Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Would the Presiding Officer advise the Senate of the procedure at this time?

I yield back the time.

Mr. President, I would like now to address the Senate with regard to my interpretation of the many constructive efforts that have gone on with the chairman and myself and other colleagues to try to move this bill forward. As I speak for a few minutes, I urge my distinguished chairman to engage me in any questions or colloquy if he has views that could be at variance to what I express.

I have an amendment at the desk. It is No. 5569. I shall not call it up at this time. The history of that amendment is as follows:

As many of our Senate colleagues are aware, this past January 29, the President of the United States issued Executive Order No. 13457 instructing the executive branch that agency heads should not base funding decisions on language in a committee report or conference report or any other nonstatutory statement of the views of Congress. The President took this unprecedented step because he believes--and to some extent I share his concern--that it is necessary to reduce the number and cost of what we refer to as earmarks substantially; that is, to reduce them substantially and to make the origin and purpose of the earmark more transparent. To accomplish these objectives, the Executive order requires that henceforth earmarks, as well as any other funding direction from Congress in its exercise of the power of the purse, must be included in the text of the bill voted on by Congress and presented to the President.

In response to the Executive order, I offered an amendment during committee markup, on behalf of Senator McCain and myself and others, which would have put the committee's funding tables in the text of the bill. This was the most simple and direct way to comply with the Executive order. My amendment, after deliberation in committee, was defeated on a 12-to-12 vote. As a result, as reflected in section 1002 of the bill, the committee decided to incorporate our funding tables into the bill by reference; that is, by a provision that states that each funding table in the committee report is incorporated into the act and is made a requirement of law to the same extent as if the funding table was included in the text.

Once our bill reached the Senate floor for consideration by the full Senate, a colleague, Senator DeMint, filed amendment No. 5405 which, again, takes up the same issue.

Senator DeMint's amendment would strike section 1002 in its entirety from the bill, thereby removing the funding tables from the bill. The result, as I interpret it, of adoption of the amendment would be that our funding tables would remain only in the committee

and conference report, setting up a conflict with the Executive order. Direction by Congress on the specific funding levels throughout the defense budget would be advisory only.

The President's Executive order, on the other hand, would continue to require agency heads to ignore congressional funding directions unless it is in the text of bills enacted into law.

While I appreciate the efforts by our distinguished colleague from South Carolina and his concern about the use of the incorporation-by- reference technique which I opposed during committee markup, I am just as concerned about striking the reference to the funding tables in the bill and leaving them only in the committee and conference report, given the President's Executive order. While the DeMint amendment would have the positive impact of making earmarks advisory only, it would also undercut the legal authority of every other congressional funding decision which differed from the President's budget. In short, the DeMint amendment would seriously impair the ability of the Senate and Congress to meaningfully exercise the power of the purse. The Armed Services Committee and the Senate and Congress as a whole would lose the ability to direct and enforce cuts in funding, additions to funding that were, in our discretion, required in the President's budget, or to restructure programs that are part of the defense budget.

The amendment I have offered and wish to offer as an alternative to Senator DeMint is No. 5569. My amendment takes the same approach which I argued during the committee markup. It takes the funding tables from our committee report and puts them directly into the bill text. The amendment is extraordinarily long. It goes on for 225 pages, but it complies with the Executive order in the most direct way possible. As a result, all of our funding decisions are transparent, and each item of funding is subject to further debate and amendment by the full Senate. If the funding decisions are adopted by the Senate and sustained through the conference between the two Houses, they will be included in the text of the bill as passed by Congress and presented to the President. Changes to the funding decisions recommended by the committee are subject to the normal process of amending a bill under the Senate rules and procedures.

I am aware if my amendment was adopted, it would increase the burden of producing our bill and conference report by several days. Many people would be involved in that rather arduous process. We are informed that the best estimate is that about 4 additional days would be required for the committee staff, the Government Printing Office, and supporting House and Senate staff offices to process the detailed data that appears in the funding tables, if they were incorporated into the bill, assuming the Government Printing Office could prioritize its attention and resources on our bill. By ``prioritize,'' I mean what other work from other committees of the Congress, House and Senate, would be before those various administrative sections.

Given the time constraints we face, these 4 additional days add significantly to the challenges of completing a conference between the House and Senate and passing a conference report in both Chambers before the target date for adjournment. While I acknowledge these challenges, I believe my amendment will best comply with the Executive order and its laudatory purposes. We must not simply ignore the Executive order and trust the executive branch to follow congressional funding directions, when the President has emphatically said the Congress must express its direction in the text of bills enacted into law.

When Congress exercises its constitutional power of the purse, it should do so in a transparent, open way subject to full debate and amendment. When Congress speaks on its funding priorities, it should do so decisively, and its pronouncement should have the binding force of law subject only to the President's veto.

The current posture is, this is an important issue. The distinguished chairman and I, together with our staffs, have worked on it. We have recognized the precarious nature of the bill in terms of its ability to be put together, brought to the desk of Senators, and then, subsequently, the conference report, and likewise that being properly put together to comply with this amendment and others. It is a challenge. I have discussed it with the chairman. I guess perhaps being an optimist, I believe if my amendment were adopted, it would reach the result of many colleagues, and we could go forward and do our very best to shorten the time normally in the history of these bills that is used by the conference.

This is our 30th bill. Senator Levin is chairman of the conference this year. I would try in every way to support him, if he so desired to try to move, subject to the adoption of this amendment, this bill through the conference. This bill is so important to our country. It is so important to so many Members of our body. We have pending a managers' amendment which Senator Levin and our staffs have been working on for the last 4 or 5 days. It is close to 100 amendments which we have reconciled in such a way that, subject to UC, they could be adopted and immediately become a part of the bill prior to any cloture action that will take place as scheduled at 3 o'clock today. That embraces the work and the desires and the objectives of so many Members.

I am not here to fault the fact that a hold or objection is put on a UC to move that package; it is to state the fact. But that objection largely emanates from the issue which I have tried to describe in a very pragmatic and forthright way to help colleagues better understand the current procedural dilemma that faces the body with regard to the bill.

The committee and my distinguished colleagues will work as hard as we can to get this bill through. This is one roadmap; there may be a better one.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am looking at a memorandum prepared by our staff, and I presume it has been shared with the chairman's staff. We should state to colleagues that what we learned by virtue of a long process that many people were involved in over the weekend is as follows:

In summary, incorporation of the funding tables into the bill would add about 4 days to the process: About a half day for committee staff to prepare the files for the GPO, although much could be done during the conference; 3 days for the GPO to convert the files and proofread them; and about half a day for the committee staff to proofread them when GPO returns the bill in printed form.

Let's sort of chart out a calendar. Today, we are, at the present time, scheduled to have a cloture vote, and if cloture comes about, there is an entirely different scenario, if it is voted in, by which we continue to address the bill. But if by any chance we could reconcile our differences--and we would want Members to know that last night the majority presented to the minority a draft UC that is now being reviewed by my leadership. I am at this moment unable to give the details of what decisions will be made or what options, other than what was presented to us, may be returned back by way of compromise. That is to take place in the coming hours, before 3 o'clock. But there is still the possibility that we could get a UC through that would resolve much of this problem. Then, if we took final passage, say, even late tonight--I mean if we can get the managers' package through, we will have close to 100 amendments in addition to those already handled, and that package is basically equally divided with Republican and Democratic amendments--let's say we have final passage tonight or tomorrow. How does the chairman then plot the timetable by which he used pretty strong language, that this amendment of mine jeopardizes the bill not being passed? Would the chairman give us his basic schedule?

I was not present when either of these Senators appeared. I am being advised by our cloakroom staff that Senator Collins came early this morning, at which time the assurance was given to her by someone that she could have 11:30. Now, I don't know quite how to sort this out.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, the chairman and I jointly agreed to ask our staffs to begin to preconference this bill. There has been a considerable amount of work done in the form of preconferencing a number of issues.

Once the House sees the finality of the Senate bill, I am of the view that the balance can come together fairly swiftly. So I think we have somewhat of a difference of opinion as to the ability of all people of good intention to get together and crunch this time so we can meet the projected deadline of adjournment on the 26th, as I understand it.

Yes.

Let's do that. Mr. President, couldn't we just do this informally? Once we ask unanimous consent, we are in a whole new framework of procedures. I think we recognized that, I believe, Senator Collins--and my distinguished colleague from Virginia has graciously allowed her to go first, and she would be followed by the Senator from Virginia.

We are back to UC. The word triggers----

Mr. President, I humbly thank my distinguished colleague and longtime friend. I am certain she can take my place.

Mr. President, if I might ask my colleague for 30 seconds. I listened carefully to the Senator's thoughts on the Iraqi funding issue. I commend the Senator for that. We have amendments that address it. In the managers' package are certain amendments that the Senator from Maine put in. That is a very important issue. We owe no less responsibility to the American taxpayers but to assure that every single dollar going into that area at this time is absolutely essential for the purpose of the mission of our troops and otherwise, and that the Iraqi Government be made aware that they are a sovereign government now and such expenses as can be should be borne by that Government.

Mr. President, if I may say, I have been viewing the two drafts of the UCs. Momentarily, I expect the chairman and I will decide how to deal with it. But I assure the Senator that the Webb amendment is in both drafts of UCs.

Mr. President, I humbly acknowledge the gracious remarks, and I express my appreciation.

Mr. President, this will be one of the most difficult votes that I will have had to cast in my almost 30 years in the Senate. I must say to my dear friend, the chairman of the committee, we have worked together these years and we just made our last efforts in the cloakroom to try and bridge the gap--I respect both sides--bridge the gap. We failed, and now we are confronted with cloture. I then searched my conscience: What do I do? Because I am definitely more than sympathetic, completely in support that the minority has to have certain rights and a certain ability. That is the way this institution is constructed.

I shall vote for cloture for the following reason: I ran a quick mental calculation. It was 63 years ago, in January of 1945, that I joined the U.S. Navy. If I had to point to the one single thing in my some 40 years plus of public service that has meant the most to me personally, it is working with and learning from the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States. My military career on active duty is of no great consequence, but my learning experience was enormous, and I have tried through these 30 years in the Senate to pay back to this generation and future generations of men and women all the wonderful things, including two GI bills, that were done for me.

So I could not have this, being almost the last vote that I will cast in these 30 years, in any other way than be consistent with my conscience, as I have tried to do the best, and will continue to do the best, on behalf of the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families.

I thank my colleagues.

Mr. President, as the distinguished chairman said, we have some 90 amendments now cleared. Now that the issue of going forward is also at this time clear, there should be an impetus to move forward such that the package of 90-some can grow, hopefully by 30 or 40, before close of business tonight and possibly we can consider moving that as quickly as we can. We are ready to assist all Senators with regard to their amendments filed and, indeed, otherwise. We are here to try to ascertain our ability to put them in a package that is cleared; if not, despite the parliamentary situation, to help them secure a vote.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. President, I will speak momentarily, but I wish to defer to the distinguished chairman, and I will follow him with brief remarks.

I will continue, Mr. President. I wish to say on behalf of my staff and that of the distinguished chairman, we have an old saying in the Navy: ``All hands on deck.'' Both staffs were present throughout the weekend. I am pleased to advise the Chair and other Senators following this proceeding that we have put together a significant package of amendments on which we use the phrase around here ``both sides of the aisle agreed upon.'' But I will leave it to the chairman to address that issue.

I believe I am under the instruction of my Republican leader at this time that I am not able to agree to a UC request. But I do hope that can be resolved very quickly and that we can move to that package and receive such other amendments as Senators may wish to call up. There are some 250 pending at the desk and at such time the chairman and I are ready to work with Members on trying to resolve those amendments or otherwise have votes. I know a number of amendments are pending that will require votes.

Mr. President, I have seen earlier iterations of this. I will take this up with the leadership and our colleagues early tomorrow, but I am not certain what time. I presume this would not require any votes in the morning.

I think that would best serve our purposes. In consultation with our two staff directors and colleagues on our staff who work side by side, we have now cleared--both sides--about 75 amendments. So work has been going on throughout the day. I think we can, hopefully tomorrow, share this with colleagues and get a resolution of the timetables to move forward on the bill.

Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I join my colleague. We are here.

I wish to also bring to the attention of colleagues that at the close of business last night we were informed there are over 200 amendments at the desk. It is our hope that perhaps Senators who have filed those amendments could work with the managers and/or our staffs such that they could be added to, hopefully, a future package that will receive the support of the Senate by a UC. So therein is a very significant amount of work resting at the desk.

Mr. President, in that vein, Senator Vitter and Senator DeMint worked with us last night, and Senator Coburn.

Thirty years.

Mr. President, I am deeply humbled by the comments of the distinguished leader and many other colleagues, but I am optimistic. Senator Levin and I--who have spent a good deal of time with Leader McConnell this morning--believe there is a momentum on both sides to move to a conclusion. Senator Levin and I are going to talk to some particulars pretty soon, but I am pleased to say that I think our staffs are going to finish an agreement over this weekend on 60 amendments, just to give some idea of the magnitude of progress we have made thus far.

But I thank the distinguished leader for his personal remarks. We have had a long working relationship. We started together on a subcommittee in the Environment Committee years and years ago--20-some- odd years ago. That was the beginning of our long, marvelous friendship.

I thank the leader.

Cloture Motion

Mr. President, I thank my colleague.

We are working on a draft UC for Monday, and I wish to point out that those amendments which have been brought to our attention requiring votes, we are going to try to achieve that prior to the invoking of cloture; am I not correct?

And we are trying to protect, on both sides, an equal number of Senators who have come to us and sought that protection.

I thank Senators DeMint and Coburn for working with us last night on an important issue not only to the underlying question of how this body is going to handle certain desires of individual Senators to get funds to their States, but it is the preservation of the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee, of our authorizing committee as well as other authorizing committees in the Senate. So that is fundamental to the resolution of that problem, and I think we have made progress there.

Now, Mr. President, I would suggest the Senator should now move to morning business and get off this bill. We are cleared on this side.

I thank my colleague for his remarks.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, actually it was a series of appropriations. The committee approved it in the House and the Senate--the House Armed Services Committee. When it came to our committee--at that time I was the chairman--we decided this contract was not right, and a lot of work subsequent to that has been done to try to correct it. The Deputy Secretary of Defense contacted me yesterday. I look upon this latest development with some concern because this airplane is needed for the U.S. inventory.

But I thank the Senator for his support through the years. It was our committee that stopped that contract which we felt was faulty at that time, and the rest is history.

Mr. President, I share the views of my distinguished good friend.

Mr. President, I have been informed--and I will await the leadership to make the formal announcements--but I do believe we are going to move to some votes, hopefully, this afternoon on our bill.

Mr. President, the chairman has quite accurately stated the work that has been done thus far, our willingness as the two managers to continue working with Senators. We will both be present tomorrow as well as Monday. It is hoped that other Senators can be in a position to come forward with their amendments.

I might inquire, can the Presiding Officer advise us on the number of amendments on file? An approximation is satisfactory.

I thank the Presiding Officer.

That presents clear evidence to colleagues of the magnitude of the task before us. I guess we have said this many times, but this would be the 43rd consecutive authorization bill for the men and women of the Armed Forces passed by the Senate. It is my hope that we can add No. 43.

I commend the chairman for his efforts. I have worked with him through this day. I believe we have had some helpful discussions with staff and colleagues on the means by which to make progress. We are here. It is imperative that this bill pass.

I remind colleagues of the military construction section of our bill which is so vital for the current and future needs of the U.S. military. This bill is the sole bill that can carry that important piece of annual legislation through and get it into a conference.

Of course.

Will the chairman yield for a question?

Would it not be to the benefit of the two of us as managers, as we have had a great deal of discussion together today on it, to hear from our colleague so we have clearly in mind his goals?

Is there any way we could accommodate both Senators?

The Senator has the floor, so if I could ask him to yield for a question?

This is of such vital importance to the bill. While it is just a few words, it does have very significant ramifications. It deals with the relationship of the legislative body; that is, the Congress, the executive branch, and the fulfillment of our constitutional responsibilities versus the ability of the executive branch to exercise certain powers.

In the Armed Services Committee, this matter was brought up. I put forward an amendment in committee not unlike what the Senator from South Carolina has pending before the Senate. It was not accepted. It was a 12-to-12 vote; therefore, a tie. It did not carry.

I understand the goals the Senator is seeking. But I point out, if we could have a few minutes so colleagues have some idea of the significance of this and they can reflect on it. If the Senator is not going to be here tomorrow--he has heavy commitments, as do others--nor Monday, it would be only Tuesday morning before we could really begin to get other Members of the Senate more fully acquainted with the complexity of this issue.

I understand that.

Mr. President, that is correct. But in the intervening period, there has been the issue of Executive order. Therefore, we cannot, as a legislative body, be unmindful of what the executive branch has enunciated through Executive order. That Executive order will carry forward after this administration concludes and be a part of the next administration. That clearly states that the President is not going to observe the means by which the Congress, specifically the Armed Services Committee in the many years' pattern of doing much of its work, both in the report language as well as bill language.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Can the Senator visit with the two of us off the floor such that our colleague can proceed?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Presidential document to which I referred, dated February 1, 2008, be printed in the Record as a part of the colloquy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Webb to help encourage the preservation of, and public access to, historical documents and records of former United States Presidents. Congressman Goodlatte is joining us in this effort and has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

The preservation of historical documents is critical to the future of any nation. Current and future generations can look upon the examples of those that came before and learn from their accomplishments, as well as their mistakes. Our Founding Fathers understood the need to preserve important documents for future generations. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``a morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' In addition, he considered it ``the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.''

Today, we have federally supported presidential libraries from President Hoover onward, but, generally, we do not have federally supported libraries for Presidents prior to President Hoover. The documents and records of these Presidents are scattered throughout America. In our view, the Federal Government should be taking an active role in encouraging the preservation of these documents.

In Virginia, we have an organization that has been leading the way in preserving the records of President Woodrow Wilson. To date, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library has preserved several thousand documents. Last year alone, the library received more than one million Wilson-related documents, and it is in the process of preserving these documents and will make them freely available on the Internet. Thousands of people visit the library each year to see documents that have never been seen before in public. In my view, libraries like the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library are critical to our Nation's history, and we should be encouraging more organizations to engage in this important endeavor.

The legislation I introduce today will help encourage these and other efforts to preserve, and provide public access to, these historical documents by authorizing the National Archives and Records Administration to provide grants to certain organizations to support their efforts in preserving the historical records of past Presidents.

I want to thank the National Archives for their assistance in drafting this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see this legislation signed into law.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senator Webb to help encourage the preservation of, and public access to, historical documents and records of former United States Presidents. Congressman Goodlatte is joining us in this effort and has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives.

The preservation of historical documents is critical to the future of any nation. Current and future generations can look upon the examples of those that came before and learn from their accomplishments, as well as their mistakes. Our Founding Fathers understood the need to preserve important documents for future generations. Thomas Jefferson once said that ``a morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable.'' In addition, he considered it ``the duty of every good citizen to use all the opportunities, which occur to him, for preserving documents relating to the history of our country.''

Today, we have federally supported presidential libraries from President Hoover onward, but, generally, we do not have federally supported libraries for Presidents prior to President Hoover. The documents and records of these Presidents are scattered throughout America. In our view, the Federal Government should be taking an active role in encouraging the preservation of these documents.

In Virginia, we have an organization that has been leading the way in preserving the records of President Woodrow Wilson. To date, the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library has preserved several thousand documents. Last year alone, the library received more than one million Wilson-related documents, and it is in the process of preserving these documents and will make them freely available on the Internet. Thousands of people visit the library each year to see documents that have never been seen before in public. In my view, libraries like the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library are critical to our Nation's history, and we should be encouraging more organizations to engage in this important endeavor.

The legislation I introduce today will help encourage these and other efforts to preserve, and provide public access to, these historical documents by authorizing the National Archives and Records Administration to provide grants to certain organizations to support their efforts in preserving the historical records of past Presidents.

I want to thank the National Archives for their assistance in drafting this important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to see this legislation signed into law.

Mr. President, first I wish to say to our colleague and fellow member of the Senate Armed Services Committee from Oklahoma, I was very moved by your remarks on this particular program, as requested by our colleague from Florida. This will have my support. But your voice has added a great deal of significance to the fundamental necessity for this body to go ahead with this amendment. I judge you, too, are a cosponsor on this amendment?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator. If it is one hallmark he has in the Senate, it is his tenacity, year after year after year. So stick with it--whether it is this program or your beloved highway programs, which you fight for, or your beloved WRDA bill, which you fight for. It is a long list.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. President, I do recall very vividly the Senator coming before the Senate Armed Services Committee--I believe I was chairman at that time----

For the purpose of bringing to the attention of the committee this very important issue.

Mr. President, if I might add, I appreciate the sentiments of both of my colleagues. It has been a joint effort by Senator Levin and me.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the letter we prepared printed in the Record after this colloquy.

I wish to also bring to the Senator's attention--he already knows, but those following the debate should have been advised that this letter prompted a GAO study, and that study, which was released recently, received widespread attention, not only here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives but throughout the Government and other circles. So I would say we are well along in achieving some--what I would call better accounting for these dollars, better control over the expenditures.

We have heard that the report is prepared by Stuart Bowen, whom I see regularly, three or four times a year, and I know my colleague and others feel likewise. I have a high regard for the work he and his staff have done through the years with that report. There was a time when there were elements of the Government--I won't get into specifics--which wanted to abolish that department. I think the Senator from Michigan remembers that. We stepped in and said in very simple language: No way; they are going to continue.

Madam President, I yield the floor to the assistant leader.

Madam President, I commend our distinguished colleague for this amendment. It is one that was specifically requested by the administration. I think in a most cooperative way, our distinguished chairman has joined in. It relates to the missile defense system which is so essential to our Nation and indeed much of the free world.

Madam President, I urge consideration of the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, on this side, I saw that the amendment was sent to the Judiciary Committee. The distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, reviewed it. I know of no request for a recorded vote.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I think we should either order the rollcall votes now or inform colleagues there will be rollcall votes.

I want my colleagues fully informed.

No objection.

If I might ask the Senator, about how long would the Senator wish to speak?

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, with the concurrence of the distinguished chairman, I wonder if our colleague from Texas could be recognized. He is a very valued member of our committee. He wants to discuss, for 8 minutes, our bill.

I think the distinguished chairman and I are aware the Senate would now turn to the highway bill. I believe the distinguished chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee will be arriving, and the distinguished ranking member is present on the floor at this time. Perhaps they could advise us with regard to the amount of time that would be required to have to act on this.

Madam President, this is a very laudatory effort on behalf of our colleague. It is one I will personally support. I do, however, draw to the attention of all colleagues that it is a very expensive provision, but it is one that deserves the recognition that it has been given by our colleague and further consideration of the conference between the House and the Senate.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, at the moment, speaking for myself as one of the managers of the bill, I strongly support the package. We have worked on it together, as we have all the times we have managed these bills. I know of no objections that have been communicated to me, but I would like to ask the indulgence of the chairman for a few minutes such that I can check with my cloakroom staff.

I thank my colleague.

I have been informed by our staff that there are objections to the procedure to have this package of amendments cleared at this time.

Mr. President, I see the chairman of the committee. I think the work on the bill tonight is concluded, and I recommend we go off the bill and open the floor to morning business, if that is agreeable.

Mr. President, if I might say to my colleague, Senator Graham has an airplane he is trying to catch.

No objection.