Floor Statements

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the soldiers and civilian employees at Fort A.P. Hill for winning the Army Chief of Staff Communities of Excellence Award competition for fiscal year 2008. This prestigious annual award recognizes the tremendous effort made by Fort A.P. Hill to support soldiers, civilian employees, retirees, and their families. In addition, it highlights the superior business practices that have sparked innovation and enhanced efficiency at the installation.

Fort A.P. Hill, as one of the Army's premier installations, has also achieved high marks in this competition in the past, finishing in third place each of the last 3 years. This year, the post hosted a week long visit by a team of evaluators who reviewed every facet of Fort A.P. Hill's operations. Following a scoring assessment by a panel of judges, Fort A.P. Hill was named the competition winner and was awarded $2 million to continue efforts to improve the post.

With nearly 76,000 acres, including a 27,000-acre live fire complex that hosts personnel from every service in the Armed Forces, Fort A.P. Hill is rightly known as ``The Place Where America's Military Sharpens Its Combat Edge.'' I offer my congratulations for a job well done to Fort A.P. Hill's outstanding team.

Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the 3,000 military and civilian employees at Defense Supply Center Richmond for winning the

Army Chief of Staff Communities of Excellence Award competition for fiscal year 2008. This prestigious annual award recognizes the tremendous effort made by Defense Supply Center Richmond to support members of the Armed Forces, civilian employees, retirees, and their families. In addition, it highlights the superior business practices that have sparked innovation and enhanced efficiency at the center.

As one of three defense supply centers in the country, Defense Supply Center Richmond serves as the lead aviation supplier for the Defense Logistics Agency, managing more than 1.2 million repair parts and operating supply items. This includes over 1,300 major weapons systems and all manner of aircraft parts, manufacturing equipment, and environmental products. Defense Supply Center Richmond annually handles 5.3 million requisitions and supports over 24,500 customers across the globe.

With ongoing military operations around the world, the exceptional work done by the dedicated workforce at Defense Supply Center Richmond has never been more appreciated or come at a more critical time. I offer my congratulations for a job well done to Defense Supply Center Richmond outstanding team.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. President, I commend him for this initiative, but I hope he says ``oil and gas'' because off the east coast there is an abundance of gas, as shown by the previous studies. As he says, they have to be brought up to date. Do let us invoke gas because along the beaches--and I, as the Senator knows, twice tried to get legislation through, and a collection of Senators--and I say this in a lighthearted way; I call them the beach boys--will not permit this for fear that pollution could emanate from the drilling process onto their beaches.

I suggest let's start with gas. There would not be any potential for the erosion of beaches as a consequence of an accidental spill. I do hope the Senator puts in the word ``gas.''

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Idaho. I also emphasize that the technology to do it safely and not be the victim of a disruption by Mother Nature is there.

I thank the Senator. I wish him well. He has my support.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 10 seconds?

Mr. President, I commend him for this initiative, but I hope he says ``oil and gas'' because off the east coast there is an abundance of gas, as shown by the previous studies. As he says, they have to be brought up to date. Do let us invoke gas because along the beaches--and I, as the Senator knows, twice tried to get legislation through, and a collection of Senators--and I say this in a lighthearted way; I call them the beach boys--will not permit this for fear that pollution could emanate from the drilling process onto their beaches.

I suggest let's start with gas. There would not be any potential for the erosion of beaches as a consequence of an accidental spill. I do hope the Senator puts in the word ``gas.''

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Idaho. I also emphasize that the technology to do it safely and not be the victim of a disruption by Mother Nature is there.

I thank the Senator. I wish him well. He has my support.

Mr. President, I rise today to commend the work of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves. Under the leadership of Arnold L. Punaro, the Commission has done this Nation a great service. It was my privilege as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to include the legislation that established the Commission in the annual National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.

On January 31, 2008, the Commission submitted its final report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees and the Secretary of Defense. That report is thorough, is based on substantial and careful research and an extensive information-gathering process, and reflects many hours of deliberations by the Commission's members.

The 12 Commissioners, between them, brought 288 total years of military service, 186 total years of nonmilitary government service, and many years of private-sector experience to the task. In addition to Chairman Punaro, the Commission's members are William L. Ball, III; Les Brownlee; Rhett B. Dawson; Larry K. Eckles; Patricia L. Lewis; Dan McKinnon; Wade Rowley; James E. Sherrard, III; Donald L. Stockton; E. Gordon Stump; and J. Stanton Thompson.

The Commission was established by Public Law 108-375, the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2005, as amended by Public Law 109-163, to assess the reserve component of the U.S. military and to recommend changes to ensure that the National Guard and other reserve components are organized, trained, equipped, compensated, and supported

to best meet the needs of U.S. national security.

The Commission's first interim report, containing initial findings and the description of a strategic plan to complete its work, was delivered on June 5, 2006. The second interim report, delivered on March 1, 2007, was required by Public Law 109-364, the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, enacted on October 17, 2006. That second report examined 17 proposals contained in the National Defense Enhancement and National Guard Empowerment Act, and included 23 recommendations covering the broad spectrum of issues raised by the legislation.

The Commission's second report was thoroughly reviewed by both Congress and the Department of Defense, and careful consideration was given to the Commission's recommendations that have changed, in a fundamental way, the Department of Defense's role for domestic security, taking significant steps towards improvements to make the nation safer from man-made and natural disasters. Secretary of Defense Gates also has taken timely and decisive action to implement those recommendations not requiring legislation, and has advocated before Congress for those requiring legislation.

The final report of the Commission was constructed from 17 days of public hearings, involving 115 witnesses; 52 Commission meetings; more than 850 interviews; numerous site visits, forums, and panel discussions; and the detailed analysis of thousands of documents supplied at the Commission's request by the military services, government agencies, experts, and other stakeholders. It contains 6 major conclusions and 95 recommendations, supported by 163 findings. This prodigious, thorough effort met the expectations of Congress.

In conducting its work, the Commission gathered information, analyzed evidence, identified significant problems facing the reserve components, and sought to offer the best possible recommendations to solve the problems identified. The Commissioners stated clearly their belief that the problems identified in the report are systemic, have evolved over many years, and are not the product of any one official or administration. Many of the Commission's recommendations to solve those problems can now be implemented; however, a number of them will take years to reach full implementation and will require additional work by Congress and the executive branch.

At the core of these changes is the explicit recognition of the evolution of the reserve components from a purely strategic force, with lengthy mobilization times designed to meet threats from large nation- states, to an operational force. This operational reserve must be readily available for emergencies at home and abroad, and more fully integrated with active components. Simultaneously, this force must retain its own required strategic elements and capabilities.

The Commission concluded that there will be greater reliance on the reserve components as part of its operational force for missions at home and abroad. Moreover, the Commission also concluded that the change from the reserve components' historic Cold War posture necessitates fundamental reforms to reserve components' homeland roles and missions, to personnel management systems, to equipping and training policies, to policies affecting families and employers, and to the organizations and structures used to manage the reserves. These reforms are essential to ensure that this operational reserve is feasible in the short term while sustainable over the long term. In fact, the Commission believes that the future of the all-volunteer force depends upon the continued success of our implementation of needed reforms to ensure that the reserve components are ready, capable, and available for both operational and strategic missions.

In reviewing the past several decades of diverse use of the reserve components, as an integral part of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the homeland, most notably the Commission has found indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the need for future policymakers and the military to break with outdated policies and processes and implement fundamental, thorough reforms in these areas.

The members of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserves share this view unanimously. The Commission notes that these recommendations will require the nation to reorder the priorities of the Department of Defense, thereby necessitating a major restructuring of laws and DOD's budget. While there are some costs associated with these recommendations, the Commission believes that the problems are serious, the need to address them is urgent, and the benefits of the reforms we identify more than exceed the expense of implementing them.

Clearly, the reserve force has proven itself to be a wise investment in our overall security structure and should be commended for their professional contributions to our Nation's defense. The Commission recognizes that these issues are extremely complex, and that there will be disagreement with some of the solutions it has proposed. That is to be expected. Commission members anticipate that this report will generate lively debate among the organizations and key policymakers responsible for protecting U.S. national security. With the submission of its last report, the Commission turns its findings, conclusions, and recommendations over to the legislative and executive branches, where Commission members feel confident that they will be carefully considered, improved upon, and implemented.

The Commission has provided America a blueprint for our work on the National Guard and Reserves this year and in the future. Each of its 95 recommendations merits our careful consideration. The Senate Armed Services and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees have already held hearings on the Commission's report, and we await the Department of Defense's formal response to its recommendations.

It is with profound admiration and gratitude that I extend our collective thanks for the service that this Commission has rendered to our nation and to our men and women in uniform. I know my colleagues will agree when I say that this Commission has made profound and substantive recommendations for reforming our National Guard and Reserves and that we look forward to working to address the issues raised by the Commission's final report.

Mr. President, on April 13, 2008, America celebrated the 265th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Jefferson, who first served as Vice President and then subsequently was elected as the Nation's third President in 1801. He deemed his proudest achievement to be the ``Father of the University of Virginia.''

As part of the national celebration, President and Mrs. Bush invited distinguished scholars and others to pay tribute to the extraordinary achievements of this great American. I was privileged to attend along with John Casteen, current president of the University of Virginia, and many other invited guests from the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Given the importance of this occasion and the respectful tributes delivered by the President, the First Lady, and two eminent scholars, I wish to record this event for the American people.

Mr. President, on October 6, 2007, the people of Virginia's First Congressional District lost one of its most respected and admired leaders, a dedicated Member of Congress and loyal friend, Representative Jo Ann Davis.

Today, as a small tribute to her, the Senate passed H.R. 5489, which designated the United States Post Office at 6892 Main Street in Gloucester, VA, as the ``Congresswoman Jo Ann S. Davis Post Office.'' Last year, Senator Webb and I introduced a companion bill, S. 2725.

Following a successful real estate career, Mrs. Davis decided to run for public office in 1997. After serving as a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly for 4 years, Jo Ann Davis became the first Republican woman to serve Virginia in the U.S. Congress after winning her election in 2000.

From her first day in office, Congresswoman Davis was a relentless champion for the needs of the First District. It was my privilege to work with her on many matters, ranging from national defense to the environment. I always admired Representative Davis for her strong convictions and the tenacity that she brought to bear in acting on them. She fought a courageous struggle against cancer, and I will certainly miss her insights and her friendship in our Virginia Congressional Delegation.

Given her commendable public service at the Federal and State levels, I was pleased to offer this small token of recognition and gratitude for someone who had given so much to the Commonwealth and her country.

I join with my colleagues from the Commonwealth and from the entire U.S. Congress in expressing my deepest sympathies to her husband, her two sons, and her extended family. They continue to remain in our thoughts and prayers.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in today's Record a detailed speech. I was privileged to go to the White House on Monday, when the President celebrated, with many others, the 265th anniversary of Thomas Jefferson. Those remarks are so prized, particularly in my State, but all across America, that I wish to put the content of those speeches in today's Record.

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

Madam President, 1 year ago today, the horrific shootings at Virginia Tech claimed 32 innocent lives.

In remembrance of the lives of promise that were forever lost that shocking day, I would simply like to read each of their names into the Congressional Record: Ross A. Alameddine; Christopher James Bishop; Brian R. Bluhm; Ryan Christopher Clark; Austin Michelle Cloyd; Jocelyne Couture-Nowak; Daniel Alejandro Perez Cueva; Kevin P. Granata; Matthew Gregory Gwaltney; Caitlin Millar Hammaren; Jeremy Michael Herbstritt; Rachael Elizabeth Hill; Emily Jane Hilscher; Jarrett Lee Lane; Matthew Joseph La Porte; Henry J. Lee; Liviu Librescu; G.V. Loganathan; Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan; Lauren Ashley McCain; Daniel Patrick O'Neil; Juan Ramon Ortiz-Ortiz; Minal Hiralal Panchal; Erin Nicole Peterson; Michael Steven Pohle, Jr.; Julia Kathleen Pryde; Mary Karen Read; Reema Joseph Samaha; Waleed Mohamed Shaalan; Leslie Geraldine Sherman; Maxine Shelly Turner; Nicole Regina White.

The day after the shooting, I mourned with the campus community at a convocation held on the campus of Virginia Tech. While the mourning of that tragic day continues for all of us, in the past year the Tech family has come together to support each other in a way that all of America admires. I know that those who have suffered most in the tragedy, and their families, remain in the thoughts and prayers of not only all Hokies, but indeed Americans across the country.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about the legislation currently before the Senate. The Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 seeks to provide assistance to families and businesses adversely affected by the decline of the values of real estate.

While I support many of the worthy initiatives in this bill, such as the Federal Housing Authority modernization provisions and other resources to assist communities devastated by foreclosures, there are several provisions that cause me to withhold my support at this time. I note that the bill will go to a conference committee with the House of Representatives, and subsequent to their work, I will revisit this legislation.

America, our Republic, rests on basic and time tested principles. Among them is our free enterprise system. The foundation of this system must not be unduly influenced from excessive government interference.

Again, while this legislation contains a number of worthy initiatives, respectfully, in my view, this legislation as a whole overreaches and fails this basic test.

Madam President, I rise today in support of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act, S. 2739. This omnibus package includes language that is especially important to my State, as well as the Nation. Amongst other things, S. 2739 would designate some of America's most historic and beautiful lands as National Heritage Areas, including the area along Route 15 in Virginia. Known as the Journey Through Hallowed Ground, this effort has been championed by myself, my good friend Congressman Frank Wolf, and Senator Jim Webb. I thank them for all their efforts on behalf of this legislation.

As my colleagues are aware, National Heritage Areas are intended to encourage residents, government agencies, nonprofit groups, and private partners to collaboratively plan and implement programs and projects to recognize, preserve, and celebrate many of America's defining landscapes. Today, there are 37 National Heritage Areas spread out across the United States.

In Virginia, we are lucky enough to have a landscape that is worthy of the recognition and celebration that a National Heritage Area designation would afford it. Stretching through four States, and generally following the path of the Old Carolina Road, today's Route 15, the proposed Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area is home to some of our Nation's greatest historic, cultural, and natural treasures. The region's riches read like a star-studded list of American History: Monticello, Montpelier, Manassas, Gettysburg. The list goes on. In all, there are 15 National Historic Landmarks, 47 historic districts, a number of Presidential homes, and the largest collection of Civil War battlefields in the Country. It is an area, literally, where America happened.

With basic, technical assistance from the National Park Service, this proposed Heritage area would be managed by The Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, a nonprofit entity whose sole purpose is to trumpet the magnificence of the Hallowed Ground's offerings. Already, the Partnership has provided opportunities for thousands of visitors to enjoy the region's spectacular natural and historical resources, and they have worked hard to get this area the designation and recognition it deserves.

Now, before I conclude, I would like to take a quick moment to address several of the arguments voiced by critics against national heritage areas. First and foremost among these arguments, is that national heritage areas infringe upon private property rights. This simply is not accurate. As the Government Accountability Office, GAO, noted in testimony to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, ``National heritage areas do not appear [to affect] private property rights'', GAO-04-593T. Furthermore, as an example that they don't, I offer up the State of Tennessee, in its entirety, which today is designated a national heritage area and has had no intrusion on property rights. And, lastly, I point to language in this legislation that I specifically put in to ensure that no intrusion on property rights occured. It states, in some detail, that ``nothing in this subtitle abridges the rights of any property owner.''

Other criticisms include concerns about the costs of heritage areas, and also that heritage areas increase the role of the Federal Government. To the issue of costs, I note that heritage areas provide a way for the Federal Government to highlight our Nation's historical, cultural, and natural resources without having to actually own and maintain them--which, as we know by the current maintenance backlogs in the Park System, are quite costly to the American taxpayer. Secondly, I would like to remind my friends that often heritage areas require a funding match before a single Federal dollar can be appropriated. This is the case for the heritage area which I come to champion today--The Journey Through Hallowed Ground. Every taxpayer dollar that is appropriated to the Journey Through Hallowed Ground must be matched equally by non-Federal entities.

As for the other criticism, that heritage areas increase the role of the Federal Government and impose upon State and local governments, I note that heritage areas require and provide exorbitant opportunity for State and local input. In fact, in forming the Hallowed Ground, the local coordinating entity sought and received support from every local city, county, and town within the proposed Heritage Area. The Governor and Virginia General Assembly, whom I sincerely thank, also supported this effort. I commend the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership for reaching out to all these groups.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of The Journey Through Hallowed Ground.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, on February 29, 2008, the Secretary of the Air Force, Michael W. Wynne, announced that the Air Force had made a selection in the KC-X competition for development and procurement of up to 179 tanker aircraft, which are urgently needed to support our armed forces.

This was a critical step forward in the recapitalization of an aging fleet of aircraft that are essential for force projection, intelligence, surveillance, and global strike capabilities. A modern tanker force is at the heart of our national security.

I understand that it was a carefully constructed and transparent process that the Department of Defense and the Department of the Air Force structured and faithfully implemented to reach this decision. As Secretary Wynne said, the announcement ``is the culmination of years of tireless work and attention to detail by our acquisition professionals and source selection team, who have been committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft program.''

The Boeing Company has filed a protest, as is their right under law, with the Government Accountability Office concerning the Air Force's award of this contract to Northrop Grumman. Further, as provided by law, the GAO will issue their decision within the next 100 days.

I now would like to provide some context and historical background to the ongoing discussion by reviewing the oversight process employed by Senate oversight committees beginning

with the original proposed tanker lease procurement.

Nearly 6 years ago, a $30 billion authorization provision, placed in the fiscal year 2002 Defense appropriations bill, provided the Air Force the authority to lease, not purchase, up to 100 767s from Boeing, a sole source contract, for use as aerial refueling tankers.

Authority to fund and execute this lease required approval of the 4 congressional committees of jurisdiction over defense programs. Three approved; but, the fourth, the Senate Armed Services Committee, disapproved.

Under Senate procedure, the chairman of the committees made the decision for their respective committees. As chairman of Armed Services at the time, I found fault with the proposed lease contract and after consultations with Members--in particular Senator McCain, who provided valuable oversight of the entire process--the committee declined to approve the proposal.

Additionally, consultations with outside experts had corroborated that procedures and provisions related to the lease contract required further oversight by Congress.

Following a full committee hearing on September 4, 2003, I directed the Department of Defense, by letter to investigate the Air Force's initial proposal and analyze alternatives that would meet the operational requirement.

Furthermore, in letters to the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Office of Management and Budget, among others, I directed that these other agencies provide assessments of the proposal.

These assessments, as well as further oversight conducted by both the Senate Armed Services and Commerce Committees, led Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz to order a ``pause'' in the execution of the proposed lease contract.

On December 2, 2003, I sent a letter to the Deputy Secretary to concur with the decision requiring a ``pause'' in execution, and stated further:

The Department of Defense Inspector General inquiry should

pursue the trail of evidence wherever it leads, in accordance

with standard IG procedures.

By February 2004, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld put a ``halt'' to the entire tanker lease process, pending the DOD inspector general report.

During the following 3 years, the investigative process uncovered evidence revealing serious, criminal breaches in the very process that Americans trust to provide their service members with the equipment necessary to defend our great Nation. In fact, these efforts resulted in jail sentences for senior persons from the Air Force and Boeing, and a settlement of $600 million that was paid to the U.S. Treasury.

The findings confirmed--the view of the Senate Armed Services Committee--that the Air Force's tanker lease proposal was faulty. Actions by the Congress allowed for the requisite time within which the executive branch could establish a free and fair competition. This ultimately resulted in a new proposed contract.

On December 1, 2006, Senator McCain, then chairman of the Airland Subcommittee, wrote a letter to Robert Gates, then the President's nominee to be Secretary of Defense. In his letter, Senator McCain encouraged Secretary Gates to ensure a fair and open competition by issuing a second draft request for proposals in an effort to make certain that there was no ambiguity in the competition process. As chairman of the committee, I concurred with his initiative, given I have been a very strong proponent of competition.

Since the announcement on February 29, 2008, by the Secretary of the Air Force with regard to the Department's acquisition decision, there has been, in my opinion, an injection of considerable misinformation in the public forum. Consequently, I believe I had an obligation to recite--and document--portions of the history relative to the debate.

I am particularly concerned about allegations that the proposed contract would adversely affect job opportunities in America, given parts of the aircraft would be manufactured abroad.

I draw on my experience as Under then as Secretary of the Navy, 1969- 74, when I solicited bids, for major procurements of fleets of new aircraft, from an American industrial base of many companies sized, financed, and experienced to compete.

For many reasons that base, comprised of numerous large domestic companies, has consolidated and narrowed, but America remains the preeminent provider for the vast majority of our military procurements. Today, we also rely on our global partners for a wide diversity of technologies and support in joint military procurements. A prime example is the Joint Strike Fighter procurement.

In closing, we must respect the right of Boeing to seek a review by the GAO as provided by law. It is my judgment that until the GAO acts and reports to Congress their findings; we should lower the emotional rhetoric, be accurate with the facts, and withhold judgment of the work done by a large dedicated group of uniformed and civilian acquisition specialists.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters be printed in the Record.