

will lend us the money, private investors or foreign countries. We have been 

depending, frankly, too much on foreign countries. We didn’t budget for 

this $800 billion. We don’t have any 

money in the bank that we can get and 

pay for it. We don’t have any savings 

we can draw on. All $1 trillion will 

have to be borrowed. Since loans have 

to be repaid and you have to pay people 

to borrow their money—that is what 

borrowing money is, you borrow it 

from somebody or some country, and 

they are not going to give the money 

for nothing—you have to pay them interest. Every bit of it will have to be 

paid back. Every American over the 

years, for generations to come, will 

have to sacrifice to pay off the debt we 

incur today. 

The United States is, indeed, deeply 

in debt already, about $10.6 trillion. My 

generation probably will not be the one 

to pay most of that back, nor will even 

our children. It will probably be our 

grandchildren who will begin to feel 

the heavy burden of this debt. We 

should consider that. 

Then I will ask this question: What 

impact will the Obama plan have on 

the Federal deficit and the national 

debt? This spending program, virtually 

all of it, will increase the deficit, which 

is the difference between the money 

the Government takes in each year and 

what we spend. We spend more than we 

take in, so we have a deficit right now. 

To fund that deficit, we borrow money. 

Each year we have been running a deficit, and each year the deficit gets 

added to the total national debt. One 

might ask: How do these deficits and 

debts affect me? Well, when politicians 

are responsible and deficits are kept 

small as a percentage of the gross domestic product, we probably don’t notice the impact. Interest rates remain 

low, and debt payments are easier to 

make. But when we have a sustained 

and systemic habit of growing deficits, 

the United States becomes a riskier investment for people who might like to 

loan us money. Interest rates will go 

up, and more debt at higher interest 

rates means the taxpayers have to pay 

a larger percentage of GDP towards interest on the debt. The most likely way 

those high payments would be met is 

by a tax hike. I am not sure that is the 

most likely, but one way those higher 

interest payments and higher debt payments will have to be paid back might 

be a tax hike. 

In 2004, President Bush was criticized 

because, under his tenure after 9/11, 

after the economic slowdown, he had a 

big stimulus package, and it led to a 

deficit of $412 billion. He was savaged 

for a $412 billion deficit. I thought he 

did deserve criticism for that. Although it is not well known to most 

Americans, some work was done in the 

next years to bring that deficit down. 

By 2007, it was down to $160 billion, a 

lot better than $412 billion. That 

amounted to 1.2 percent of the gross 

domestic product. 

This chart reflects that. We had a 

$413 billion deficit in 2004. This was the 

largest deficit since World War II. 

President Bush was roundly criticized 

for it. A lot of people felt strongly 

about it. The next year the deficit 

dropped to $318 billion; the next year, 

it was 248. The year before last, 2007, it 

dropped to $161 billion. We were heading in the right direction. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S295 

Then we had the economic slowdown. 

Those things have a number of different ramifications, one of which is, 

when the economy slows down, people 

don’t make as much money, so they 

don’t pay as much taxes. So we lost 

about $200 billion; we expect to lose 

about $166 billion in revenue this year, 

according to the CBO, as a result of the 

slowdown. But last year, including the 

$160 billion stimulus package, sending 

out checks, the deficit jumped to $455 

billion, the highest we have had since 

World War II as a percentage of the 

gross domestic product. That is a huge 

number. 

We had a hearing last Thursday with 

the Congressional Budget Office Acting 

Director. A longtime professional budgeteer by the name of Mr. Sunshine did 

a fabulous job, but his remarks weren’t 

so bright and encouraging. The Congressional Budget Office projects that 

even without any stimulus package, 

under current law, the deficit this fiscal year, the one we are already in—we 

passed the first quarter of it, and it 

ends on September 30 of this year—will 

be $1.2 trillion. Remember, last year it 

was $455 billion, the highest ever. This 

year we are looking at $1.2 trillion. 

Senator CONRAD, chairman of the 

Budget Committee and a Democratic 

leader in the Senate, a good American, 

called that number jaw dropping. What 

else can one say? 

That does not even include the stimulus package. If we add the numbers as 

proposed in the stimulus package, according to Mr. Sunshine, that will 

reach almost $1.8 trillion. So we are 

talking about a deficit more than three 

times the largest amount ever. It may 

sound fine as a businessman. I heard 

today a very prominent American businessman on Joe Scarborough’s show. 

They asked him about spending and 

the deficit. He said: Well, we have to do 

it. They asked: Isn’t this going to create financial problems in the future? 

And the only answer he could give was: 

Well, we will worry about that later. 

I think it is a little late to worry 

about spending an extra $800 billion. It 

is a little late to worry about it later. 

We need to worry about it when we, the 

entity responsible for appropriating 

money, are deciding how much to appropriate and for what purpose. We 

ought to be thinking about it now, before we vote. This includes some of the 

expenditures for the TARP that they 

project. That is the $700 billion bailout 

and some other things, some of which 

are one-time expenditures. They 

project next year the deficit will be 

$871 billion. It might look like we made 

progress, but $871 billion is twice what 

this number is, almost. The next year, 

2011, it will $572 billion. 

Those numbers still are not the full 

number because they do not include, 

for example, about $40 billion a year for 

the alternative minimum tax fix and 

several other things. So these are numbers based on existing law, and each 

year we have not allowed the alternative minimum tax to go up. There 

are other things we extend each year. 

It does not include extensions of the 

current Bush tax cuts which would expire in 2010. He is not projecting they 

will be extended, but some of them, I 

am sure, will be. Those numbers are 

correct, technically, but in reality they 

are going to be larger, in all probability. 

This deficit, almost $1.8 trillion, 

amounts to 8.3 percent of the entire 

value of the American economy, the 

gross domestic product. That would be 

the highest in real dollar numbers 

maybe ever. As a percentage of the 

economy, it is the highest since we 

were in a life-and-death struggle in 

World War II, with millions of soldiers 

deployed all over the world putting 

their lives on the line for this country. 

We were building airplanes and ships 

and tanks with all the capacity this 

Nation had. 

Today Mr. Sunshine told us the debt 

payment we are paying each year out 

of tax receipts is $200 billion just to 

pay the interest on the money we already owe. Let me say a little bit 

about that. Interest rates are oddly at 

a very low rate today. It is inevitable, 

though, that people will stop loaning 

money to anybody, the U.S. Government or anybody else, for 1 or 2 percent. They are going to demand higher 

interest rates. That is what is going to 

happen. 

The CBO predicts that interest rate 

amount will balloon in a few years to 

$450 billion a year annually. So the 

Congressional Budget Office says, as a 

result of our profligate spending and 

huge deficits, we now are heading in a 

few years to a point where we will be 

spending $450 billion a year only on interest. I ask, how big is $450 billion? 

I will give a couple examples to provide perspectives that are fair to consider. The 5 years of the Iraq war cost 

$500 billion. We are creating a permanent interest rate payment every year 

that will have to be paid by our children, by our constituents. Our constituents today will be paying $450 billion every year, just on interest, because we had to spend so much today 

and last year for responses to crises I 

am not sure justified this kind of 

spending. 

I certainly think many of our programs deserve to be reformed, eliminated, or increased in efficiency, and a 

lot of savings could occur. We have not 

been doing that. All we have been 

doing is spending more and more, adding to our debt. 

Madam President, $450 billion is the 

equivalent, as I said, of the Iraq war. It 

is about one-third of the discretionary 

spending for our country every year. 

My recollection is that our general 

fund discretionary spending, including 

the Department of Defense, is about 

$1.5 trillion. I think that includes the 

$200 billion or so for interest now. So 

that number goes up to $450 billion. It 

would be about a third of that amount. 

We spend more on Social Security 

and Medicare and entitlement programs. That is on a separate accountability factor. But just on the Defense 

Department, Homeland Security, our 

salaries, highways, everything we 

spend money on—our interest on the 

debt would be that high. It is not a little bitty matter. It is a big deal. 

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that by 2019, the share of Federal 

expenditures allocated to debt payments will increase from 6 percent to 

13 percent of the entire economy. That 

does not include the stimulus plan the 

President will be sending to us. 

So the next question. A trillion dollars is a staggering sum of money to 

borrow and pay back with interest. 

How do we know it will be spent in the 

most efficient way to jump-start our 

economy and get the most productivity 

for the taxpayers? 

Well, the truth is, we do not. We 

know this proposal will have two components. The so-called tax credits and 

direct spending. Now, I have to tell 

you, a good bit of this tax cut is temporary and a good bit of it is a sales 

job. Tax cuts, tax credit: What does 

that mean? Well, some say 40 percent 

of that will go to people who do not 

pay taxes. So how do you get a tax cut 

if you do not pay taxes? The Government sends you a check from the 

Treasury just as they did last spring. 

They got $600. So you get a check from 

Uncle Sam that is supposed to stimulate things and somehow help the economy. 

The Congressional Budget Office, 

really under the supervision of the 

Congress—and the Congress is under 

the control of our Democratic colleagues; they have the majority now— 

the CBO rightfully scores these provisions not as a tax cut but as direct 

spending. What else can it be? It is a 

direct spending of taxpayers’ money to 

send individuals a check to make them 

happier for the short term. What kind 

of long-term impact will there be on 

them, their children, and the economy 

in the years to come? What will this 

unwise prospect create? 

The Wall Street Journal has pointed 

out many of these ideas are temporary 

and that temporary tax cuts do not result in positive economic behavior. But 

a more permanent change, when people 

know it is permanent, does have more 

of an impact in helping our economy. 

Permanent tax relief, including—I 

have to say, please, do not think this is 

a way to pander to big business. But 

the corporate tax rate in America is 

one of the highest in the world: 35 percent. In Ireland, I think it is 11 percent. Most European nations—only one 

or two nations have as high a tax rate 

on the corporate community, which 

gets passed on as a cost of doing business and makes those corporations less 

competitive in the world marketplace. 

We would be in a lot better shape if 

we could reduce that in a more permanent way. Then those companies could 

see, well, I am saving on my corporate 

tax rate. I will not have to lay off as 

many people. I can keep this company 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S296 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

going. Maybe we can invest and be 

more competitive when we export because I do not have as much of a burden on me, and it would help this economy. So I want to say many economists truly believe the corporate tax is 

not that, if reduced, would actually encourage economic growth and create 

more jobs. 

So we know that just rapid expenditures of huge amounts of money have 

never been a very effective way to grow 

the economy. Are these spending programs—this $800 billion plus—is that 

going to end cold turkey in 2 years? I 

have doubts about it. I want to tell 

you, I have my doubts about the wisdom of our idea that we can jump-start 

the economy by pumping $800 billion 

into it. 

So they are talking about—you have 

heard these numbers—well, we are 

going to spend a good bit of money on 

the infrastructure. Everybody likes 

highways. Everybody knows they are 

there for generations to come. Highways and bridges have good things that 

can be said about them and can make 

our lives better. There is always a line 

formed whenever there is highway 

money with people wanting to build 

more highways and more bridges. Currently, the Federal Government, which 

spends a lot of money on highways, 

spends, according to Mr. Sunshine, 

around $40 billion a year on highways. 

OK. States match it on a 20-percent 

basis; 80 percent Federal, States 20 percent. In some areas it is 90 percent Federal, 10 percent State. We use this 

matching mechanism to fund highway 

construction in this country, and it 

amounts to $40 billion a year. 

We are talking about $300 billion in 2 

years? You take the $300 billion, and 

cut it in two, that is $150 billion each 

year. So now we go from $40 billion a 

year for highways to $150 billion? Well, 

let’s say you only spend $100 billion on 

it. With $200 billion, that is $100 billion 

more per year for highways, 21⁄2 times 

what we are currently spending. 

I would suggest those kinds of figures 

are unrealistic. When the chips are 

down, I doubt we are going to see anything like that much money being allocated to highways because it cannot be 

spent. There are not enough asphalt 

mixers, there are not enough concrete 

mixers, there are not enough dump 

trucks to actually spend that much 

money. That is a fact. You cannot triple the amount of work. And if you do, 

the bid per mile and the cost per mile 

is going to go way up. There is going to 

be a shortage dealing with everything 

in construction. 

We simply cannot throw money at 

road construction and infrastructure. 

It has to be understood that since some 

of this is dropping off as a result of economic slowdowns, we can put that back 

on, and maybe a little on top, and keep 

this thing going at a more healthy 

rate. That may be possible, and I am 

willing to discuss that. But we ought 

not to sell the stimulus package that is 

being discussed that somehow the biggest chunk of it is going to get spent 

on highways. Right? So $800 billion. 

Maybe $30 billion a year extra; so $60 

billion out of $800. So $740 billion. 

Where is the rest of it going to be spent 

to stimulate the economy, I ask? 

‘‘Shovel ready’’ they say. I do not know 

what that means. But I know you could 

not start off in the next few months 

and triple the number of highways 

built in America. There are not enough 

engineers. There is not enough heavy 

equipment. There is not enough material to do that. If you were to even try, 

it would drive up the cost, and so we 

would spend a lot of money, a lot more. 

We would make it much more expensive per mile to build highways in 

America. We have to be careful about 

that. 

Well, they also talk about how there 

is going to be more money in this bill 

for the automobile companies, and 

maybe a bailout for State governments. They need more money too, 

don’t they? So why doesn’t the Federal 

Government—which sort of prints 

money—why don’t we bail out our good 

friends at the State level? Unemployment insurance is going to need to be 

expanded. And some are talking about 

expanding broadband, and, of course, 

hiring an additional 600,000 Government employees. That is part of what 

is being discussed here. 

As the Washington Post said, of 

course, many of these items were featured in President-elect Barack 

Obama’s campaign pledges. There was 

a fine column by Mr. E. J. Dionne, who 

is openly a good, liberal columnist and 

has been a pro-Obama writer throughout. Mr. Dionne said it has been rather 

fortunate for the Obama campaign that 

he can utilize—and I am paraphrasing 

now, but I think this is close to the 

heart of what he said—it is very fortunate for President-elect Obama that all 

the spending he promised can now be 

justified, and they can call it a bailout 

or a stimulus package and not just a 

big spending program. 

So I think we have to ask questions 

about that. Can we justify this? Fundamentally, every dollar we spend as 

part of regular Government spending 

programs or this stimulus program 

should result in an effective return to 

the taxpayers. We have no money to 

waste. We are in a time of unprecedented, incredible deficits. We ought 

not to waste a single dollar. Cannot we 

all agree on that? 

Finally, my question would be, how 

will we Americans pay the trillion dollars back? There are three ways: cutting spending in the future. I do not 

hear anybody saying we need to be cutting spending, not on the majority side 

here. We talk about education, health 

care, highways, expanding the number 

of military personnel. All these things 

cost money. I do not see any realistic 

prospect we will see any huge reduction in spending, I have to tell you. 

You could raise taxes. But I do not 

like raising taxes. I have tried to oppose that throughout my career. President-elect Obama says he wants to give 

everybody a tax break. Who is going to 

raise taxes in any significant way? Oh, 

you can tax the rich and get a little 

out of them when the economy is doing 

pretty good. When the economy goes 

down and the rich income drops dramatically, the country’s tax revenue 

also drops dramatically. So I do not 

think we are going to get a lot of 

money from that. 

One way for it to happen and would 

be a result more pernicious than many 

have thought about would be where we 

would basically debase the currency. 

We would weaken the value of the dollar. So you borrow $100 billion from 

somebody, and you pay them back $100 

billion, but you printed a lot more dollars, so the dollars they get paid back 

are less valuable than the ones they 

gave you when you borrowed it. That is 

a pretty slick deal, isn’t it? That is 

what you call inflation. There are huge 

ramifications from that kind of policy 

that are very damaging to the longterm health of America. We do not 

need to debase our currency. That is 

why the price of gold jumped. People 

get scared the dollar is not going to be 

worth anything. 

So I think the debate we are about to 

begin is really about individual responsibility and governmental responsibility. We do need to resist the cries of 

many who have self-interests in this 

stimulus package. 

I heard one prominent businessman 

make a speech recently. He said: We 

are going after this money. Well, if we 

put it out there, every business is 

going to go after it and be happy to get 

it. So we have to be responsible. We 

need to scrutinize it. We need to act in 

the long-term interests of America. 

I believe Congress so far has not done 

well in responding to the economic crisis we are going through. I think everybody pretty well universally has agreed 

that the $160 billion send-out-thechecks program did not benefit the 

economy. I heard a group of wellknown economists recently agree that 

the first $350 billion—remember, the 

entire Iraq war has cost us $500 billion—that $350 billion in the first 

tranche of money that has gone out has 

not helped the economy. So I think we 

have to be careful. I hope Congress will 

not fail our constituents again, by 

making sure that the fiscal illness we 

are living with now does not damage 

our children. 

I know people are hurting. I know 

people are worried that their job might 

not exist in the months to come. If you 

are working at the clothing store, I am 

not sure some of these jobs are going to 

be that helpful to you. But at any rate, 

that is the kind of thing we are dealing 

with. People are worried. We are going 

through a serious downturn. As the 

CBO expert told us, we are going to 

come out of this in 2 years, in his opinion—and he was firm about it—whether 

we did anything or not. He said a stimulus package might help. Another 

member of the panel said, well, it 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S297 

should help, but neither one said it was 

critical to us coming out of the recession. 

So whatever we do, whatever monies 

we spend—and I am not against every 

idea for stimulating the economy—let’s 

just be sure it is productive. Approving 

$1 trillion in deficit spending could do 

more harm than good if we don’t do it 

right. 

It is time that we as a Nation stop 

living beyond our means. We need to 

get our house in order. We need to 

know there is no free lunch; that debts 

will have to be repaid one way or the 

other—raising taxes, cutting spending 

in the future, debasing the currency. 

That is basically the way we can reduce the debt, and those are the only 

ways we can. We are putting a burden 

to the future. I know some money invested now might make a positive difference. Let’s talk about that and let’s 

see what we can do. But the numbers 

being floated out and the rapidity with 

which the program is being proposed 

creates in my mind a great danger that 

much of the money will not be stimulative, as it has failed to be in the past, 

and that much of it will not produce 

the kind of tangible benefit to which 

the taxpayers are entitled. 

Madam President, I thank the Chair, 

and I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized. 

CONGRATULATING THE FLORIDA GATORS

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam 

President, the task happily falls to 

some of us Senators each year in which 

we can chronicle the success of the national champion in college football. Of 

course, there were tens of millions of 

Americans watching TV last Thursday 

night as the No. 1 and No. 2 teams 

ranked in the country in college football played for the BCS National Championship. Of course, in that game, with 

two high-powered offenses, the University of Florida Gators prevailed. 

I will be offering a resolution for the 

Senate to pass to present to the University of Florida and to its coach and 

to the team. They will be coming here 

for the traditional visit to the White 

House to visit with the President later 

on this year. I am joined—although the 

Senate rules prohibit Albert the Alligator from appearing on the floor of 

the Senate, and as my colleague, the 

Senator from Alabama, over there is 

giving the Gator chomp, the University 

of Alabama rolling tide having been 

the victims of the Gator chomp in the 

SEC championship game—I make note 

that Albert the Alligator, the University of Florida’s mascot, is safely 

ensconced back in the cloakroom since 

the alligator is not allowed onto the 

floor of the Senate. But all of us are 

celebrating this tremendous victory. 

I also wish to mention that since the 

BCS National Championship rotates 

among the major bowls, this year it 

was the turn for the Orange Bowl to 

have not only the Orange Bowl on January 1 but then the national championship game. The entire Orange Bowl 

Committee, of which the two Senators 

from Florida are privileged to be exofficio members, had conducted such a 

magnificent event, had done it with 

great aplomb and excellence, great hospitality to the two teams involved, to 

the university administrations, and it 

was all around a very positive experience. 

For the national champion Gators, I 

wish to quote a couple of articles. 

From the columnist Greg Cote and the 

Miami Herald: 

The Gators flat-out won this game and this 

title, and all the more impressively because 

it was less by quarterback Tim Tebow’s 

magic (though he was voted game MVP) than 

by his defense defusing the other team’s epic 

offense. 

Then I quote from the columnist of 

the Gainesville Sun, Robbie Andreu: 

The Florida Gators apparently were right 

after all. Oklahoma obviously had not seen a 

defense like Florida’s this season. And Tim 

Tebow? There’s no way he is the fourth-best 

quarterback in the Big 12. With the defense 

coming up with critical stops when it had to, 

and with Tebow, Percy Harvin and the offense generating points when the game was 

on the line, the Gators were clutch in the 

second half and beat the Sooners 24–14 

Thursday night at Dolphin Stadium to give 

Florida its third national championship, and 

second in three years. 

Coach Meyer is quoted: 

This is one of the best teams in the history 

of college football. 

So we celebrate that. 

Now, since we are dealing with these 

weighty problems and here we are taking up a stimulus bill—we are taking 

up this TARP legislation this week—it 

is good to have a little levity. Indeed, 

before this game, I went to the Senator 

from Oklahoma, Mr. COBURN, and I 

said: Would you like to have a little 

friendly wager? 

What we decided was that the losing 

team’s Senator would sing a song in 

front of the winning Senator’s constituents, and we agreed in advance 

that the songs would be that I would 

sing ‘‘Oklahoma’’ if the Sooners won, 

and Senator COBURN would sing ‘‘Rocket Man’’ by Elton John—a favorite of 

this Senator—if the Gators won. 

So next Wednesday, 2 days from now, 

circa noontime, we are going to have a 

gathering of Florida constituents for 

Senator COBURN and me. I suggested to 

Senator COBURN that I would even graciously sing a few bars of ‘‘Oklahoma.’’ 

Also, if he couldn’t follow the words— 

and we are going to play ‘‘Rocket 

Man’’ for him—if he couldn’t follow the 

words, clearly we could sing a few bars 

of the Florida alma matur, the Florida 

fight song, ‘‘We Are The Boys From 

Old Florida.’’ 

It is good to have this levity. It is 

good to have a wholesome sport that is 

uniquely American that we can get enthused about. It is good that we have 

athletics that add so much to a university setting, that bring out more of a 

university personality in addition to 

the studies, the academics, and the research we are so privileged to have in 

our American universities. 

So, indeed, this Senator is here to 

say: All hail, Florida, which comes 

from the alma matur. All hail, Florida. 

This time, again, the Gators are the 

national champions. 

Madam 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. 

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 

SANDERS). Without objection, it is so 

ordered. 

The Senator from Michigan. 

ECONOMIC STIMULUS

Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I 

wish to take a few minutes this 

evening to respond to some of the comments that we have been hearing from 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

expressing great concern about the 

spending of a recovery package for 

America, as we are talking about 

today. 

I find it quite extraordinary when I 

hear colleagues talking about objecting to spending Federal dollars right 

now—Federal dollars that would add to 

the deficit—given where we have come 

from in the last 8 years. I find it quite 

extraordinary. 

I remember back when I was in the 

House of Representatives, serving with 

the distinguished Presiding Officer, 

when in 1997 we took some very tough 

votes and did a lot of hard work under 

President Clinton. Actually, we balanced the budget for the first time in 

30 years. That put us on a course to 

eliminate the deficit, to strengthen the 

country, to create the right kinds of 

priorities for the American people. 

As a result of that action, in 2001, 

when I came into the Senate as a new 

member of the Budget Committee, we 

were debating what to do with the biggest surplus in American history, $5.7 

trillion. How should we address the 

largest surplus we had seen in the Federal budget. At the time, the Democrats on the committee proposed that 

we divide that surplus into three parts: 

one, for tax cuts geared to the middle 

class; two, for investments to create 

jobs, invest in education, and future 

opportunities; and three, to help 

strengthen Social Security. That was 

rejected. Instead, as we all know now, 

a very large supply-side tax cut, trickle-down economics, was passed. My 

constituents, in January 2009, are still 

waiting for it to trickle down to their 

pockets. But that was put in place, 

which began a process that has now led 

us to the highest deficits in the history 

of the country in just 8 years. That was 

coupled with a war that was not paid 

for, over $10 billion a month, and certainly the most important thing has 

been the loss of life. Then we saw just 

at the end of the year an effort to provide $700 billion in what has been 

dubbed the bailout of Wall Street—to 

date, I suggest, not very effective and 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S298 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

at times outrageous in terms of what 

has happened with that money. 

So it is not that the Federal Government has to spend money, it is not that 

colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

have not supported spending. They supported spending for 8 years. The question is, What are we going to spend it 

on and for whom? Many Americans 

have seen their standard of living go 

down, their jobs go away, their houses 

go away, their opportunities go away, 

while some have done very well under a 

particular kind of spending over the 

last 8 years. What I suggest is this is 

not about whether we spend or invest 

or use Federal dollars; it is about our 

values and priorities. In whom are we 

going to invest? Where are we going to 

spend the dollars? I have had so many 

people in Michigan say to me, with all 

the debates going on: Where is my bailout? I am sure you heard that, Mr. 

President: Where is my bailout? Small 

business owners: Where is my bailout? 

Individuals. I suggest what we are debating is the American people bailout, 

the investment in America. 

The people of this country have resoundingly rejected the policies of the 

last 8 years that have gotten us to 

where we are today. That is what elections are about. People have said very 

loudly: We don’t want the same policies; we don’t want the same people espousing the same policies going forward as we have seen in the last 8 

years. 

Where have those policies over the 

last 8 years gotten us? Over the last 8 

years, we have not seen a commitment 

to manufacturing in this country. 

Some people say that is only a narrow 

special interest for a certain number of 

States in the country. I suggest it is a 

foundation of the middle class in this 

country. The fact that we have lost 4.1 

million manufacturing jobs due to the 

policies of the last 8 years—750,000 of 

those jobs just last year—that totally 

relates to where we are in terms of jobs 

in this country, what is happening in 

this country, and what is happening to 

middle-class people. The economic activity in the manufacturing sector has 

fallen to its lowest level in 60 years. 

That absolutely equates to the challenges we are currently having in this 

economy. 

In 2008, 2.6 million jobs just in general were lost, the worst year since 

1945—8 years of policies put forward by 

the current administration and supported by many people who have been 

on the floor since we came back into 

session arguing we should not do something different; we should not try a different kind of investment policy; we 

should not focus on jobs in America, 

the middle class, and so on; we should 

keep doing it the way we have been 

doing it. That is basically what we are 

hearing on the floor, the same kinds of 

things that have gotten us to these 

numbers—1 million jobs lost last 

month. Last month, 1 million Americans. As of December, 11.1 million people were unemployed. And we wonder 

why they cannot pay their mortgages 

and their homes are going into foreclosure. The jobless rate is the highest 

in 16 years, and we know it is not going 

to get better quickly. We know at least 

the first half of this year—possibly the 

entire year—is going to be very tough. 

We know that. But common sense 

would say that we do not embrace the 

same policies that have gotten us to 

this point if we want to get out of the 

hole. 

It is exciting that next week we are 

going to swear in a wonderful new 

President who has policies, working 

with us, working with all of us together, that will stop digging the hole 

and begin to bring us out of the hole, 

even though we know it is a deep hole, 

and he has certainly stressed that, 

wisely, with the American people. We 

are going to begin to come out of this 

hole. 

Over and over again in the last week, 

we have been hearing colleagues objecting to a change in economic policy 

and proposing the same old thing. The 

same old thing has put us in a situation where the U.S. median home price 

fell 13 percent in the last year, which is 

the fastest pace since the 1930s. That is 

what the kinds of policies we are hearing on the other side of the aisle have 

achieved. 

Mr. President, 3,100 foreclosures happen every day. Today, as we have been 

in session, 3,100 families have seen 

their homes foreclosed upon. Tomorrow, there will be another 3,100 families; the next day, 3,100 families. That 

is what the policies—action and inaction—of the last 8 years have done. One 

in ten homeowners with a mortgage is 

either in foreclosure or delinquent on 

payments. 

Pension plans, if you are fortunate 

enough to have had a job, worked hard 

all your life, and put money into a pension—maybe you did not take a pay 

raise in order to make sure you had 

that pension—have suffered their 

steepest 1-year drop in 20 years. The 

average pension fund now is holding assets that would cover only about 75 

percent of what had been promised to 

workers. 

I could go on and on with the numbers, and you know them as well. The 

good news is the American people have 

looked around at what has happened, 

the trickle-down economic policies of 

the last 8 years—the idea that we can’t 

afford to invest in education for the future or health care or focus on jobs for 

the future—they have looked at those 

policies and said, no more, no more, We 

have had enough. 

So that brings us to this point, and 

we will have the opportunity in the 

next few weeks to bring forward an 

economic recovery plan that focuses in 

a very different way. If we are going to 

do tax cuts, we want tax cuts for middle-class families and those working 

hard to get into the middle class to 

benefit from those and that is the policy we will see coming forward. 

We are going to see policies that will 

create jobs rebuilding America. I have 

heard colleagues on the other side of 

the aisle saying: Oh, my gosh, they 

want to not only talk about roads and 

bridges and water and sewer systems, 

but they want to talk about 

broadband—the idea of connecting 

rural communities and small businesses to the Internet so they can sell 

around the world, just like big business 

does. Oh, my goodness, you mean they 

want everybody to have access to the 

Internet, not just some people? Yes, 

that is true. We believe the new highway, the information highway, that 

power needs to be available to every 

child, to every small business, to every 

farmer at the end of the road. Just as 

we built the electricity systems, the 

telephone systems of the past, we need 

to make sure we are building for the 

future in America so everyone has access to these new technologies to have 

opportunity for jobs and income and 

education. 

I am also very involved in making 

sure we can computerize our health 

care system so we can cut costs from 

unnecessary paperwork; that we can 

also provide the very best quality of 

health care in every hospital, large and 

small, whether you live in a small 

rural area or an urban hospital is 

where you would go or a suburban hospital. 

We need to focus on jobs rebuilding 

America and reinvesting not only in 

the upfront construction jobs but in 

what that will mean to the assets that 

will be there afterwards, which is very 

much a part of this recovery plan. We 

know we want to see alternative energy jobs, and certainly I am very involved in the whole effort to create 

green jobs. I am very proud that last 

year in the budget resolution we included my green-collar jobs initiative, 

which now our new President-elect and 

his team are working to fund as a part 

of what we need to do to create the new 

battery technology. This is not just the 

research but to build the batteries here 

in the United States; and not only to 

have wind energy but to build the wind 

turbines here and create the jobs; and 

not only to have the solar power but to 

build the solar units or the solar panels, to have the equipment, to have the 

storage from the batteries all done 

here. That is a part of our vision for a 

recovery package for the future. 

Because I have been working so 

closely with advanced manufacturing 

in the auto industry, I know an interesting statistic is that if everyone had 

an electric car today—and we would 

certainly like that to happen from an 

environmental standpoint—we would 

blow up the electrical grid in this country, poof. We would be in deep trouble. 

So part of what we need to have happen 

is to upgrade so we have a better electric system to be able to handle those 

new vehicles. We need to create a new 

kind of infrastructure so that when you 

pull up in your vehicle, which would 

get 40 miles per—what shall I say? It is 

not 40 miles per gallon because it is not 

a gallon. It is 40 miles on the road to a 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 12, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S299 

charge. Wouldn’t it be great to be able 

to pull up and charge it in a parking 

lot or at a parking meter as you went 

into the store? 

There are so many ways we need to 

build and rebuild America for this new 

technological world we are in, this new 

green alternative energy world we are 

in. That is our hope: Jobs, rebuilding 

America, and building for the future. 

We not only can achieve very important goals of energy independence and 

tackling in a real and meaningful way 

the serious issue of global warming, 

but we can create jobs in America, 

good-paying jobs in America. That is 

what this recovery plan does, and I am 

very excited to work with the incoming 

administration and to see their vision 

and their commitment to working with 

us. 

There are so many pieces of this that 

will be addressed. I will mention one 

other, and that is when I talked earlier 

about the numbers regarding unemployment and housing and pensions 

and what is happening to people, we 

have seen now close to a decade—8 

years—of neglect, of not paying attention to those who have been hurt by 

the policies that have been in place. So 

it is very important that we, in fact, 

recognize that we have more people out 

of work than there are currently available jobs—people who have worked all 

their lives, people who want to work, 

who recognize the dignity of work but 

in the short run need some help. Part 

of this package needs to address this as 

well, whether it is unemployment insurance, whether it is food assistance, 

whether it is help with health care during a transition or whether it is addressing those who have lost their jobs 

because of trade. Those priorities represent the best of America and who we 

are, our real values and priorities as 

Americans, understanding that we are 

in a global economy and that transition, at best, even if everything was 

going well, even if every policy was 

going well, has created pain and suffering for those caught in the middle. 

Unfortunately, because of a series of 

policies, whether it is not enforcing our 

trade laws fairly, whether it is not addressing health care or seeing the cutbacks in education, and so on, too 

many people have been hurt and need 

some help. Too many people have been 

hurt in the last 8 years. So a very important part of this recovery plan as 

well is to make sure those families 

know we see them, we hear them; that, 

as Americans, we care about them and 

want to make sure they have the temporary assistance they need while we 

are creating these jobs in the new economy. 

There is a lot of work to do, as we all 

know, and I would conclude by saying 

that while we may not know how long 

it will take for us to move out of this 

deep hole we have been placed in, in 

terms of job loss and deficits, and so 

on, here is what we do know: The same 

thing has been tried for 8 years and 

things have only gotten worse every 

year. So those who would argue that 

we should have more of the same I 

think find themselves in a difficult position because the American people 

want change. They have voted for 

change, and they expect us to change 

the values and the priorities of this 

country so that we are, in fact, investing in our people and in a strong America again. 

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. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that the order for the quorum call be 

rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all postcloture 

time on the wilderness bill be yielded 

back. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Without objection, the motion to 

proceed is agreed to. 

The clerk will report the bill by title. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

A bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as 

components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of 

Interior and the Department of Agriculture, 

and for other purposes. 

AMENDMENT NO. 15

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have an 

amendment at the desk. I now ask that 

the clerk report the amendment. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 15. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end insert the following: 

The provisions of this bill shall become effective 5 days after enactment. 

Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 16 TO AMENDMENT NO. 15

Mr. REID. I now call up my seconddegree amendment which is at the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 16 to amendment No. 15. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment strike ‘‘5’’ and insert 

‘‘4’’. 

Mr. REID. I now move to commit the 

bill with instructions and ask for the 

yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second on the motion? 

There appears to be. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 17

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report the motion to commit. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] moves 

to commit the bill to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee with instructions 

to report back forthwith with the following 

amendment numbered 17: 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end, insert the following: 

This title shall become effective 3 days 

after enactment of the bill. 

AMENDMENT NO. 18

Mr. REID. I have an amendment to 

the motion at the desk and I ask that 

it now be reported. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 18 to the instructions of the motion to commit S. 22. 

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent 

that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘3’’ and insert 

‘‘2’’. 

Mr. REID. I now ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There appears to be. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO AMENDMENT NO. 18

Mr. REID. I now call up my seconddegree amendment which is also at the 

desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nevada [Mr. REID] proposes an amendment numbered 19 to amendment No. 18. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the amendment, strike ‘‘2’’ and insert 

‘‘1’’. 

CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. REID. I send a cloture motion to 

the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented 

under rule XXII, the Chair directs the 

clerk to read the motion. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

CLOTURE MOTION

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby 

move to bring to a close debate on S. 22, the 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009: 

Harry Reid, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Bernard Sanders, Jon Tester, Tom Harkin, Kent 

Conrad, Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara 

Boxer, Debbie Stabenow, Daniel K. 

Akaka, Ken Salazar, Mary L. Landrieu, 

Ron Wyden, Patrick J. Leahy, Robert 

Menendez, Bill Nelson. 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory 

quorum required under rule XXII be 

waived. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S300 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 12, 2009 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

f 

25TH NATIONAL COWBOY POETRY 

GATHERING 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today 

to recognize the 25th National Cowboy 

Poetry Gathering, which is held every 

January in Elko, NV. 

For 25 years, the National Cowboy 

Poetry Gathering has been providing a 

forum for the expression and celebration of the artistic spirit of those that 

live and work in the rural West. 

Through both traditional and contemporary forms, this gathering has showcased dancers, filmmakers, musicians, 

storytellers, and poets—each contributing their experience of the western 

lifestyle. From urban areas to rural 

ones, people from across the country 

gather in Elko every year to listen to 

and experience the artistic soul of the 

authentic cowboy. 

The first cowboy poetry gathering 

was held one weekend in January in 

1985. It drew a crowd that included 

frontier enthusiasts as well as skeptics 

who questioned whether cowboys could 

also be poets. After that first gathering, the poetic nature of the cowboy 

could no longer be doubted, and what 

started as a small weekend event eventually transformed into a weeklong 

cultural excursion that draws thousands of visitors and participants from 

across the globe. It has reinvigorated 

interest in preserving and spreading 

the cowboy narrative, inspiring other 

communities to hold similar events 

throughout the West. 

The National Cowboy Poetry Gathering has created an environment that 

contributes a wealth of riches to our 

shared western heritage. In January of 

2009 the Western Folklife Center in 

Elko will host its 25th gathering. I 

would like to congratulate them on 

this achievement. 

f 

TRIBUTE TO SENATOR ROBERT 

BYRD 

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join with my colleagues in 

congratulating Senator ROBERT BYRD

on his 50 years of exemplary and distinctive service in the U.S. Senate. 

Senator BYRD is a distinguished 

Member of the Senate and has served 

in many important positions of responsibility in this body during his tenure 

as Senator from West Virginia. He has 

served as minority and majority leader, as chairman and ranking member of 

the Appropriations Committee, and as 

President pro tempore of the Senate. 

It has been a great privilege to serve 

with Senator BYRD on the Appropriations Committee. I have learned so 

much from him since joining this committee in 1981. Senator BYRD has been 

a good friend as well as a mentor. It 

has also been a great pleasure to serve 

with him on the Homeland Security 

Appropriations Subcommittee, which 

we have both chaired. 

I look forward to continuing to serve 

with him in the coming years. 

f 

GAZA 

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise 

today to commend Majority Leader 

REID and Republican Leader MCCONNELL for introducing S. Res. 10, an important piece of legislation which reaffirms unwavering support of the United 

Statest for Israel and Israel’s right to 

defend itself and protect its citizens. 

Hamas’ unwillingness to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to 

exist is the central impediment to 

achieving a lasting peace between the 

Israelis and Palestinians. I stand 

strongly with the people of Israel in 

their efforts to cope with the terrorist 

threat from Hamas. No nation can be 

asked to endlessly turn the other cheek 

when its people are subject to indiscriminate, unprovoked, and lethal missile strikes. Like all people, the citizens of Israel have the right to live 

safely within secure borders. 

While the responsibility for the current violence rests with Hamas, both 

sides must take every possible step to 

avoid harming innocent civilians. Furthermore, both sides must work towards a durable and sustainable 

ceasefire that prevents Hamas from rearming and improves the daily living 

conditions of the people in Gaza. 

The current bloodshed in Gaza is also 

a grave reminder of Iran’s role in arming, training, and assisting extremist 

groups like Hamas. The Iranian regime 

is the world’s most active state sponsor 

of terrorism. The current violence further underscores the importance of 

using aggressive sanctions to deter the 

Iranian regime from taking future actions that destabilize the region and 

threaten our democratic allies. 

We have learned as a nation that terrorism and the advocacy of extremism 

are not distant problems but those 

which we must confront vigilantly. 

Terrorism has no geographic boundaries. We must continue our efforts to 

confront Islamic extremism and to 

eliminate terrorists’ ability to strike 

against the United States and our allies. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support S. Res. 10, which underscores our 

Nation’s commitment to help provide 

for Israel’s security and to encourage a 

lasting and secure peace in the Middle 

East. 

f 

NO OIL EXPORTING AND 

PRODUCING CARTELS ACT 

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as our 

economy sinks further into recession, 

OPEC, which controls about 40 percent 

of the world oil supplies, has announced its biggest single production 

cut ever. As a result, since December 17 

when the cartel announced its record 

production cuts, oil prices have risen 40 

percent. 

For decades, the members of OPEC 

have conspired to manipulate oil prices 

by limiting the number of barrels sold. 

U.S. antitrust laws explicitly prohibit 

conspiracies in restraint of trade, 

which include agreements to cut production in an effort to cause prices to 

rise. Cartel activity by OPEC members 

clearly violates U.S. antitrust laws. 

Unfortunately, OPEC members have 

escaped liability for their antitrust 

violations. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act makes foreign states liable under U.S. law for their commercial 

activities but not their governmental 

activities. In International Association 

of Machinists v. OPEC, a California 

district court held that OPEC’s cartel 

activity was governmental activity, 

not commercial activity, and was 

therefore immune from the antitrust 

laws. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 

These court decisions were wrong. 

Government-owned companies engaged 

in purely business activities are subject to the antitrust laws. 

That is why Senator KOHL and myself 

as well as nine other cosponsors are reintroducing the No Oil Producing and 

Exporting Cartels Act, or NOPEC. The 

legislation reverses these court decisions, making it clear that cartel activity OPEC is commercial activity 

that is subject to the antitrust laws. 

NOPEC also makes it clear that OPEC 

members are subject to the jurisdiction 

of U.S. courts. 

Applying antitrust law to foreign 

conduct is consistent with current law. 

In Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California, the Supreme Court held that 

U.S. courts have jurisdiction over antitrust suits involving foreign conduct 

by foreign actors if the conduct has 

substantial effects in the United 

States. Clearly, OPEC’s cartel activities have substantial effects in the 

United States. 

The Justice Department has over the 

years prosecuted many foreign cartels 

in a myriad of industries, including vitamins, marine hose, liquid crystal display panels, textiles, construction, 

food, chemicals, graphite electrodes, 

ocean shipping and fine arts auctions. 

Indeed, over the past decade, around 

half of the corporate defendants in cartel cases brought by the Justice Department have been foreign-based. In 

the vitamins case, for example, the 

Justice Department successfully prosecuted a cartel of foreign vitamin manufacturers that held meetings abroad 

to allocate market share and set 

prices—just like OPEC. In many of the 

cases involving foreign cartels, foreign 

executives have been extradited to the 

U.S. to serve significant prison sentences. 

Critics have argued that NOPEC 

would harm U.S. relations abroad or 

discourage foreign investment in the 

United States. However, NOPEC leaves 

the decision to prosecute OPEC members in the hands of the executive 

branch by giving the Justice Department sole authority to prosecute. 

NOPEC enjoys strong bipartisan support and has since its first introduction 

back in 2000. The Senate Judiciary 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE