Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee for their courtesy this morning. I will take a few moments to clear up some of the debate last evening. I would very much have liked to have…
Mr. President, I thank both the chairman and the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee for their courtesy this morning.
I will take a few moments to clear up some of the debate last evening. I would very much have liked to have had a vote on the Lindsey amendment, but I understand how those things happen. I hope we can move forward.
I will address three main issues we left hanging last night. No. 1 is the
proper classification of the wastesites in Hanford in Washington, the Idaho site, and also Savannah River in South Carolina. This program that has been put in place is a waste and incidental reprocessing commonly referred to as WIR in this debate.
First of all, I compliment Jesse Roberson with the Department of Energy. She was instrumental in getting Rocky Flats cleared up ahead of time. We are a little bit ahead of schedule. We are under budget. We have a huge savings in Rocky Flats because of a plan she put in place to accelerate cleanup, as much as $10 billion savings over time because of her plan she helped put in place, consulting with a lot of people in Rocky Flats. She had the capability of working with local elected officials, the employees, and with the congressional delegation to get things like that to happen.
Obviously, everyone--the employees, the local leaders from those communities around Rocky Flats--played a role, but she was the focal point that made all that come together. She is the one who has been working on this issue to enhance and speed up cleanup on these particular nuclear sites. They create some very special problems, very difficult problems. I commend her for being willing to think outside the box and for the tremendous leadership she has shown in that regard.
I will talk a little bit about the classification of waste, then about the fact that we did have hearings, then also about how we have reached out. The proper disposal plan is to leave things in place there at Hanford and Idaho, for example.
Here is the issue as I see it, regarding proper classification. We can get all tied up in terminology, but the point is, what happens to the level of radiation? All these wastes are based on the amount of nuclear radiation. The fact is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rating is as low-level waste. This is based on good, scientific evidence.
DOE is relying on three key points in classifying the residue as low- level waste. The first point is DOE has removed the vast bulk of the mobile radionuclides that were originally in the tanks; No. 2, that it has solidified and stabilized the remaining radionuclides by using a grout that chemically binds them so as to further limit their mobility; and No. 3, that the stabilized residues meet performance standards specified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for disposal of low- level waste.
DOE performance assessment shows the residue will produce an annual dose of radioactivity below the Environmental Protection Agency drinking water standard and well below what a person gets from a standard X-ray machine when you go into the doctor's office and get an X-ray, and that the radioactive dose to an inadvertent intruder will be minimal. Therefore, the residues meet the NRC's low-level waste standards.
None of this relies on dilution of the residues but, rather, it relies on classifying the stabilized residues in accordance with the risks they present in a manner consistent with the NRC performance standards which the NRC has specifically identified as the key consideration in classifying this waste.
The Department of Energy has been very responsible in what they have been doing. I am very disappointed the court decision has upset this. Prior to the court decision, it has been my understanding, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, and the State of North Carolina all agreed on a plan with the DOE for the waste and incidental reprocessing plan. The court case gets filed, they file a friend-of-the-court brief, and everything begins to fall apart.
Initially, the State of Washington, the State of Idaho, under RCRA, were working with the Department of Energy, and nationally under the Clean Water Act, the State of South Carolina was working with DOE. Now the State of South Carolina is ready to move forward. The other two States feel they cannot move forward on this issue. I think it is terrible we would tie up their plans because of problems we have in the other two States. We have to work out something that is fair. We do need to work out something that is fair to all the States.
The Senator from Washington wants to completely demolish these tanks and move them out. What she did not talk about is the risk of going down into those tanks and cleaning them out before you demolish them. As a worker, I am not sure I want to go down there. I think that is a safety hazard beyond comprehension. I do not think anybody is thinking about these aspects of it.
I think what the Department of Energy has come out with, with the grout, is going to immediately seal the leaking tanks so we are not going to have any more pollution. If things don't continue, they are going to continue to pour into the Columbia River in Washington. So I think they have come up with a commonsense solution.
We have had two public hearings in the committee. I have the transcript here. We had one public hearing on February, 25, 2004, and we had the other public hearing on March 23, 2004. We talked about the WIR issue and how to best resolve it.
I would also point out for my colleagues, there has been built at Hanford a low-level waste disposal area. So this is not new, leaving low-level waste in Hanford. I think we need to move forward in a very practical way.
I will have more to say about this when we get back into debate on the armed services bill and we have the Lindsey Graham amendment before us again. These are a few things I wanted to begin to address this morning.
Mr. President, I yield floor.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
I ask to speak as in morning business for the purpose of my remarks only and then return to regular business.
Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about the remarkable record of leadership and achievement we have seen from this administration over the past 3 years in keeping America prosperous, safe, and secure. During this time our Nation and our President have confronted a series of crises and challenges that I believe are unmatched during any administration in recent history. Whether the challenge has been to our economic, social, or national security, President Bush has demonstrated courage, vision, and decisiveness in addressing these threats and challenges.
At the outset of his term in office the President faced a significant threat to our economic security requiring immediate action. On January 20, 2001, the day President Bush was sworn into office, our economy was several months into a recession, what I call the ``Clinton recession.'' Later, over the next few months, America faced extraordinary adversity from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. This devastating event, combined with the unprecedented crises in corporate governance and accountability, demanded action on numerous levels. The President acted swiftly and decisively by securing from the Congress a series of tax cuts to stimulate business investment, preserve consumer confidence, and expand today's economic recovery into lasting prosperity for all Americans.
The President's actions averted disaster. We experienced one of the shortest and shallowest recessions of modern American history. By all accounts, the economy is on very solid footing now because of the President's actions.
For example, today we see 10 consecutive quarters of strong economic growth relative to gross domestic product. In fact, our economy averaged an annualized 5.5 percent growth over the last 3 quarters, the strongest three-quarter performance in 20 years. Manufacturing activity is rebounding. Since this time last year, the United States has led all major economies of the world with the highest manufacturing output expansion. This is in addition to our service economy, which also continues to outperform every other service economy around the globe. Recent corporate earnings reports are bullish, and investor confidence is rebounding, reflected by the 35 to 50 percent gains in major market indices since the fall of 2002. This includes a $4 trillion increase in the total market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange. Inflation remains low by historical standards, at or below a very manageable 3 percent annual rate. Business investment is rising steadily, fueled largely by double-digit growth in equipment and software spending, and by growing inventory investment. Consumer spending growth is accelerating due to real gains in wages, salaries, and in disposable personal income, boosted largely by lower taxes. And, residential construction spending remains strong, and as of March 2004, both existing and new home sales accelerated to record levels. This translates into the highest national homeownership rate in our Nation's history, a record 69 percent.
Moreover, looking at the lagging indicator of job creation, recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics now confirm the recovery. The payroll survey shows over a million jobs created over the past 8 months.
More importantly, the household survey, which is not often cited in the public media, shows that over 2 million new jobs have been created since November 2001, when the ``Clinton'' recession was finally reversed. Just in the last 2 months, more than 600,000 new jobs have been created.
The President now faces new economic challenges, this time from many Members on the other side of the aisle who believe we need to undo President Bush's tax cuts. As we move closer to the November Presidential election, the political rhetoric from the other side is trying to convince us that the economy is much worse off than the facts demonstrate. Reversing the Bush tax cuts, as the Democrats propose, will only serve to reverse the economic growth we are now experiencing and that we project through the decade. We must all support the President in fending off increased ``tax-and-spend'' proposals.
This President has also recognized and acted decisively to turn back significant threats to our families and our values. I believe the previous administration neglected several major challenges to the security of our seniors, our families, and our children. President Bush, on the other hand, is moving aggressively and decisively to defeat these challenges and make our families more secure.
Our senior citizens are threatened by increasing health care costs and limited access to affordable medicines they need. The President developed and enacted historic Medicare modernization and prescription drug reforms. These initiatives enable seniors to get the medicines they need at discounted prices, and expand freedom for Americans to choose among healthcare providers and plans based on their individual needs. Further, the President's action makes sure low-income seniors receive additional financial assistance so they will not have to pay more to receive better benefits than they currently do under Medicare.
Our families, more specifically the parents, are under assault by activist courts around the country undermining the sanctity of marriage. Not only are these courts overstepping their constitutional authority, but also they are trampling fundamental values and institutions held dear by the vast majority of Americans. The President stepped forward and joined several of us from the Congress to put down this assault decisively. While I do not take the amending of the constitution lightly, the proposed Constitutional amendment is our only recourse in preserving marriage in the United States as the union of only a man and a woman.
Dumbed-down educational standards and sub-par learning institutions threaten the well-being and development of our children. The President brought forward another major reform with his No Child Left Behind initiative to instill higher, modern standards for performance in reading and math. The President has increased education spending nearly 25 percent over his predecessor--an $11 billion increase. This includes an increase of more than 30 percent for disadvantaged student programs, as well as tripling resources for effective reading programs for our youth.
Moreover, the President's leadership restores to local officials the power and resources to establish programs and practices that work in their respective communities.
Again, another example of extraordinary leadership backed by resources, compassion, and commitment. The President has been nothing but visionary and steadfast in protecting our families and our way of life.
Today, the President is leading our Nation through another major crisis in the fight against Muslim extremists seeking to destroy our people, our livelihoods, and our liberties at home and abroad. We are a Nation at war--a global war on terror. This is not a war we started, but a war we will finish.
Unlike his predecessor, President Bush has demonstrated to this Nation, indeed to the world, that he has the vision, the courage, and the fortitude to lead a global coalition to fight this enemy whenever and wherever is needed. The President will not shirk his duties to guarantee the safety and security of Americans or freedom-loving peoples around the globe.
The enemy in this war did not mysteriously appear for the first time on September 11, 2001. Rather, this enemy has been consistently attacking the United States for over two decades. Unfortunately, over this period of time, our country's response to this growing threat was entirely inadequate, inconsistent, and inexcusable. Let me describe for you the evolution of our enemy in this global war on terror.
In 1979, a band of Islamic fundamentalists, led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, successfully overthrew the Shah's government of Iran as America stood by and watched. Nearly a year later, these fundamentalists stormed the U.S. Embassy and took the American staff hostage for 444 days. President Carter's response at the time: cancel Iranian travel visas and seek UN diplomatic assistance.
In 1982, Muslim extremists bombed our Embassy in Beirut. The U.S. did not respond against the extremists. Six months later, the extremists bombed the U.S. marines' barracks and 241 U.S. servicemen were killed and another 80 were seriously wounded. This time, the U.S. response came from the Democratic-controlled Congress in the form of a resolution to withdraw all troops from the area. Unfortunately, as the 1983 presidential election drew near, President Reagan acquiesced. There was, and remains, an important lesson to be learned here for all Members of this body: our enemy perceives vulnerability during U.S. presidential election years. During this time we must redouble our vigilance and resist the internal sniping for mere political expediency.
In 1985, Muslim extremists hijacked an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro. In a specific act of defiance toward the United States, the terrorists murdered 69-year-old Leon Klinghoffer, tossing his dead body and wheelchair overboard into the sea. The terrorists were offered a deal by ``our allies'' for safe passage by ending the hijacking. When the hijackers were traveling to their new destination, President Reagan launched our military fighters to intercept and redirect their airliner to Sicily, Italy. After a few years in prison, the Italians set them free. The Muslim extremists then took up sanctuary with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
In 1986, Muslim extremists affiliated with Libya's Colonel Qadhafi bombed a West Berlin nightclub frequented by American servicemen. Two American soldiers were killed. Ten days later, President Reagan authorized an air strike in Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, from bases in England. The mission was somewhat complicated by the French denying us use of their airspace during the mission.
In 1988, Muslim extremists, again sanctioned by the Libyan government, destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. No direct action was taken by either the U.S. or British governments.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded oil-rich Kuwait. President George Herbert Walker Bush moved U.S. forces quickly to block further Iraqi advances while mobilizing a large international coalition force that ultimately expelled a decimated Iraqi military from Kuwait. Most Democrats in Congress voted against this use of force. Now, many of the same are saying that we did not go far enough at that time.
One of our key allies during the 1991 Gulf War was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Following hostilities, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia forged closer military, economic, and political relations. One wealthy Saudi extremist took exception to this relationship and vowed to ``wage war against the American crusaders.'' This Saudi's name was Osama bin Laden.
From that point forward, we have been victimized by a string of direct attacks by bin Laden's al-Qaida network--both at home and abroad.
In 1993, al-Qaida exploded bombs in the garage of the World Trade Center towers, killing 5 Americans and injuring hundreds. President Clinton, at this time being advised by national security staff official Richard Clarke, did nothing in response.
Later in 1993, 18 American soldiers were killed in Somalia, and the body of one soldier was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu before a cheering band of Somalis and al-Qaida. President Clinton's immediate response was the withdrawal of all troops from Somalia. No action was taken against those responsible. ABC News reported Osama bin Laden saying that al-Qaida soldiers:
realized more than before that the American soldier was a
paper tiger and after a few blows ran in shame and disgrace.
In 1995, in Saudi Arabia, al-Qaida killed 5 and injured 30 Americans in a homicide bomb attack. A few months later, homicide car-bombers attacked U.S. military facilities at the Khobar Towers, killing 19 and injuring nearly 500 Americans. The perpetrators of these cowardly attacks all escaped. The U.S. did not respond.
In 1998, al-Qaida bombed the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring over 5,400 in all. The U.S. did not respond.
In 2000, al-Qaida bombed the USS Cole, killing 17 and wounding another couple dozen of American sailors. The U.S. did not respond.
Over the course of these 7 years, al-Qaida carried out multiple attacks against the United States. As the current National Security Advisor recently testified, it was clear that ``the enemy was at war with the United States.'' However, President Clinton, and his top counter-terrorist advisor Richard Clarke, did not go to war with the enemy.
It is reasonable to conclude that our failed history to deal promptly and decisively with al-Qaida, at any point during this period, only served to embolden Bin Laden and his criminal band of extremists.
Perhaps our failure emboldened others in the same way. During the latter part of the 1990s, Saddam Hussein began a campaign of actions increasingly more defiant of U.S. and UN imposed sanctions.
In 1996, Saddam unleashed his forces on the Kurdish city of Erbil destroying U.S.-sponsored resistance organizations and executing U.S.- backed resistance fighters. In 1997, Hussein bullied UN inspectors, preventing them from performing their mission. He also threatened to shoot down American surveillance planes aiding the inspection program.
In 1998, President Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but he did not follow through after the United Nations urged restraint. Later that year, Hussein kicked the UN inspectors out of Iraq all together. Over the next several years, Iraqi air defense units repeatedly shot at our military aircraft enforcing the UN sanctioned ``no fly'' zones.
On more than one occasion, President Clinton launched limited, and arguably ineffective, aircraft and cruise missile strikes in Iraq to no avail.
By the time President Bush took office in 2001, the determination and sophistication of our enemies were already well established. Unfortunately, our reputation of standing up to these criminal terror organizations and despots had decayed to a dangerous level.
President Bush immediately set forth new policy and strategies, scrapping the ``containment'' policy in favor of a more comprehensive and decisive course of action to eliminate the al-Qaida enemy completely. The horrendous events of 9/11, barely seven months into his administration, demanded urgent and unambiguous action from the President. Without hesitation, President Bush directed his cabinet to prepare a decisive response against the murderous al-Qaida organization, including terrorist affiliates, and those foreign governments that sponsor and shelter the terrorists.
As I said earlier, we didn't start this war--the global war on terror but we are going to finish it. Under President Bush's leadership over the past two-plus years, the United States has dealt a crippling blow to world terror organizations. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld summarized it best for us earlier this year when he reported that our armed forces have overthrown two terrorist regimes, rescued two nations, and liberated some 50 million people; captured
or killed close to two-thirds of known senior al-Qaida operatives; captured or killed 45 of the 55 most wanted in Iraq, including Iraq's deposed dictator, Saddam Hussein; hunted down thousands of terrorists and regime remnants in Afghanistan and Iraq; disrupted terrorist cells on most continents; and likely prevented a number of planned attacks. This is an astounding record of accomplishment for our commander-in- chief, his national security staff, and the phenomenal men and women of our military services.
I believe we are already seeing huge dividends from our actions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. We have demonstrated to the Middle East region, and indeed to the world, that the U.S. is willing to go to war over weapons of mass destruction, even at the risk of significant loss of life. This action sent an extraordinarily powerful message to all-- there will be significant consequences of possessing, or attempting to acquire, weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. This increased risk perception among potential adversaries, or threat of U.S. action, is now opening the door to diplomatic action to roll back illicit weapons and ballistic missile development programs.
This is evident in Libya, where Colonel Qadhafi is now voluntarily turning over his weapons and secrets to the United Kingdom and United States intelligence officers. It turns out that Egypt was a major supplier to Libya, so now Egypt is getting out of the ballistic missile trade as well. This is evident in Syria, which is now engaged with U.S. Defense and State Department officials in divesting its ballistic missile enhancement programs while secretly trying to relocate their ballistic missile inventory in neighboring countries. Further, this is evident in Iran, which has now ``come clean'' in reporting its military nuclear programs and is opening up to more stringent inspections.
We are seeing encouraging results with the decline of trans-national terrorism as well. Recently, the U.S. State Department released its annual report on Patterns of Global Terrorism, prepared by the Office of the Coordinator for Counter-Terrorism. The findings and conclusions are promising and further evidence that President Bush's vision and decisiveness are bringing about positive change.
For example, in 2001, during the President's first year in office, there were 346 terrorist attacks world-wide. In 2003, that number was down to 190--a 45% reduction in just two years. In 2001, there were 219 anti-U.S. attacks worldwide. In 2003, there were 82--a 62% reduction in just two years.
I believe these dramatic results are a direct result of George Bush's decision to declare war--not declare a police action or declare a negotiating strategy--but a global war against terrorists and those who harbor them. U.S.-led efforts are successfully attacking terrorists' training facilities, hideouts, weapons centers, financial institutions, and travel and logistics routes. Of course, this is in addition to our recent destruction of the two largest terrorist-sponsoring regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.
However, we cannot rest on our laurels. The war continues. We must capture or destroy Osama bin Laden and his comrades-in-hiding. We must defeat the terror and criminal elements that continue to kill indiscriminately in Iraq. We must finish the reconstruction of the political and municipal infrastructure for both the Afghani and Iraqi people. We are on the verge of seeing new democracies take root, offering the promise of lasting peace and stability for this region that has grown accustomed to tyranny after decades of oppression and terror.
Equally important, we must continue the offensive against other Muslim extremist organizations around the globe, denying these potential killers the opportunity to plan, prepare, or execute further acts of terror. President Bush is the visionary, the proven leader, and the commander-in-chief who will see this through and keep America safe and secure.
The facts are in. The results are conclusive. We are winning the war against terror with persistence and will. We are keeping America prosperous with pro-growth tax and business policies. We are enriching our families with commonsense social and educational reforms. I believe most Americans recognize this record of extraordinary accomplishment. And I believe that Americans are extremely proud of the leadership, courage, commitment, and results of President George W. Bush.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.