Floor Statements

Mr. President, a lot of comments have been made about the automobile bailout. We are in a situation, because of the extreme effect on our entire economy over the past several months, where there is a legitimate issue of cashflow rather than the innovation or lack thereof that has gone into the automobile industry. I am favorably disposed to supporting this loan provision, which is what it is, if the right requirements are placed in the proposal. I should point out, for all of the information that has gone back and forth over the past 2 hours, the irony that Senator Dorgan mentioned, that the chief of Merrill Lynch is today arguing for a $10 million bonus for a company that had a loss of almost $12 billion last year. That is a private company. I won't pass any commercial judgment on that. But it does stand in stark contrast to what the CEO of Ford has proposed, going to $1 a year, if we can inject some cashflow into their business to attempt to get them through this period and back into a situation where they can properly manage their future.

Mr. President, I wish to discuss another issue I have had a great deal of concern about for many years, particularly since the time I came to the Senate. That is the role of the legislative branch in the development of foreign policy and the abrogation of the legislative branch during this past administration when it comes to foreign policy. Over the past nearly 8 years, the executive branch has been a runaway train. Unfortunately, this isn't simply the Bush administration. It also is the policies that have come out of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. We have observed over the past year the negotiation of a future relationship with Iraq that has gotten almost no attention in the Congress. This is not simply a SOFA, status of forces agreement, as we have seen in dozens of other countries around the world which are implemented pursuant to our legal authority to be in those countries. This also is a strategic framework agreement, a document which defines our future relationship with Iraq, which in Iraq had to be approved by their Cabinet, by their Parliament, and now will be subject to a plebiscite and which, in the United States, simply has been approved by the signature of one individual out of the Department of State.

I was among many who began expressing my concern about this a little more than a year ago. I believe it is stark evidence of how the legislative branch, the Congress, has abrogated its constitutional responsibilities in the area of the evocation of foreign policy.

I am going to put a map up in the Chamber. It is a very busy map, but I want to take time to explain something else. I think it is very important for my fellow Senators and people over in the other House of the Congress to understand the implications of what has been going on in Afghanistan.

We have heard throughout the Presidential campaign that we should be focusing our energy away from Iraq and into Afghanistan. We have been having these types of discussions without the articulation of a clear strategy. We are moving to the point where we are soon going to have at least 60,000 American troops in Afghanistan.

When I was there as a journalist in 2004, we had about 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan. It is going to be very important, as the new administration comes in, to impress upon not only the administration but individuals in the State Department and the Department of Defense that they must come forward with a strategy that will

enable us to know when the end comes. You do not have a strategy if you cannot articulate the end point.

We have another very serious problem with respect to our presence in Afghanistan, and that is all of the logistical lines into Afghanistan are in areas that could cause the United States great concern.

This--I am going to draw a circle around it on this busy map--is Afghanistan right here. Afghanistan is a land-locked country, as everyone in this Congress surely knows. The supply routes into Afghanistan are principally through Pakistan: from Karachi up into Peshawar, through the famed Khyber Pass, which caused the British such problems and difficulties more than 100 years ago, in through the mountainous areas of the federally administered tribal regions and the Northwest Frontier Province very lawless areas where al-Qaida and the Taliban operate heavily. So 80 percent of the supplies that go into Afghanistan go via land through Pakistan.

To the north, Uzbekistan has indicated it probably will not allow alternate supply routes if problems occur in Pakistan. Iran, obviously, is not going to allow supply routes to go in to supply our troops in Afghanistan, which leaves Turkmenistan. Turkmenistan is very close to Russia, which we have been in very difficult relationships with, particularly since the incidents in Georgia last summer.

So what does this mean? There is an old saying--Frederick the Great, supposedly, was the first to say it--and that is: Without supplies, no army is brave.

If you look at this route in Pakistan, over the past 6 months this is what has happened:

In March, there were attacks in the Khyber region that set fire to 40 to 50 oil tankers. These are convoys that are not protected by the American military because the American military does not operate in combat areas in Pakistan. So in March: 40 to 50 oil tankers.

In April, Taliban raiders stole military helicopter engines valued at $13 million.

In November, 12 vehicles were hijacked near the Khyber Pass. Two humvees were included in the hijackings.

Last week, 22 more vehicles were destroyed at a truck stop between Peshawar and the Khyber Pass.

Yesterday, 145 vehicles, trailers, and containers were destroyed in a warehouse just outside of Peshawar.

Today, there was a separate attack at a shipping terminal near Peshawar which destroyed 50 trucks carrying containers.

This is millions and millions of dollars worth of equipment in an area where we in our present policy cannot provide military security. We have Pakistani security forces, we have Pakistani truck drivers, and we are in a very delicate relationship with Pakistan itself.

I am hoping that in this type of situation, where 80 percent of our cargo is coming in through Pakistan, and where our ability to resupply our military from other areas depends on our relationship with Russia, that our new administration and the leadership in the State Department and the Department of Defense will take a very hard look at how many military people we want to have in Afghanistan, what it is we want them to do, how we are going to resupply them, how we are going to conduct our relationships inside Pakistan, what our alternatives might be if those convoys continue to be interrupted, and, finally, how we will know when we have concluded our strategic purpose in this part of the world.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in the 2 years since I have been privileged to be in this body, I have spoken frequently about my concerns with respect to the balance of power between the executive branch and the legislative branch and the atrophy of the powers and the influence of the Congress. There are two issues that are before us this week that I think illuminate the dangers of that atrophy.

The first is in respect to the powers we gave to the Secretary of Treasury in our vote at the beginning of October, before we went into recess, as he addressed the issues of the bailout. Many Senators, including myself, wrote letters of concern immediately after this bailout was proposed, noting that it was unprecedented for one individual in the executive branch of Government to be given the broad discretion the present Secretary of the Treasury has been given.

I voted to support this bailout, as did most of my colleagues, as we were assured, not only by members of the administration, but also with a great deal of hesitation by members of our own party in the Senate, that this was an essential act to avert an international calamity in the financial markets. We were told by the Secretary of the Treasury that we needed to reinforce the good will and the concerns people had by allowing him to take certain actions. We ensured oversight over the Secretary of the Treasury, but he still retained the total discretion that has been used over the past several weeks.

At the same time, we all know now--it has been said several times already this afternoon--the decisions that were made, as to where this money has been going, were not in line with the reassurances that were given this body when the legislation was brought forward. There has been a great deal of inconsistency coming from the Secretary of Treasury, and it has created a mood of unpredictability that we have seen reflected in the markets and in the confidence of investors.

I would agree with the concept that was recently put forward by the Senator from Oklahoma about slowing down the amount of money that is available to be spent under this bailout. I also would propose, in examining legislation to that effect, that we as a body revisit the whole idea of giving this kind of power to one individual in the executive branch.

There are plenty of precedents in history which create a small body of honest brokers, perhaps three individuals who collectively can make decisions for the good of the country and who would not be burdened by conflict of interests because of their own background, either real or imagined, or the burden that goes with the discretion of one individual. I hope to place something to that effect before this body relatively soon. I hope other Members of the Congress will consider that idea as well.

The second issue with respect to the abrogation of power by the legislative branch to the executive branch concerns the relationship that we are now about to finalize with Iraq. We have seen it reported in the media today that the Iraqi Cabinet has given a near unanimous agreement to a strategic framework agreement--which is very little discussed, and a status of forces agreement--which has been much debated, that ostensibly would define the future relationship between the United States and Iraq.

I find it more than ironic, and I have mentioned it several times on this floor, that the Congress has not been invited to participate in this process. The Iraqi Cabinet is going to present this agreement to the Iraqi Parliament for a vote. The Congress of the United States is hardly even getting a look.

If you turn to article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, it says the President:

. . . shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent

of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the

Senators present concur. . . .

The question is, Is this a treaty? It is going to define the long- term relationship between the United States and Iraq in a situation where we are going to have military bases of some sort in Iraq and a security relationship with Iraq. That sounds quite a bit like a treaty to me.

The administration has been claiming this is simply an executive agreement and, as a result, the Secretary of State can sign this; the Congress can be consulted but does not have to have a vote. But let us remember, at the end of this year, on December 31, the legal authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq ends under international law with the expiration of the U.N. mandate. So under what authority, legal authority, will we be operating in Iraq? An executive agreement is only constitutional when it is implementing a law. So what law or constitutional authority will this executive agreement be implementing?

The members of the administration, when I raised this issue nearly 8 months ago, claimed that the 2002 authorization to go to war in Iraq was their legal authorization to negotiate an executive agreement looking to the future relationships in Iraq. I have strong questions about that. First, if the 2002 authorization to go to war would be good in terms of an executive agreement to define our future relationship, then why did we even need the U.N. mandate in the first place? The second is, the 2002 authorization to go to war in Iraq took place at a time when the present Government of Iraq did not even exist.

So I would state my strong belief, again, that the Congress needs to assert its constitutional authority on this matter. The Congress needs to concur with the strategic framework agreement in order for us as a nation under the Constitution to properly define our relationship with a government and a country where we are going to have military forces in place, and where we are going to have security guarantees.

In that regard, I conclude by stating my strong hope that the incoming administration, under President-elect Obama, will, early on, take a comprehensive diplomatic approach to all the issues that affect the United States in that particularly troublesome spot in the world. We should be fostering the right kind of diplomatic environment with other countries such as Russia and China that have interests in this region. We should be exploring ways to formally and aggressively explore our relationships with countries such as Iran. We need to put the whole issue of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other countries in the Middle East on the table early on and forcibly. Reality indicates and history proves that the longer the new administration waits, the more strongly they are going to be embedded in the policies that have preceded them, and the more difficult it is going to be to put a comprehensive approach to the future into place. I strongly hope this administration, at an early time, will take a comprehensive approach to this region.

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

Mr. President, what is the business of the Senate?

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I would like to add my voice to a number of other people who have spoken today about this economic bailout situation and, perhaps from a bit different perspective, suggest that people need to

calm down a little, that all of us are arguing responsibly with different approaches, but serious approaches, to try to resolve the issue.

There is a lot of commentary out there today alleging that people in the Congress, a lot of people in the Congress are simply playing politics with this volatile issue. There is commentary about how the average American does not understand the problem and, as a result, has objected to the approach that has been taken. There are accusations that the Congress is not doing its job because of the approach that was taken in the vote in the House yesterday.

I would suggest there are a lot of people who are not playing politics, who do understand the problem, who are doing their job, and yet, who still have grave concerns about the approach that has been taken with this proposed solution.

Let's take a minute and review what has been going on. Only 11 days ago, Secretary Paulson, on behalf of the Bush administration, came forward with a proposal, a three-page proposal, saying the Congress needed, within a couple days, to give him $700 billion or the authority to invest $700 billion, with very little supervision or oversight, in a very dramatic transfer of power to one individual.

Then we started having this great discussion in the media and on the floor about us not acting quickly. Let me, first, say I was one of the first Members of this body to speak on this floor on September 22, on that Monday, questioning publicly the approach that had been suggested in this Bush-Paulson proposal to address our crisis.

Also, last Friday, was joined by eight other Members of the Senate, urging that any bipartisan compromise addressing this crisis contain several important principles. I would say, with due respect to the Senator from New Hampshire and others, that there has been tremendous effort over this week to try to take a three-page proposal and make it into a piece of legislation we can all live with and that addresses the problems. They all have my appreciation and my admiration for that effort. But at the same time, we can do more. I hope, as they reconsider the vote yesterday, the drafters can take a hard look at some of these areas and tighten these provisions so some, myself included, can feel more comfortable in supporting it.

Firstly, we need to recognize that we have, in this legislation, taken into consideration the idea that we are going to transfer a massive amount of power to the executive branch of this Government. This, at a time when the executive branch, over the past 8 years, has accumulated more power, than perhaps at any time in our history, as a result of 9/11, the war powers, and regarding the privacy of individuals, et cetera.

We are not only transferring that power to the executive branch, we are giving the authority to one person, the Secretary of Treasury, who, as Senator Feinstein had pointed out, may have a conflict of interest. This is an individual who has made hundreds of millions of dollars working on Wall Street. I respect his confidence and I respect his career.

But at the same time, as a matter of policy, is this the best place or best way for us to transfer the money that would be invested in order to save our economy? In the past, when these situations have arisen, money has been transferred to entities such as the RTC. There were proposals brought forward, noting perhaps the necessity for a board of people, honest brokers, wise men and women who would make these determinations rather than simply one individual.

I know in this process we have left oversight to individual discretion, but perhaps we ought to think about a panel of three or some other form where we can reassure ourselves that there would not be a conflict of interest on the other side.

A number of us in this body and the other body have said, we need to proceed forward with an appropriate regulatory structure. There is language in the bill that was voted on yesterday that had a commitment to move forward, to looking at the problem but no specificity from the Congress saying we need to fix the problem, or that we need to reinstate regulations.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal today written by Robert Morgenthau, the Manhattan district attorney. In this article he points out:

There is $1.9 trillion, almost all of it run out of the New

York metropolitan area, that sits in the Cayman Islands, a

secrecy jurisdiction. Another $1.5 trillion is lodged in four

other secrecy jurisdictions.

And Morgenthau adds:

Any significant infusion to the financial system must carry

assurances that it will not add to the pool of money beyond

the safety net and supervisory authority of the United

States. Moreover, the trillions of dollars currently offshore

and invested in funds that can impact the American economy

must be brought under appropriate supervision.

This is a point that has been made many times on the Senate floor by other Members, particularly Senator Dorgan of North Dakota. This is a moment in which we can have a commitment by the Congress that regulatory structures will be put in place in order to properly protect our economy.

Another area where you see the abandonment of regulatory structure, to the detriment of our economy, is in the commodities market. We had debates during the consideration of the Energy bill in August where many Senators came to the floor speaking relative to what happened when we took regulation out of the oil futures market. A barrel of oil cost $24 in 2002, when this Congress voted to go to war in Iraq. Since then the price has gone all the way up to $147. When you see the fluctuation in the oil markets that has attended this crisis, you see this is not an old-style commodities market, where people who are using the product are the ones who were purchasing the futures. This is now a speculative market. Just like a regular stock market, commodities should have a similar regulatory structure.

We need, and I have pointed out, along with other Members of this body, the need to provide clear caps on executive compensation. The bill that was voted on yesterday has significant improvements over the Paulson bill which was totally lacking in this area. It could be tightened further. I would recount a conversation I had with an individual who had a long respected career on Wall Street, is one of the most brilliant Wall Street analysts, and now retired. When I called--I was calling around to as many people from different professional environments as I could to try and understand this crisis.

This is someone who made good money on Wall Street and is very well respected. I asked him about the issue of executive compensation. His comment to me was, ``The people who perpetrated this situation ought to be punished.''

That was his word, ``punished.'' I do not believe specifically in punishing them, but I certainly believe strongly, as do most Americans, that the people who have gotten us into this situation should not be unjustly enriched as we fix it.

Finally, we need to give the American taxpayer a clear up side in this process, as the securities and assets are bought and sold by whichever entity ends up doing that. An ``up side'' in the sense of returning money back to the Treasury and, an up side in the sense that our legislation should do something that directly helps the people who are at the bottom in this crisis, the people who want to stay in their homes.

Again, there has been movement in that direction in the last week, but this area is where better assurances, clearer assurances could bring more people over to the side of passing this legislation. We want a solution. We all recognize there is a problem. My reaction, quite frankly, to the situation from yesterday, is that it brings me back to a saying from when I was in the Marine Corps that sometimes you have an opportunity that is masking itself as a disaster.

Perhaps we can tighten this proposal, get the right kind of formula-- it will not take a great deal of change--and bring the Congress to supporting provisions and move into the future with a strengthened economy, a better regulatory process, and an environment that truly takes care of the interests of the taxpayers who are going to have to foot the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 695, S. Res. 696, S. Res. 697, S. Res. 698, S. Res. 699, and S. Res. 700.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following items en bloc: H.R. 6847, H.R. 6874, H.R. 6681, H.R. 6338, H.R. 6229, H.R. 6199, H.R. 3511, which are at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the bills be read a third time and passed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 416, which was received from the House.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 662 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act, H.R. 2095, which reauthorizes our Federal passenger rail program and contains a provision that would provide much needed funding for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA.

I am a proud original cosponsor of the Amtrak reauthorization legislation, which seeks to improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of our Nation's largest passenger rail service provider. With increasing traffic congestion on our Nation's roadways, it is time to invest in long-term and diversified infrastructure projects that improve passenger rail service. I have long stated my belief that America has been seriously neglecting its infrastructure, and I am pleased that this bill puts us on the path to making a renewed investment in passenger rail service. Notably, the bill before us today authorizes $13 billion for Amtrak over 5 years and includes $1.5 billion to develop high speed rail corridors throughout the United States, including the Southeast corridor which will connect Washington, DC, to Charlotte, NC.

However, most importantly the legislation before us includes a bill that many of us in the Maryland and Virginia delegations have long been pushing for a long time. I want to thank Chairman Lautenberg and his staff for working with me and my colleagues to include the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, S.1446.

In short, the Metro funding provision would authorize $1.5 billion over 10 years for Metro to finance capital and preventive maintenance projects for the Metrorail system. The Federal funding would share the funding burden with the States because the money would be contingent on the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia jointly matching the Federal contribution toward Washington Metro's capital projects.

Appropriate funding for the Metro system is critically important to our Federal workforce, the millions of tourists who visit our Nation's Capital area, as well as the millions of people who live around Washington, DC. I have worked diligently with my Senate and House colleagues over the past 2 years to pass this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to help secure passage of this provision in the Amtrak authorization bill.

Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than 1 million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred mode of transit for traveling around the National Capital Region. As the price of gasoline has soared, more people are turning to Metro as their primary mode of transportation. I would note that in fiscal year 2008, there were 215 million trips taken on Metrorail, which is the highest yearly total ever. This represents an increase of 4 percent over last year. In fact, 31 out of 34 of Metrorail top ridership days have occurred since April of this year. On Metrobus, there were 133 million trips taken, an increase of 1.4 million relative to 2007, and also the highest yearly total ever. New funding authorized in this legislation would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity and meet forecasted ridership demands before the system and region become totally mired in congestion.

The Federal role in supporting Metro is clear, with a long track record to draw upon. Washington Metro began building the rail system in 1969 with Federal funding authorized under the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969. On two separate occasions, Congress has authorized additional funding for Metro construction and capital improvements. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report:

WMATA provides transportation to and from work for a

substantial portion of the federal workforce, and federal

employees' use of WMATA's services is encouraged by General

Services Administration guidelines that instruct federal

agencies to locate their facilities near mass transit stops

whenever possible. WMATA also accommodated increased

passenger loads and extends its operating hours during events

related to the federal government's presence in Washington,

DC, such as presidential inaugurations and funerals, and

celebrations and demonstrations on the National Mall.

In fact, during rush hour, Federal employees account for over 40 percent of Metro ridership. The Metro system was also critical to the evacuation of Washington, DC, following the 2001 terrorist attacks. Metro was deemed a ``national security asset'' in a Federal security assessment conducted after 9/11. In short, the operation of the Federal Government would be nearly impossible without the Metro system and the Federal Government's emergency evacuation and recovery plans rely heavily on Metro.

The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many benefits not only to the region but also to the Federal Government and the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, I know this afternoon at some point the majority leader intends to speak about the service of a number of the Members of this body who are going to be retiring at the end of the year. But seeing that people are elsewhere right now, I thought I might seize this moment and say a few words about two of my Republican colleagues with whom I have had long relationships, and both of whom I respect a great deal, and to wish both of them success as they leave this body.

Senator John Warner

The first is Senator John Warner. Right now, with the situation facing this country, we are in more turmoil, we are facing greater problems than at any time, probably, since the combination of the Great Depression and the end of World War II. We need people who are willing to work to solve the problems of this country rather than simply falling back into partisan rhetoric or simple party loyalties.

I think it can fairly be said that throughout his lifetime of service, and particularly his service in politics, there is one thing everyone can agree on about John Warner: He has always put the interests of the people of Virginia and the people of this country ahead of political party. He has been very clear at different times that he and I are in different parties. But this is an individual who has served this body with great wisdom and a deeply ingrained sense of fairness, and someone who has the temperament and the moral courage of a great leader.

Our senior Senator has a history and a family heritage involving public service. If you go into Senator Warner's office, you will see a picture of a great-uncle who lost his arm serving in the War Between the States. His father was an Army doctor who participated in some of the most difficult campaigns of World War I. Senator Warner himself enlisted at the age of 17 in the Navy toward the end of World War II and was able to take advantage of the GI bill to go to college. Then when the Korean war came about, he joined the Marine Corps, went to Korea as an officer of marines, and, in fact, remained as a member of the Marine Corps Reserve for some period of time.

He, as most of us know, gave great service in a civilian capacity in the Pentagon. He had more than 5 years in the Pentagon, first as Under Secretary of the Navy, and then as Secretary of the Navy, and after leaving as Secretary of the Navy, was the official responsible for putting together our bicentennial celebrations in 1976.

I first came to know John Warner my last year in the Marine Corps when I was a 25-year-old captain and was assigned, after having served in Vietnam, as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's staff. John Warner was the Under Secretary at the time. John Chafee--later also to serve in this body--was the Secretary. Then, toward the end of my time in the Marine Corps, John Warner was the Secretary of the Navy and, in fact, retired me from the Marine Corps in front of his desk when he was Secretary of the Navy. I have been privileged to know him since that time.

I was privileged to follow him in the Pentagon, when I spent 5 years in the Pentagon and also was able to serve as Secretary of the Navy.

Shortly after I was elected to this body, Senator Warner and I sat down and worked out a relationship that I think, hopefully, can serve as a model for people who want to serve the country and solve the problems that exist, even if they are on different sides of this Chamber. We figured out what we were not going to agree upon, and then we figured out what we were going to be able to agree upon. I think it is a model of bipartisan cooperation on a wide range of issues, ranging from the nomination of Federal judges, to critical infrastructure projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to issues facing our men and women in uniform, to issues of national policy.

It has been a great inspiration for me, it has been a great privilege for me to be able to work with Senator Warner over these past 2 years.

Last week was a good example of how bipartisan cooperation, looking to the common good, can bring about good results when Judge Anthony Trenga made it through the confirmation process, an individual whom Senator Warner and I had interviewed and jointly recommended both to the White House and to the Judiciary Committee.

I am particularly mindful--I see the Senator; the senior Senator has joined us on the floor--I particularly am mindful of the journey I took upon myself my first day as a Member of the Senate when I introduced a piece of legislation designed to give those who have been serving since 9/11 the same educational opportunities as the men and women who served during World War II.

Perhaps the key moment in that journey, which over 16 months eventually allowed us to have 58 cosponsors of that legislation, including 11 Republicans, was when Senator Warner stepped across the aisle and joined me as a principal cosponsor, and we developed four lead sponsors on that legislation--two Republicans, two Democrats; two World War II veterans, two Vietnam veterans--that enabled us to get the broad support of the Congress and eventually pass that legislation. History is going to remember John Warner as a man who accomplished much here during his distinguished tenure. He was the first Virginia Senator to support an African American for the Federal bench. He was the first to support a woman. He was the first Virginia Senator to offer wilderness legislation. Senator Warner has never wavered in his determination to do what is right for America, even when it caused him from time to time to break with the leadership of his own party.

There are important legacies, but perhaps more than anything else, we will remember Senator John Warner's tenure here as having been a positive force for the people who serve in uniform. There is not a person serving in the U.S. military today or who has served over the past 30 years whose life has not been touched by the leadership and the policies of John Warner and whose military service has not been better for the fact that Senator Warner, as a veteran, as someone who has served in the Pentagon, and as someone who served on the Armed Services Committee, understood the dynamic under which they had to live, understood the challenges they had to face when they served, and understood the gravity of the cost of military service. Senator John Warner has stood second to none in protecting our troops and their way of life.

When John Warner announced his retirement 13 months ago on the grounds of the University of Virginia, he reminded us that at the end of the day, public service is a rare privilege. In my work with him over these many years, and particularly over the last 2 years, I can attest to the fact that he certainly approaches this work in that humble spirit.

So on behalf of the people of Virginia and all those who have worn the uniform of the United States in the past 30 years, I wish to thank Senator Warner for his exceptionally talented leadership and all he has done and his staff has done for our State and for our country. This institution will miss John Warner, his kindness, his humility, his wisdom, and his dedicated service. I know we in Virginia will continue to benefit from his advice and his counsel for many years to come.

Chuck Hagel

Mr. President, I also wish to say a few words today about Senator Chuck Hagel, who will be leaving this body.

Chuck Hagel and I have known each other for more than 30 years. We both came to Washington as young Vietnam veterans, determined to try to take care of the readjustment needs of those who had served in Vietnam. Senator Hagel had been an infantry sergeant in Vietnam; wounded, came up, worked in the Senate for awhile, became a high-ranking official in the Veterans' Administration. He later ran the USO before he came to this body. He is known in this body as an expert on foreign affairs.

Again, as with Senator John Warner, he is someone who puts country first, who puts the needs of the people who do the hard work of society first. It has been a rare privilege for me to have made a journey with someone, beginning in the same spot in the late 1970s and ending up here in the Senate. I know this country will hear more from Chuck Hagel in the future. I certainly wish him well.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if I might address the senior Senator through the

Chair, it is a rare opportunity to say something like this on the Senate floor, but I will reiterate my appreciation for the leadership the senior Senator from Virginia has shown in my case since 1971--it is hard to believe--as an example, the example he has set here in the Senate for 30 years in terms of how to conduct the business of Government. I can think of no one whom I would rather have shared the past 2 years with in terms of learning the business of the Senate and having something of a handoff here in terms of how we take care of the good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is only one other person in this body I can say these words to, but I say them from my heart: Semper fidelis, John Warner. Thank you very much.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I begin by complimenting the senior Senator from Maryland on her statement. I know many of us on this side of the aisle are going to be asking a lot of the same questions. We have the same sense of urgency about helping the country while at the same time we protect the people who have had no voice and no power, as this proposal was put together. I was with our colleagues on this side of the aisle during the conference call on Friday when this situation was explained. I have a number of the same types of questions as those raised by the senior Senator from Maryland. This is why I rise today.

This is a very complicated issue, and we are being asked to resolve it on a tight time-line. The American people want some reassurance. They do want us to represent them and do something about the systemic flaws that allowed

this debacle to occur, not simply to vote on a mechanical fix, but to address the issues and policies that allowed this massive financial crisis to emerge.

Americans are also interested, as the senior Senator from Maryland pointed out, in preventing those who benefitted and contributed to the problem, from unjustly enriching themselves.

We are seeing in this proposal the possibility of a huge transfer of power to the executive branch--not simply to the executive branch, to one official in the executive branch--with very few strings attached. This individual, whose career I respect, spent that career in the markets. Now, we are going to empower this individual and the Department of the Treasury to get directly involved in the stock market in a discretionary way that has very little precedent in our history. At the same time, there are potential conflicts of interest that are unavoidable and will need to be examined.

However we sort out this problem over the next several days or longer, there are a couple of areas where I believe that without the right type of guarantees, it will be very difficult for me personally to vote in favor of the proposal that came from the administration.

First, we must put regulation and accountability back into the system. It is inarguable that the regulatory structure now in place has not protected either our financial system or the American taxpayer. The administration is asking for unprecedented rescue, and that rescue cannot come without fixing the system.

Second and equally important, there should be guarantees in any legislation that address the issue of executive compensation. I have been speaking about this issue for many years. I mentioned this in every single meeting I had when I was campaigning for the Senate. It is not inaccurate to say that executive compensation in American business today is wildly out of sync with our history, and with other countries in the world. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker made. Today the average CEO makes 400 times what the average worker makes. This is not a global phenomenon; this is an American phenomenon. If you go to Japan, whose economic system works quite well in terms of the health of its economy and its balance of trade, the average corporate CEO makes 10 times what the average worker makes. Again, ours make 400 times. If you look at Germany, which has one of the highest balances of trade in the world, totaling $280 billion last year, the average corporate CEO makes 11 times what the average worker makes. Yet presently, our corporate CEOs make 400 times.

The principles should be clear. If, in solving the problem, we are going to take tax money from Americans, many of whom do not own stock, then the executives involved should get a Federal salary. This issue was raised with Mr. Paulson over the weekend.

I have an article that came from today's Financial Times, in which he said the Treasury Department fears that if we reduced executive compensation, it would ``undermine banks' willingness to take part'' in the program because it would be punitive in nature. I must say, I have a hard time figuring that out. We were told on Friday that we are in a crisis that, and that if we do not resolve it within the next week or so, it is going to undermine the entire banking system around the world, the entire global financial system. Yet we are told that if we ask these corporate CEOs to take a salary in line with what Federal officials receive, they won't participate. What are they saying? We have a crisis that is going to affect us all; we are all going to have to take some sort of a hit. It is certainly punitive to the American taxpayers, who did not participate in these decisions, and who did not receive any of the profits. How is it punitive to an individual to say: All right, if we are bailing you out, you reduce your pay. We are giving you Federal tax dollars. You take Federal pay until this is solved. You make the American taxpayer whole. We will make you whole. If you increase the profitability, as you say you will be able to do, then you can increase your compensation commensurately.

The legislation we are considering must have a provision in it that creates fairness for the people who are going to foot the bill. We are sent here, those of us who believe in the traditional precepts of the Democratic Party, to make sure that the health of society is measured not at the top, not at the apex, but at the base, by the well-being of the people who are doing the hard work of our society. It is our mission, it is our duty, to look after their needs.

If we can't get to the bottom of this by the end of this week, as some seem to be worrying about, maybe we need to take another week. Maybe we need to stay with this until we can get it done. When you are betting $700 billion to a trillion dollars, we need to figure out a formula we are all comfortable with.

I yield the floor.

The Senator from Illinois is correct. I mentioned earlier that executive compensation in our country is wildly out of control, in terms of our own history and in terms of what is going on in the rest of the world. I do not believe it is punitive or unreasonable to ask for a fair measure when tax dollars are being used to help bail these companies out. When the Senator from Illinois and I were finishing college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker makes. Today it is 400 times. If we take that multiple and apply it to what I was saying in response to the State of the Union address a year and a half ago, in one year the average worker in this country makes what his boss makes in one day. There is plenty of room to be fair to the system and fair to the individuals who are asking for the bailout, but ultimately we must be fair to the taxpayers who are asked to dig down in their pockets and help us straighten out this problem.

I say to the Senator from Illinois, I also heard Secretary Paulson say something similar in the conference call in which we were participating on Friday, and I find his comments very puzzling--I am not violating confidentiality because Secretary Paulson said it at least three times over the weekend on different television shows. When he was asked, on the one hand, whether this is a crisis that threatens to undermine all of the financial markets within a few days, and on the other, if it would be punitive to ask the executives to take a pay hit. And, in fact, Secretary Paulson indicated that some of these banks might not participate if they are asked to do that.

I would suggest there are plenty of competent officials who may have lost their jobs over the past few weeks who could step in if these particular individuals do not think this is a good formula. What I was saying in concept is, if you take in a Federal dollar to bail yourself out, you ought to get a Federal salary until the taxpayer is made whole.

If you show managerial skills to pull us out of this, such that the assets you are requiring us to purchase improve in value, then, you could get some commensurate compensation because this is compensation for actual performance.

I would say to the Senator from Illinois, very quickly, when we use the word ``punitive,'' we should keep in mind that there are many people in this country who are teaching school or out driving a truck who are going to have to pay more taxes for this, but who have not had the benefit, in many cases, of even owning stock. They are going to have to pay a penalty for the malfeasance that has brought us to this situation.

If the administration and Secretary Paulson and others truly want to solve this problem--and I think they do--then they ought to be able to yield on this point simply because of the logic of it.

I say to the Senator from Illinois, first, I wholly agree with you on that point. I mentioned in my comments a little while ago about the potential for conflict of interest. This is the continuation of a trend that disturbs me greatly, that is the movement of power toward the executive branch.

I was a committee counsel in the U.S. Congress 30 years ago. If you examine the balance between the executive branch and the legislative branch over those 30 years, it has steadily, particularly since 9/11, moved toward the executive branch. This is another example of that movement.

I would make one other point. I and a number of other people, Senator Bayh among them, have been very worried about sovereign wealth funds. I have talked about them and have been able to participate in some hearings on other committees about a foreign government directly investing in our economy. One of the points I made several times is that the U.S. Government has never directly invested in a discretionary manner in our markets.

So we are seeing two different trends that are disturbing and that we should be thinking about. One is, if we do transfer this amount of authority to the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Government, on a discretionary basis--one individual, on a discretionary basis--is going to invest in parts of the economy. All this in their own discretion, decided without review, as the Senator from Illinois mentioned. That is a kind of a sovereign wealth fund in our own country, but with the bad assets.

The second trend we are now seeing is the movement, particularly from the Government of China over the last 10 days, of massive investments from a country that on one level is potentially a great strategic adversary, and certainly an economic competitor, directly into our economy. There is a 49-percent purchase proposal for Morgan Stanley from the sovereign wealth fund of the Chinese Government.

So there are many pieces in motion. We have the gravest duty to sort them out. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois for his comments.

About 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes on amendment No. 5499.

Mr. President, I will begin by associating myself with many of the remarks made by the Senator from Maine. As someone who served as the Secretary of the Navy, along with the senior Senator from Virginia, I have strong feelings about the strength of the Navy and the size of our fleet.

I introduced an amendment on Friday that I would like to urge my colleagues to examine and support. We are in an odd situation in the business of Government at the moment in that the international authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire at the end of this year. The U.N. mandate, through the U.N. Security Council, expires at that time.

Since last November, this administration has been negotiating what is called a Strategic Framework Agreement that is intended to replace the

international authority of that U.N. mandate. Two questions have come up, however, with respect to what the administration is doing. The first is the timeline. This is an agreement that, by all accounts, has not yet been fully negotiated. It is being negotiated by the administration without the participation of the Congress, and there are indications from Iraq that the Iraqi Government negotiators themselves have serious questions that had not been anticipated at the beginning of this process. So we have a potential, with the timeline, that the U.N. mandate will run out at the end of the year and there will not be an agreement in place that authorizes the presence of our forces in Iraq under international law.

The larger question is constitutional. What entity of the Federal Government has the authority to enter the United States into a long- term relationship with another government? Both of these are serious issues. I submit that the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq militarily, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally, are not the sole business of any administration. These questions involve the legal justification under domestic and international law for the United States to operate militarily--and quasi-militarily, by the way, given the hundreds of thousands of independent contractors that are now essentially performing military functions in that country.

There are questions about the process by which the U.S. Government decides upon and enters into long-term relations with another nation-- any nation. In that regard, there are serious questions about the very working of the constitutional system of our Government.

This administration has claimed repeatedly since last November that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of our relations with Iraq without the agreement, the ratification, or even the participation of the Congress.

The administration claims the justification for this authority can be found in the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq or, as a fallback position, the President's inherent authority, at least from the perspective of this administration, as Commander in Chief.

Both of these justifications are patently wrong. The 2002 congressional authorization to use force in Iraq has nothing to do with a negotiation of a government which replaced the Saddam Hussein government which did not exist in October of 2002, as to the future relations culturally, economically, diplomatically, and militarily between our two countries.

On the other hand, we are faced with the reality that the U.N. mandate will expire at the end of this year and that this expiration will terminate the authority under international law under which the United States is operating in Iraq at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country.

I and several other colleagues have been warning of this serious disconnect for 10 months. Many of us were trying to say last November that apparently the intention of this administration has been to proceed purely with an Executive agreement to drag this out until the Congress was going out of session, as we are about to do, and then to present essentially a fait accompli in the sense that with the expiration of the international mandate from the United Nations at the end of the year, something would have to be done, and that something would be an Executive agreement that to this point the Congress has not even been allowed to examine. We have not been able to see one word of this agreement.

We tried to energize the Congress. We met with all of the appropriate administration officials. There have been hearings. There have been assurances from the administration that they will consult at the appropriate time, as they define it. We have seen nothing. And so we are faced with a situation that is something of a constitutional coup d'etat by this administration.

I say to my colleagues that we all should be very concerned. At risk is a further expansion of the powers of the Presidency, the result of which would be to affirm in many minds that the President--any President--no longer needs the approval of Congress to enter into long- term relations with another country, in effect committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well- being, and our diplomatic posture around the world without the direct involvement of the Congress. This is not what the Constitution intended. It is not in the best interest of the country.

This amendment, which I offered on Friday, is designed to prevent this sort of imbalance from occurring and at the same time it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year.

The amendment is a sense of the Congress. On the one hand, it is a sense that we should work with the United Nations to extend the U.N. mandate up to an additional year, giving us some additional international authority for being in Iraq, if needed, taking away the pressure of this timeline that could be used to justify an agreement that the Congress has not had the ability to examine, but also saying that an extension of the U.N. mandate would end at any time where a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq would be mutually agreed upon.

The amendment also makes the point that the Strategic Framework Agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses significant, long-term national security implications for this country, and this would be the sense of the Congress. We need to be saying that. The Iraqis need to hear it from the Congress.

The amendment also puts Congress and the administration on record regarding the many assurances that the Bush administration has made to fully consult with the Congress with respect to all the details of the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement and that copies of the full text of these agreements will be provided to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate prior to the entry into either of these agreements.

It is important to say that the Strategic Framework Agreement that has been mutually agreed upon by the negotiators from our executive branch and the Iraqi Government officials will cease to have effect unless it is approved by the Congress. This amendment states that within 180 days of the entry into force of that agreement, the Congress would approve it. We are not calling for the full and complicated procedures of a treaty, but we are saying a majority of the Congress should approve any agreement that has been entered into.

On the one hand, this agreement recognizes the realities of where we are in terms of timelines, but on the other it protects the constitutional processes by which we are entering into long-term relations with other countries, whether it is Iraq or any other country around the world.

We need, as a Congress, to preserve this process. It does not operate in a way that would disrupt our operations in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment and protect the prerogatives of the Congress under the Constitution.

I understand this amendment will be included in the unanimous consent request that will come for a vote later today. I hope my colleagues will support me on it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I thank the chairman and the senior Senator from Virginia.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask the Chair what is the business of the Senate?

Mr. President, I introduced an amendment earlier today to S. 3001. I would like to take some time to explain this amendment to the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we are in an odd situation in the business of Government at the moment in that the international authority for the United States to be operating in Iraq will expire at the end of this year. The U.N. mandate, through the U.N. Security Council, expires at that time.

Since last November, the administration has been negotiating what they call the Strategic Framework Agreement that is intended to replace the international authority of the U.N. mandate. There have been two questions that have come up with respect to what the administration is doing. The first is the timeline.

There are indications from Iraq that the Iraqi Government negotiators have serious questions that weren't anticipated before. But the larger question is, what entity of the Federal Government has the authority to enter the United States into a long-term relationship with another government?

These are serious issues. I submit the conditions under which we will continue to operate in Iraq militarily, diplomatically, economically, and even culturally are not the sole business of any administration. We have questions about the legal justification under domestic and international law for the United States to operate militarily--and quasi-militarily, by the way--given the hundreds of thousands of independent contractors that are now essentially performing military functions in that country. There are questions about the process by which the U.S. Government decides upon and enters into long-term relations with another nation--any nation. In that regard, we have serious questions here about the very workings of our constitutional system of Government.

This administration has claimed repeatedly, since last November, that it has the right to negotiate and enter into an agreement that will set the future course of our relations with Iraq without the agreement or even the ratification of the U.S. Congress. The administration claims that the justification for this authority is the 2002 congressional authorization for the use of force in Iraq and, as a fallback position, the President's inherent authority, from the perspective of this administration, as Commander in Chief.

Both of these justifications are patently wrong. The 2002 congressional authorization to use force in Iraq has nothing to do with negotiation with a government, which replaced the Saddam Hussein government, as to the future relations culturally, economically, diplomatically, and militarily between our two countries. On the other hand, we are now faced with the reality that the U.N. mandate will expire at the end of this year, and that expiration will terminate the authority under international law for the United States to be operating in Iraq at a time when we have hundreds of thousands of Americans on the ground in that country.

I and other colleagues have been warning of this serious disconnect for

10 months. Many of us were trying to say last November that the intention of this administration was to proceed purely with an executive agreement to drag this out until the Congress was going to go out of session, as we are about to do, and then to present essentially a fait accompli in the sense that with the expiration of the international mandate from the United Nations at the end of the year, something would have to be done, and that something would be an executive agreement that, to this point, Congress has not even been allowed to examine.

We have not been able to see one word of this agreement. We tried to energize the Congress. We have met with all of the appropriate administration officials. There have been hearings. There have been assurances from the administration that they will consult at the appropriate time. We have not seen anything. So we are faced with this situation that is something of a constitutional coup d'etat by this administration. At risk is a further expansion of the powers of the Presidency, the result of which will be to affirm, in many minds, that the President--any President--no longer needs the approval of Congress to enter into long-term relations with another country, in effect, committing us to obligations that involve our national security, our economic well-being, our diplomatic posture around the world, without the direct involvement of the U.S. Congress.

That is not what the Constitution intended. It is not in the best interest of our country. This amendment, which I filed today, is designed to prevent this sort of imbalance from occurring and, at the same time, it recognizes the realities of the timelines that are now involved with respect to the loss of international authority for our presence in Iraq at the end of this year.

This amendment is a sense of the Congress. On the one hand, it is a sense of the Congress that we work with the United Nations to extend the U.N. mandate up to an additional year, giving us some additional international authority for being in Iraq, taking away the pressure of this timeline that could be used to justify an agreement that the Congress hasn't had the ability to examine, but also saying that an extension of the U.N. mandate would end at such time as a Strategic Framework Agreement and a Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Iraq are mutually agreed upon.

The amendment also makes the point that the Strategic Framework Agreement now being negotiated between the United States and Iraq poses significant, long-term national security implications for this country. That would be the sense of the Congress. We need to be saying that; the Iraqis need to hear it.

The amendment also puts Congress and the administration on record to the reality that the Bush administration has fully agreed to consult with the Congress regarding all the details of the Strategic Framework Agreement and the Status of Forces Agreement and that there would be copies of the full text of these agreements provided to the chairman and ranking minority members of the appropriate committees in the House and the Senate prior to the entry into either of those agreements.

Importantly, it also says any Strategic Framework Agreement that has been mutually agreed upon by the negotiators from our executive branch and Iraqi Government officials will cease to have effect unless it is approved by the Congress within 180 days of the entry into force of that agreement.

On the one hand, this agreement recognizes the realities of where we are in terms of timelines, but on the other, it protects the constitutional processes by which we are entering into long-term relationships with other countries, whether it is Iraq or Cameroon or Burundi or pick a country. We need to preserve this process. It does it in a way which will not disrupt our operations in Iraq.

I urge my colleagues to join me on this amendment and protect the prerogatives of the Congress under the Constitution of the United States.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with my colleague, Senator Warner, which will authorize the National Archives and Records Administration to make grants for the preservation of records and other historical documents of American Presidents. Grants will be available to entities seeking to preserve the records and other historical documents of Presidents who do not have a presidential library managed and maintained by the Federal Government. This legislation represents the hard work and dedication of numerous stakeholders who are working to preserve these historical documents for present and future generations to enjoy.

The Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act builds upon existing efforts by the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to promote the preservation and use of America's documentary heritage by making grants available to non-profit entities, states and local communities that are seeking to preserve the records and historical documents of American Presidents. This legislation compliments the mission of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission by helping the American public understand our democracy, history, and culture. Our country will be better off for having an

improved, more complete understanding of American Presidents and their legacies.

I would like to especially thank the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation for its efforts to bring this issue to Congress' attention. For the last seventy years, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation in Staunton, Virginia has admirably served as caretaker of President Woodrow Wilson's papers and artifacts, dedicating itself to the preservation of Wilson's legacy. But it has done so without the resources afforded to other presidential libraries in the Federal system.

This legislation, if enacted, will help the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library Foundation, and other non-profit entities like it, preserve and make available to the public the historical records and documents of American Presidents. The Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library serves as the center for education and study of Woodrow Wilson's life and legacies, and the passage of this legislation will enable people from this country and abroad to learn more about the life and work of our nation's 28th President.

I would also like to thank the Archivist of the United States, Dr. Allen Weinstein, and his staff for their dedication and service to our nation. Their efforts in assisting Senator Warner and me as we crafted this legislation represent the very best in good government and commitment to serving the American public.

I am hopeful that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will consider this legislation expeditiously and that we can enact it during the remainder of this congressional session.

I ask that my full statement be printed in the Record where the bill appears. I yield the floor.