Floor Statements

Mr. President, tomorrow, after 9:15 a.m., the Senate will proceed to a cloture vote on the energy speculation bill. If cloture is not invoked, the Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur with respect to H.R. 3221, the housing reform legislation. Therefore, Senators should expect two rollcall votes beginning at around 9:15 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: Calendar No. 832, S. 2766, and S. 3298, introduced earlier today by Senator Murkowski.

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

Mr. President, all of us who go home and listen to our constituents each weekend know one thing and one thing only is on their mind these days; that is, the rising price of gas. I have made a habit of writing down what I pay each weekend when I fly out to Washington State, and when it hit $4 a month or so ago, I was aghast. Imagine what everyone filling their tank in Washington State is thinking now that the price in my home State is pushing $4.50 a gallon. We need action. We need action now.

For months, Democrats have been trying to address this problem by providing short-term relief along with a long-term strategy. For months, we have heard only two things from our friends on the other side of the aisle: No, and drill. Democrats know there is no silver bullet to this crisis. It is going to take a series of steps, both short term and long term, to bring some sanity back to the situation.

Today, we are going to vote on another of those short-term solutions, and we are going to try to end excessive speculation in the markets. Democrats believe we have to rein in Wall Street and our traders who are unfairly driving up these oil prices. With regard for nothing but their own profits, some traders are bidding up oil prices by buying huge quantities of oil just to resell it at an even higher price. For nearly 8 years now, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye and let these questionable practices continue with virtually no oversight. Some experts are saying this kind of trading now accounts for 20 to 30 percent of what we pay at the pump.

The Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, was on the floor earlier and asked for specific citations. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record remarks from a series of economists, such as Gerry Ramm of the Petroleum Marketers Association, the Acting Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the former Director of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and others.

Mr. President, the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act of 2008 that the Senate is going to move to proceed to will shine a light on those trading markets. It will increase oversight and reporting on oil trading, and it will significantly improve the resources available to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. While addressing speculation is not the silver bullet that will bring prices down at the pump, we do believe that by increasing our oversight and regulation, we will ensure that consumers are better protected in the months and years to come.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, our friends on the other side have their message down pretty pat now. They say no to any reasonable solutions we offer, and then they turn around and say we just need to drill more. We say fast-track our domestic production. They say no. We say increase the supply of oil now. They say no. We say accelerate investments in alternative energy to help break that addiction to oil. They say no. And now we say end excessive speculation. I hope they won't say no again.

Do they offer anything more than no? Well, yes. They say drill, drill, and drill--a plan that even their party's leaders said has mainly psychological benefits, a plan that even President Bush's own team says will not affect our oil prices, and a plan that will not produce a drop of oil for 7 to 10 years.

Unfortunately, their plan on that side is nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Cheney big oil love affair that got us into this mess in the first place. Republicans seem committed to fattening big oil's bottom line. Well, Democrats are more worried about your bottom line.

The oil companies made $250 billion last year. It is time for us to deal with consumer prices. We have tried to do things the Republican way for 8 years now and unfortunately what we hear from them today is more gimmicks and tired old ideas, the same status quo.

With record gas prices and our economy spiraling deeper into recession, Democrats think it is long past time for a bold new direction. We hope our Republican counterparts will join us today and move this bill forward.

I yield the floor.

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 but for the time to count against the 30 hours.

Mr. President, we have had a very important debate today about energy which I spoke about earlier today. I come to the Senate floor this afternoon to talk about another issue that is also important; that is, to raise awareness about one of the most heartbreaking and alarming consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the 5 years since we invaded Iraq, we have seen a disturbing increase in the number of young men and women who are returning home, struggling with the psychological impact of the war and then, sadly, take their own lives. About 1,000 war veterans who are being treated by the VA attempt suicide each month. It is a problem that is affecting many communities across the country.

Earlier this month, we lost a young man in my home State of Washington, just hours after he went to the VA in Spokane to ask for care. He was, in fact, the sixth veteran in that community to take his own life this year. Currently, the Spokane VA is investigating all of those cases. I have spoken to Secretary Peake, and he has assured me his team is on the ground taking a hard look to see what went wrong and what they can learn from that case. But while I appreciate the work Secretary Peake and the Spokane VA are doing, the fact is this is a serious problem across the country.

Every suicide is a tragedy. Those young men and women are someone's son or daughter, someone's best friend, possibly someone's spouse or even a parent. Our hearts go out to all of those families and their friends. These deaths are an urgent reminder that we have to keep our eye on the ball. We owe it to all of our servicemembers and veterans to demand that the VA and the Department of Defense make it a national priority to bring those numbers down.

I acknowledge that the VA is taking steps to reach out to our veterans and their families to let them know that help is available. This week, in fact, the VA is rolling out a public service campaign in Washington, DC. It is part of a 3-month-long pilot program, and the VA is going to be running a series of ads on TV, on buses and trains, and on the subway. Those ads are going to highlight the VA's 24-hour suicide prevention hotline. The number for that is 1-800-273-TALK. It will help assure our veterans it is OK to ask for help. I truly applaud the VA for that effort because it is a good step. We have to absolutely get the word out to veterans and their families. If this helps prevent one tragedy, then it is more than worth it.

I applaud the VA. I hope the Defense Department will also publicize that number among its Active-Duty troops so when they leave the service, they will already be aware of it. But this is only a step. An ad campaign is only as good as the resources that are there when our servicemembers call and ask for help.

If we truly are going to make a difference, we need a much bigger effort. We have to do more to reach out. We have to do more to break down the barriers to those seeking mental health care. We need to back up those efforts with enough resources and money to ensure that when a veteran goes into the hospital asking for help, the VA offers the best care possible.

While I applaud the idea of publicizing the suicide prevention hotline, I believe the military and the VA must reach out long before our young men and women pick up that phone and call for help. That is going to take creativity and leadership.

The VA and the Defense Department can't keep doing things the way they have always done them because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not like any we have fought before. Our All-Volunteer Force has been on the ground in these two countries for longer than we fought in World War II. Troops get very little downtime. Many of them are serving their third or fourth and sometimes fifth deployments. This is a stress that is taking a toll on everyone.

For many of them, it gets worse when they come home to the pressures of everyday life or financial strains or family problems. That is especially true for members of the National Guard and Reserves because, unlike Active-Duty troops who return from battle to go to a military base where there is a support network, many of our Guard and Reserve members go home right away to family pressures and to civilian jobs they need to start right away.

The military and the VA have to update their resources and outreach efforts to match the challenges our troops face when they return. That safety net has to be in place before they ever leave the military. That means we must have creative programs that help our servicemembers transition from that battlefield back to the home front. It means providing family and financial counseling to any servicemember who needs it, and it means developing a way for the military or the VA to follow up with our servicemembers, especially those who have already asked for help with psychological needs. We have to also encourage our servicemembers and veterans to seek care when they need it by breaking down the barriers that prevent them from asking for help.

The VA and the Defense Department have to take strong steps to change the military culture so that servicemembers no longer fear that seeking care will be viewed as some sign of weakness or one that could hurt their career. Even more important, servicemembers and veterans must be convinced if they ask for help, doctors and staff will take them seriously and provide the care they need.

I personally have heard too many tragic stories about veterans who have gone to the VA in distress, only to face a doctor who underestimated their symptoms and sent them home to an end in tragedy. When someone with a history of depression or PTSD or other psychological wounds walks into one of our VAs and says they are suicidal, it should set off alarm bells for everyone. We can't convince veterans or servicemembers to get care if they think they will be met with lectures and closed doors. That is simply unacceptable. At the very least, we have to ensure that staff at military and VA medical centers have the training to recognize and treat someone who is in real distress.

Finally, we have to provide the resources to back up all of these efforts, starting with making sure that the suicide prevention hotline is staffed with enough trained professionals to provide real help to someone in need. I hope that will be the case. Unfortunately, this administration has failed for 8 long years to make good on its promises and provide the resources for our veterans to carry them out. Time and

time again it has taken leaks and scandals to get the administration to own up to major problems at the VA--from inadequate budgets to rising suicide rates about which I am talking today. Its response to rising costs has been to underfund research and cut off services for some of our veterans. We have to do better than that. Servicemembers and veterans need more than an 800 number to call. They need psychiatrists and psychologists who understand the horrors of war and the stresses our troops feel.

We also have to make sure we have the facilities and systems set up to accommodate the troops who will be entering the VA system in the next decade. We have to fast-track research into the signature injuries of this war, such as traumatic brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder, so we understand how to diagnose and treat those conditions. We need to speed up efforts that will enable the DOD and VA to share records so that fewer servicemembers slip through the cracks as they transition from Active Duty to veteran status. Now is the time to invest in research and infrastructure. We cannot afford to wait.

Many of us are familiar with the story of Joseph Dwyer, a young Army medic, made famous in a photo taken during the first week of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. In that photo, we have seen Joseph running toward safety with an injured Iraqi child in his arms. It is an epic image of bravery and compassion.

When he came home, Joseph struggled to fit back into civilian life. He suffered from PTSD and, tragically, earlier this year, he died of what police are treating as an accidental drug overdose. That photo of Joseph Dwyer captured the incredible work our troops are doing every single day. But, sadly, Joseph's story is also now an example of what far too many veterans face when they come home. The photo of Joseph was taken during the first week of this war. Now, more than 5 years later, we ought to have the resources in place to treat the psychological wounds of war as well as we do the physical ones. But we don't.

I ask my colleagues to put themselves in the shoes of a parent or spouse who has lost a child, a husband or a wife, or someone they know to suicide. I want them to think of all the questions they might be asking. We might not be able to provide all the answers, but we should at least be able to say we are doing everything we can to address the problem.

We know there are many dedicated, hard-working VA employees who spend countless hours providing our vets with the best treatment possible. We also have to recognize the system is still unprepared today for the influx of veterans coming home. As I have told my colleagues before, a recent RAND study shows that one in four veterans is struggling with PTSD. It is the duty of the VA and of a grateful nation to be prepared to care for their unique wounds. In order to do that, we need strong leadership and attention to detail in Washington, DC, in Spokane, WA, and everywhere in between.

At the end of day, this is not about bureaucracy. It is not about protecting turf. It is about saving lives. I am glad the administration plans to increase its outreach. It is a pilot program. It is only a small step. We have to make this a national priority to address this tragedy.

The administration has to back up its efforts by reaching out to our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. We have to break down the barriers that prevent our servicemembers and veterans from seeking and getting mental health care, and we have to provide adequate resources.

No matter how anyone feels about this war, our troops are heroes. They have done everything we have asked of them--and more. It is time our commitment measured up to theirs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Will the majority leader yield?

As the majority leader knows, I travel home a long distance every week to Washington State and get in my car and drive for several hours to get to my home. I have been paying these increased gas prices like my constituents. It is shocking. Last weekend I paid $4.45 a gallon to fill up my tank in my car. This is impacting absolutely everybody in my State, my region, just as it is the rest of the Nation.

My constituents say to me: I have been hearing all this talk about drilling. Please tell me that will bring my gas prices down.

I have told my constituents, as we all know--in fact, not just me but the Bush administration's Energy Information Office, this is the Bush administration: The impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.'' I have not said that. This administration, the Bush administration's Energy Information Administration Office, has said that.

I say to my constituents, the drill, drill, drill or, as the Senator from North Dakota called it, ``the forever yesterday policy of drill, drill, drill,'' is not going to have a significant impact at all on their gas prices.

I thank the majority leader for coming forward with a package that we do believe will have an impact on gas prices and deal with the excessive speculation that is in the market today.

We met last week with a number of experts in this field. We have listened to our Republican counterparts as well who agree that speculation is an issue that we can all come together on and on which we can have an immediate impact in passing a bill.

I come to the Senate floor today to thank the majority leader and to ask him, as he puts this bill together, to deal with excessive speculation with the hope that it will, as the experts have told us, begin to reduce gas prices, that we as a caucus, and I hope as a Senate, will begin to look also at the longer term issues affecting energy and investing in alternative energy so we do not continue to be so dependent on oil.

I ask the majority leader his comments on that.

I say to the majority leader that the people of my State are a very generous people. If there were a real national crisis that we could solve from my home State by drilling off our coast, my constituents would be willing to sacrifice that. But we know that drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf will have a huge economic impact in my State with no result of reducing gas prices. So that is a sacrifice they

should not be asked to give at this time.

As a matter of fact, what I see happening is that the oil companies in this country that hold 68 million acres of land they can drill today, that they are not drilling, are just looking at this crisis we have today as a land grab, that they can reach out, scare all of us, and have this Congress give them more land, including the pristine shores off my State of Washington, never intending to use them.

I was on the Senate floor with Senator Biden yesterday as we discussed this issue. He made a very cogent argument. The fact that if we all decided this was it, this was it and we absolutely had to drill everything, and we gave the oil companies the Outer Continental Shelf off the coast of Washington and Oregon and California and his State of Delaware, that a minimal amount of oil in 20 or 30 years may be drilled, but who among us thinks that OPEC--which actually controls the price of gas--if a 3-percent increase in oil came about as an effect of that drilling, wouldn't reduce their capacity by 3 percent in order to keep their prices high and their profits at maximum level?

Let's not sell the American people a bill of goods. Let's not promise them something that cannot be delivered. No one wants to hear empty rhetoric or to give up something that is extremely important to them if the facts are not there to back it and only, by the way, to give oil companies more excessive profits.

Let's do something that is real--and that is what the bill the majority leader and others have introduced does--to deal with the issue of excessive speculation; to do what many experts have told us to bring the price of gas down. Then, for the long term, we, as a body, have to say: What are we going to invest in in this country for the long-term future so we are not so dependent on oil, so that the next generation behind us doesn't come back and hear yesterday forever, drill, drill, drill, as Senator Dorgan has said time and time again is the solution that doesn't work.

We need to get off our dependence on oil. We need to do that in the long run. But in the short term let's deal with the speculation issue and let's pass responsible legislation in a bipartisan way, not as a silver bullet. No one thinks that is the ultimate answer to bring gas prices to what they were a year ago, but it is a step in the right direction. It is a responsible step to meet the important crisis that we face today, coupled with looking at what we will do long term.

The Senator from North Dakota has been a leader on this issue. I know he is the chair on the Energy appropriations bill, where he is looking at the investments we can make in alternative energy so we can get off of the same argument of yesterday forever and really begin to be responsible leaders at a critical time in our Nation's history.

It is so easy to come out here and say drill on the Outer Continental Shelf. But I will tell you, in a State such as mine, Washington State, that has an economy that is dependent upon our waters, whether it is our fisheries or our environment or tourism but a place that our Nation should say is absolutely one of critical importance--not just my coast but the rest of the coastal States--we should not jeopardize it to get nothing--to get nothing because, as the Bush administration itself said: The impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, the Atlantic, and the gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.''

Let's focus on doing something that is responsible, that is not just empty rhetoric, that obviously is not a silver bullet to the energy crisis in total but is sincerely a step in the right direction.

I am proud to join my colleague as we move this legislation forward. I look forward to working, I hope, with Members on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this critical piece of legislation.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to raise a very important concern. As all of my colleagues are aware, our Nation's aerial refueling tanker fleet is aging and badly in need of repair and replacement. We are in the process of selecting a new plane right now that can serve our military for 40 years or even more. Those tankers are the backbone of our global military. They are stationed today throughout the world, and they refuel aircraft from every branch of the Armed Forces. I think everyone would agree, especially in a time of war, that as we work to replace that fleet, there is nothing more important than buying the best planes for our men and women and for our taxpayers.

Last month, in its decision sustaining Boeing's protest of the competition, the Government Accountability Office found that the Air Force made significant errors when it evaluated the bids by Boeing and the European company Airbus. The GAO found that the competition was skewed toward Airbus even though Airbus failed to meet even basic requirements of that contract.

I was pleased last week when the Pentagon announced that it would rebid the contest and take over the selection process. I had hoped it would ensure that we finally hold a fair and transparent competition and get this contract right. But instead of a fair do-over, I am concerned that it appears

that the Pentagon may be planning to change the rules to benefit the already chosen winner--Airbus--by awarding greater benefits to a bigger plane. That would be shocking, given the significant number of flaws found by the GAO and how important this competition is to our servicemembers. Changing the rules of the game in overtime to benefit Airbus is not the kind of transparency the American taxpayer is looking for now in this process. So I wish to spend a few moments this morning explaining why this is the wrong decision for our servicemembers and for our taxpayers, and I wish to begin by reminding my colleagues of the GAO findings.

The GAO's decision was damning. It left no doubt that the Pentagon should start over and rebid the competition. The GAO found eight separate errors, and it described the competition as ``unreasonable, improper, and misleading.''

Among its findings was that the Air Force changed direction about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities it did not even ask for. And the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though it could not meet two of the key contract requirements.

Airbus, first of all, refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force repeatedly asked for it. Secondly, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could even refuel all of the military's aircraft, according to procedure.

Some of my colleagues have tried to downplay the GAO's ruling. They say the GAO upheld 8 points of protest, not 25, not 100, so the results were somehow less significant. I think they ought to go back and read the GAO's report one more time because the list speaks for itself. The GAO found fundamental problems, including that the Air Force could not even prove the Airbus plane could actually refuel all of our aircraft by the books, and it determined that but for those errors, Boeing could have won.

As Daniel Gordon, the Deputy General Counsel for the GAO said last week when he was asked about this issue before the House Armed Services Committee, he said:

We don't focus on this being seven out of 100. We focus on

the seven that we found that caused us to sustain the

protest.

I remind my colleagues about the GAO findings because after reading the decision, the next step should be obvious. The Pentagon should return to the original request for proposals and start this competition over. But instead, officials say they plan to change the criteria in order to benefit a larger airplane, and that is my first concern. When the right course for the Pentagon to take is so clear, I have to ask why in the world would it change the rules now, unless the Defense Department is hoping to skew the competition in favor of Airbus yet again.

My colleagues will remember that compared to Boeing 767, Airbus's A330 plane is massive. Clearly giving greater benefit to a larger plane in the middle of the game would only help Airbus at Boeing's expense, and that would be blatantly unfair. Why should the Pentagon give extra credit only to Airbus? The Air Force itself found that the Boeing tanker was more survivable or better able to keep the warfighters safe. That is a clear advantage, and I think most Americans would agree that giving our air men and women the safest plane should count for more.

I don't just object because the Pentagon's new criteria could unfairly skew this new competition. I am also very concerned that the Pentagon has lost sight of why it needs these tankers. It appears to me that by changing the rules in favor of a larger tanker, the Defense Department is pushing the military further and further away from the goals it had when it started this whole replacement process.

I am not the only one who is raising this issue. Retired Air Force GEN John Handy, who is a former leader of the Transportation and Air Mobility Commands, pointed out in a recent article that the Air Force originally asked for a midsized tanker in its RFP because that is what the military needs to carry out its mission. The Air Force, by the way, already has a larger tanker, the KC-10, which has its own role in the Air Force.

Midsized tankers are the Air Force's multitaskers. They are designed to respond to needs all over the world at a moment's notice. They have to be able to use our current hangars, our ramps, and our runways, and they must be flexible enough to allow our warfighters to refuel aircraft during combat or to haul freight and passengers and return home safely.

General Handy is one of the many experts and observers who has questioned what the Air Force was thinking when it selected the larger Airbus tanker in the first competition because compared to the 767, the A330 simply could not do the job as well.

I, too, have asked repeatedly for the Defense Department to justify that decision, and I have yet to receive any clear-cut answers--not from the White House, not from the Pentagon, and not from the Air Force. But I think General Handy has identified one possible reason. As he put it:

Somewhere along this acquisition process, it is obvious to

me that someone lost sight of the requirement.

Unfortunately, it is our servicemembers and our taxpayers who are going to end up paying the price.

The Defense Department's decision is not yet set in stone. It has not yet officially reopened this competition. The Pentagon still can make the decision to go back to the original RFP and run a fair contest, and it can ensure that our servicemembers get the best tanker possible, one that will allow them to do their jobs and get home safely.

I come to the floor today to urge the Pentagon to rethink the decision to change the selection criteria. For the sake of our servicemembers, for the sake of our taxpayers, I hope they do the right thing--start this competition over using the original RFP, and get these planes into the field where they are desperately needed.

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

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

Madam President, how much time remains on our side in morning business?

Madam President, I have come to the floor this morning to comment on the press conference that President Bush had just moments ago where he renewed his call for more oil drilling, saying that more drilling is the answer to spiraling prices.

I have to tell you, unfortunately for all of us who are suffering from these out-of-control prices at the pump, what I hear is the President coming out and talking real tough but offering no solutions to the real crisis in front of us.

Americans are hurting today. In my home State of Washington, we are paying $4.45 a gallon. But I cannot go home and tell my constituents that we are going to go drill off the coast of Washington State and lower their prices at the gas pump. That is not true. In fact, the President's own Department of Energy says to us that lifting the moratorium is not going to have an impact until 2030. Even then, in 2030, there is no guarantee that drilling more oil off the coast of my State or any other will solve this gas price problem in 2030.

The President says he wants to open more land for drilling to increase production. What he doesn't say is that the oil companies right now today hold 68 million acres of land, both onshore and offshore, that they could, if they wanted to, drill today.

Let me say that again. While the President wants to hand out more leases, he wants all of us to come out here and hand more leases to the oil companies, they are already sitting on 68 million acres of Federal land doing nothing to explore and produce oil on those leases. Why? Because if they put more oil out there today, prices will drop, and they are doing pretty darn good today.

I don't think we should be surprised. I don't think we should be surprised at this at all. These are the same oil companies that are making record profits, billions and billions each year, as a direct result of increasing oil and gas prices. It is no surprise they are telling us: More drilling, give us more to drill, give us more to drill, and making empty promises of lowering gas prices when that simply is not true.

Given that there are two oil men in the White House today, I don't think any of us should be surprised. I don't think any of us should be surprised that millions of barrels of oil the oil companies pull from American soil today never enter the market. It is sold, by the way, not to the United States but to markets in China and overseas. So telling us this will lower our gas prices, to me, seems pretty out of touch when we know that if we were to come out here and allow them to drill more in the areas off our coast, having a huge impact on our fishing industries and our tourism industries and other important industries in the State today, that we would never see that oil even if we allowed them to drill it because it would be sold to markets overseas. There is no requirement that it would come here to the United States anyway.

Families in my home State of Washington and across this country are pretty sick and tired of paying higher and higher prices at the pump. It is certainly impacting the economy of every small business, every family, every community. Those people deserve real solutions. They deserve solutions that are going to offer stability and controlled prices. What we are hearing from the President today is just going to give them more of the same: empty promises and failed policies.

Over the past week or so, I have heard the Republicans saying: Find more, use less. That sounds pretty good to me, but I have a good solution to that. Have the companies find that ``more oil'' in the 68 million acres they currently hold by drilling today. Then let's invest in ``using less'' by passing the energy tax credits that Republicans have filibustered, by the way, time and time again on this floor. I think it is long past time that those new investments are made in renewable energy and fast-tracking alternative energy technology so we don't continually come out here and fall into this drill, drill, drill debate that sends empty promises to people who really are hurting today.

I think we should have a policy that really works. I think we ought to look for solutions on this floor in ways that provide real solutions. But just getting into a debate that sends empty promises and listening to a President in the White House say give the oil companies lots more to drill and sending an empty promise to my home State of Washington and across this Nation, to me, is pandering at its worst.

I will be happy to yield.

The Senator from Delaware raises a good point. Of course he hasn't gotten that kind of commitment from the OPEC countries. Of course he has not. They are focused on a profit, as they are doing quite well today.

The Senator is right. If we were to go ahead and use this moment in our history when we have some big decisions to make to just say: Oh, we will drill more, there is absolutely no guarantee that OPEC will not control that supply.

I remind the Senator, if we were to do that, that oil would not come to America where our constituents would be able to use it.

So it goes there today.

I thank my friend from Delaware for joining me. We have been listening to this debate now. The President weighed in from his podium this morning. Much as we would like to hand our constituents tomorrow morning a lower gas price, we in this Senate have to be realistic about today, tomorrow, and far into the future. Even the Energy Administration Agency has said the impact on wellhead prices from opening the Pacific, Atlantic, and gulf waters to drilling ``is expected to be insignificant.''

Let's not, here on the Senate floor, talk about empty promises to our constituents at a time when they are really hurting. Let's take this opportunity

and time to make long-term investments that put our country on a path to being less dependent on oil. Those are the right investments that we ought to be making. Yes, they are hard. Yes, they are difficult. Yes, they are challenging. It is not easy to come up with compromises on them when we are all from very different parts of the Nation. But let's not just sell a bill of goods to the Nation when we are hurting.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself 7 minutes to speak on the vote that will occur at 6 o'clock this evening.

Mr. President, 43 years ago, we created Medicare because this country recognized that no American should go without health care, especially once they reach retirement age.

As President Johnson was signing the Medicare bill into law, he praised Congress for its ability to ``see beyond words to the people that they touch,'' to put politics aside, and to create legislation that truly transforms society.

Well, today President Bush failed to heed those words, to see beyond politics and think of the seniors who have spent their lives paying into the Medicare system, and the doctors who treat them. Instead, he told millions of struggling American seniors, and military families as well, that he simply did not care. He vetoed a bill that would make vital improvements to the program that has helped ensure that millions of seniors and the disabled can get the care they need.

One of the most important provisions of that bill would have postponed a 10.6-percent reimbursement payment cut for doctors. That was a cut that would have forced many of our doctors across this country to stop seeing Medicare patients and would severely limit their access to health care. I believe the President was wrong to veto that bill.

Today, we can stand up for Medicare. We did it last week when we came together and voted for this bill by a veto-proof margin, and I believe we can do it today by overriding that veto. So I hope we can come together on the floor of the Senate today and override the President's veto and make sure that 44.1 million seniors who are enrolled in Medicare, as well as all the military families who rely on TRICARE, will continue to have access to health care.

We have spent a lot of time in the Senate debating this. My colleagues have thoroughly explained the improvements this legislation would make, but I wish to speak for a few minutes this evening on some of the provisions that illustrate why it is so important to take this vote tonight and override the veto.

First of all, many of our rural communities in Washington State and across the country are struggling today to provide health care services. This bill will help them strengthen their health care networks and extend the services that are available.

Importantly, this bill puts an emphasis on preventive care that will help our seniors stay healthy, and it will help to keep costs down by enabling those patients to get care before they get seriously ill. This bill will improve coverage for low-income seniors who need expert help to afford basic care. It will help make sure our seniors get mental health care. Currently, the copays for mental health care are 30 percent higher than those for physical care. The legislation we are about to vote on and override the President's veto, if it is passed, will treat mental and physical health care the same. Also, importantly, as we have talked about, this bill will block the cut in reimbursements for providing Medicare services. It will block that cut and ensure that doctors can afford, again, to take Medicare patients.

All the improvements I talked about are important, but it is critical we take action as soon as possible to ensure that the cut in payments to doctors does not go into effect. No doctor should have to choose between staying in business and taking care of their patients, but if we don't override this veto, that is exactly what will happen; our seniors and disabled will end up paying the price.

Cuts in payments would mean seniors will face longer drives in order to find doctors, they will see closed doors, and they will see fewer choices, even though they have spent their lives paying into this Medicare system. Out in our rural communities, the problem, I know, would be even worse because out there we already face a shortage of doctors and nurses and health care providers.

Finally, this cut would limit access to health care for our military retirees and our servicemembers at a time when we see many of our troops returning home from war. TRICARE uses the Medicare formula to pay their doctors, too, and doctors have said those lower reimbursements would force them to drop TRICARE patients. I think we can all agree this country cannot afford to jeopardize the health care for our servicemembers, especially during a time of war.

So this country took a huge step forward when we created Medicare back in 1965--when we agreed as a nation that all seniors should have access to health care services. We cannot afford, at this critical time, to let our country take a step backward. We have the opportunity this evening to do the right thing. Let's support our seniors, let's support our military families, let's stand together and override the President's veto and keep our commitment to the people who depend on us.

I yield the floor.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Banking Committee, and thank him for his leadership on this legislation. As the chairman knows, I have been a long-time advocate of our Nation's job training programs as an effective tool to help people get the skills they need to secure family-wage jobs, improve their quality of life, and keep our communities healthy and competitive. In fact, I believe that giving workers the opportunity to grow their skills is one of the critical elements of our Nation's economic security. That's why I fought for the passage of the Workforce Investment Act in 1998 and will continue to push for its reauthorization and increased funding levels for its job training programs. Workforce boards around the country, including those in my home State of Washington, administer great job training programs that help millions of Americans get off unemployment rolls or out of low-paying, dead-end jobs.

I think the program that my colleague described sounds like an initiative that is certainly worth study. Indeed, any ideas that could help even more people avoid the economic turmoil and emotional hardship foreclosures cause for themselves and their families should be considered.

I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his question. We believe now, as we did when we passed the act into law, that for training to benefit working families and their communities, it must respond to the skills needs of thriving industries that lead to family- wage jobs. An example of this is the green jobs sector. Innovative States, such as my own State of Washington, are leading the expansion of career opportunities in the green economy, making sure that opportunities are readily available for workers to acquire the skills to qualify for these good jobs. In fact, Washington State set a new goal to increase the number of clean energy jobs to 25,000 in the next 12 years and committed to finance the necessary training. Innovative workforce boards across the country increasingly are providing training for green collar jobs that will be critical in meeting the demands of a low-carbon economy and providing workers with quality jobs. And Congress also is taking action. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, I supported the recent passage the Labor/Health and Human Services bill; we reported that a greater training investment needs to be made in areas such as renewable electric power, biofuels, energy-efficiency assessment and environmentally sustainable manufacturing and directed the Secretary of Labor to competitively award community based job training grants in these areas. All of these programs will be instrumental in developing the skilled domestic workforce necessary to maintain our Nation's competitive edge.

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

Madam President, 3 weeks ago, the Government Accountability Office issued a blistering decision about the Air Force's handling of one of the most important defense contracts in our history. The GAO found that in the competition between Boeing and the European company Airbus to replace our military's aerial refueling tankers, the contest was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning. It said that but for the Air Force's prejudice, Boeing would have had a substantial chance of winning.

The GAO was clear and emphatic that the Pentagon should reopen the contract, get new proposals, and correct those errors. I rise today, because yesterday Defense Secretary Gates announced that he would follow the GAO recommendations and rebid that contract. I am very pleased that he says he is committed to a swift decision. But I have also been a close observer of the Pentagon's decisionmaking process for many years now, and I know the devil is always in the detail.

We do not know yet many of the details of this latest decision, and unfortunately I am already skeptical about whether the Pentagon is on track to get this right. The Defense Department has a high hurdle to clear in order to ensure this competition is fair and is transparent.

As I said earlier, the GAO raised serious questions about the Air Force's previous decision, and it described the competition as unreasonable, improper, and misleading. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about what criteria were more important. It didn't give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane, according to the Air Force's description of what it wanted, yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities it didn't ask for. It said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. And when that mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus tanker actually costs tens of millions of dollars more than Boeing's.

The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposal even though Airbus couldn't meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to commit to providing long-term maintenance, as specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not prove that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure.

Those are very serious findings. It is still unclear whether the errors were due to incompetence or impropriety, but the result was that the military chose a plane that didn't meet the fundamental requirements that were set out in their own RFP. That cannot happen again. The Defense Department must do everything it can do to ensure that this competition is fair and transparent.

That means the Pentagon must go back to the original request for proposals. It must ensure that both of the companies get the same information throughout the entire competition. It must prove the tanker it selects can actually perform all of the missions that are required by the military. It must do a full accounting of all of the life cycle costs of flying and operating both planes. And it has to ensure that the companies can only earn credit as it was spelled out in the original RFP.

That last point is extremely important. In its decision last month, the GAO said the request for proposals was crystal clear about what kind of tanker the Air Force needed. Yet I have already heard that the Defense Department plans to reevaluate the life cycle costs of both tankers using a 25-year lifespan instead of a more accurate 40 years. It wants to revise the RFP to give greater benefit to a larger plane, even if that means the tanker it buys is not capable of meeting its own mission. That fundamentally changes the rules of the procurement and is not what is in the original RFP.

I am very concerned about both of these proposals. Changing the rules of the game when we are in overtime is simply going to result in a repeat of the last contest--an unfair result, more protests, and more delays. I look forward to hearing a thorough explanation from the Defense Department about how it is going to carry out this new competition and how it is going to ensure that this contract is finally fair.

Finally, I agree with Secretary Gates that it is vitally important that we move quickly to finish this contract. Air men and women who fly out of Fairchild Air Force Base, in my home State of Washington, fly these tankers.

I know they need these planes. They need them now. But we also have to do this the right way. We have to have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence. If we don't, we risk another challenge that is going to draw out this procurement process even further.

Even more importantly, we have got to get the right plane. Our aerial refueling tankers--the ones we are talking about with this contract-- are the backbone of our global military strength. They are stationed today across the world, and they refuel aircraft from every branch of our Armed Forces. Before our taxpayers spend $35 billion, they deserve to know the planes we are buying can actually refuel our military's aircraft. Our service members deserve to know they are getting a plane that will enable them to do their jobs and return home swiftly.

I welcome Secretary Gates' announcement yesterday that this contract is going to be rebid, but I remind all of my colleagues--those of us who have watched this procurement process for many years now--to follow the bouncing ball and see where it leads. We are going to follow this carefully. It needs to be rebid with the original RFP, not changed in overtime, to make sure this is a fair contract that results quickly in making sure our air men and women get the right aircraft as quickly as we can possibly bring it to them.

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

Mr. President, will the Senator from Illinois yield for a question?

I appreciate the Senator yielding. I have been listening over the last hour, as we have heard our colleagues from the other side come and excoriate us for not allowing them to bring a bill to the floor on energy and assailing the Senators on this side for prohibiting them from doing that.

That was astonishing to me because, as the Senator from Illinois knows, I have been coming to the Senate week after week and saying how much I pay for gas when I go home. It is now up to $4.45 a gallon that I paid last Sunday. I have been a part of this majority that has tried to bring a bill to the floor to deal with renewable energy, to try to deal with the issue of speculation, and to try to deal with a number of issues. How many times now have we been blocked from bringing an energy bill to the floor to deal with these gas prices?

Well, Mr. President, if the Senator will once again yield, didn't we do a bill several years ago to actually add 8 million acres to that, to allow more drilling?

Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to yield, if I am not incorrect, I believe that 68 million doesn't include the additional millions of acres off the shore of Alaska that they also are allowed to drill in and that they currently aren't drilling in.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois for coming and highlighting the number of times we have tried to bring a bill to the floor to deal with the very critical energy crisis that is in front of us. There is no doubt this is harming Americans today. For our friends at home and for all of us, when we have to pay $4.45 a gallon, as I did last weekend, that means we will not have as much money to spend on other things. We are hearing about people who are cutting back at the grocery stores, not being able to even go to work because they cannot afford the price to put the fuel into their car to be able to go to work. This has a huge impact. It has an impact on our schools and our communities, that are trying to get their schoolbuses ready for the fall and wondering how they are ever going to be able to budget for that. It is affecting our truckdrivers in tremendous ways as they try to get their goods to market. It is affecting every single American family, every single business, every single community, every single government agency.

It is an issue that we on this side of the aisle believe we have a responsibility to address. We have tried to bring a bill to the floor, not once, not twice, but three times, and have faced a filibuster from the other side.

We are going to keep working and keep trying to get to a point where we can finally address this. I think all of us recognize there are two oil men in the White House and it is going to take an election for us to get to the long-term issues we need to address in this

Nation. But there are things we can do today. We want to do them today. As Democrats we are going to keep working because America deserves it.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes and that the time be counted against the bill.

Mr. President, 4 months ago when the Air Force announced that Airbus, not Boeing, would supply the next generation of aerial refueling tankers, Air Force acquisition officials declared that the contest had been fair, open, and transparent. They said they made no mistakes, and they boasted that the decision could withstand any level of scrutiny.

The Government Accountability Office called all of that into question in a 67-page decision that shows the Air Force competition was unfairly skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning.

The decision, responding to Boeing's protest of the Air Force competition, was damning. The GAO described the contest as ``unreasonable,'' ``improper,'' and ``misleading.'' It found that the Air Force significantly overestimated the cost of the Boeing tanker, that it misled Boeing while helping Airbus, and that the Air Force selected Airbus even though the company failed to meet key requirements of the contract. It concluded that:

But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had

a substantial chance of being selected for the award.

It is unclear at this point whether those errors were due to incompetence or to impropriety. But one thing is definite: This contest was anything but fair or transparent.

I want to know how the Air Force got this so wrong. I have already asked for a meeting with Defense Secretary Gates so he can tell me how the Pentagon plans to respond. I will make it clear that the Air Force cannot go forward with this contract and that I expect it to follow the GAO's recommendations. The Air Force must return to the original request for the proposal, rebid the contract, and get this right.

The difference between what the Air Force said about the acquisition process and the GAO's findings are startling.

On February 29, Sue Payton, who is the Air Force's Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, said at a DOD news briefing:

We have been extremely open and transparent. We have had a

very thorough review of what we're doing. We've got it

nailed.

A week later, she told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense:

The Air Force followed a carefully structured source

selection process, designed to provide transparency, maintain

integrity, and ensure a fair competition.

And throughout the last 4 months, Air Force officials have insisted that they selected the cheapest plane that best met their criteria and that they made no mistakes.

The GAO's decision paints a very different picture of the contest and, as I said, it raises serious questions about how the Air Force conducted this competition. The GAO found the Air Force made a number of errors that unfairly helped Airbus and hurt Boeing. The GAO found that the Air Force changed direction midstream about which criteria were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more capable plane according to the Air Force description of what it wanted. Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities for which it did not even ask.

The GAO found that the Air Force ``treated the firms unequally'' by helping Airbus at Boeing's expense. The GAO found that the Air Force misled Boeing about whether it had fully met the requirements in the RFP, all the while keeping up conversations with Airbus and giving it the correct information.

The GAO said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased Boeing's estimated costs. When the mistake was corrected, it was discovered that the Airbus A330 actually cost tens of millions of dollars more than the Boeing 767. The GAO said the Air Force accepted Airbus's proposals, even though Airbus could not meet two key contract requirements. First, Airbus refused to provide long-term maintenance, as was specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not provide that Airbus could refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure.

Let me say that again. The Air Force selected the Airbus A330 even though Airbus refused to agree to a key term in the contract and even though the Air Force failed to show that the A330 was even capable of refueling our military's aircraft by the books.

These are serious findings. No matter how one looks at it, this competition was anything but transparent. Even though the Air Force declared its contest was fair, it appears it had its thumb on the scales for Airbus all along.

But the last findings could be the most damaging of all of them. If Airbus cannot actually prove its tanker can do the job or that it will fulfill its obligations, how can it possibly be awarded that contract?

Today the Air Force is contemplating what to do next. As I said, I think the answer is clear. This contract should be rebid. I agree with those who have said we need to get these planes into the hands of our air men and women as fast as possible. I represent Fairchild Air Force Base in Washington State. Those air men and women fly those refueling tankers. I know how important this decision is to them.

This was not an acceptable acquisition process, and it would be unconscionable to go forward with this selection without first addressing the questions that were raised by the GAO's decision. In order to do that, we must have a competition that is not overshadowed by questions of ethics or competence, and we have to get the right plane.

These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from every single branch of our military. They are the backbone of our global military strength. We need a competition where the criteria are clear, where the participants can earn credit that is spelled out in the contract and there is no extra credit that is awarded unfairly, and we need a fair evaluation of all the costs.

We need to go back and start with a clean slate, hold a truly transparent competition that does our air men and women justice. That is what our American taxpayers expect, and our American servicemembers deserve nothing less.

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

``Mr. President, let us vote for the 49th star in the flag.'' Those were the words from the great Senator from the State of Washington, Warren Magnuson, spoken on this floor in 1958, just before this body finally agreed to make Alaska one of the United States.

Today, I am very pleased to join our colleagues from the north in Alaska to say a warm congratulations to the people of Alaska on this 50th anniversary of their statehood. Alaska's statehood, as you heard, was controversial a half century ago. But I think time has proven that the United States is a greater Nation thanks to the Land of the Midnight Sun.

As Senator Murkowski has said, Washington State's Senators, Warren Magnuson and Henry Jackson, were some of Alaska's greatest friends. Their advocacy helped to sway this Senate that Alaskans were ready to join the Union. Today I want to give you a flavor of that debate at the time and their role in it.

Back in 1958, Alaska's statehood had already been an issue for 42 years, and legislation to make it a State had been introduced in every Congress since 1943.

As Senator Jackson said in one speech that led up to that final vote that Congress had held 11 hearings, two of them in Alaska, and others here in Washington, DC. And more than 4,000 pages of testimony had been published.

``It was time to put the issue to rest,'' he argued, and I quote:

There can be no doubt that the record is complete. Our

objective is statehood. It can be achieved now.

Those were the words of Senator Jackson back then. And as the debate continued, Senators Magnuson and Jackson were confident that Alaska was ready.

Senator Magnuson argued that with 180,000 citizens, Alaska had more residents than Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Nevada, Idaho, and 21 other States when they were admitted into the Union. He pointed out to this body that Alaska was strategically located between the United States and the Soviet Union and that it was home to two important military bases at the time right when the Cold War was escalating.

He dismissed the argument that Alaska could not support itself as a State because that argument had not held up when it was used for his own State of Washington.

He said:

Alaskans feel confident that they can lick this problem as

they have met and solved others. I say, we should give them

that opportunity.

So in Senator Magnuson's mind, the controversy was very similar to a family argument about whether a child was ready to leave home. He said:

These United States, like fearful parents, can waver

further in indecision, and allow our lack of confidence to

undermine Alaskans and say, ``You will be ready for statehood

someday, but not now.'' Or we can be proud of Alaskans'

determination to strike out for their true independence

through their own real self government.

``The United States should follow through the second course,'' Magnuson said.

He said:

The territory feels entitled to sit and deliberate with

us--be one of us. Alaska wants to work out her own future,

just as each of the other 48 partners in our nation have been

allowed to do. Alaska's hopes, aspirations, and quiet self-

confidence are understandable. She knows that her resources,

her people, and their combined potential spell a brilliant

future.

Alaska has sat impatiently in the anteroom of history for

42 years. Alaska should be a State.

I am very proud of the role Washington's two Senators played in this debate at the time. Alaska's road to statehood was long and it was hard. But Alaskans are some of the toughest people around. They fought for their rights. They did not give up. And they prevailed.

So as they celebrate across their State I wish them a happy and a successful future. I want to close by once more quoting Senator Magnuson's words to the people of Alaska.

He said:

We approve and commend your vision, understand and believe

your hopes, know that your mission and goal can and will be

reached, so good luck and godspeed.