Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes in morning business.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today I am going to offer an amendment to the Defense authorization bill that will do two things. The first is it will extend the mandate or, shall I say, direct the President to negotiate the extension of the mandate we now operate under inside Iraq under the rubric of the United Nations. The second would be to place a restriction on the implementation of the strategic framework agreement that is now being negotiated inside Iraq to bring it inside the Constitution of the United States and require that the Congress of the United States approve this strategic framework agreement before it is actually put into motion. The reality right now is, our justification for operating inside Iraq under international law will expire at the end of this year. For almost a year, this administration has been negotiating two separate agreements with the Government of Iraq. One is a strategic framework agreement; the other is a status of forces agreement that would take place under the umbrella of the strategic framework agreement. This period of negotiation has been done largely without the involvement of the Congress. It will, if implemented, shape and direct the policy of the United States in Iraq for a good period of time--our security framework, all these sorts of things that traditionally have taken place only inside a treaty. Under the Constitution, a treaty is required to be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. So we have two realities that have come together, that by the end of this year we need to address in some form or another. The first is we have to be operating under some proper international legal structure in order to maintain our forces in Iraq after December 31. The other is we need to be negotiating the right kind of bilateral future relationship between our country and the country of Iraq. This amendment intends to resolve both of these situations in a way that is not disruptive, that is within the constraints of the Constitution, and it will allow us some time to get the right kind of strategic framework in place rather than our having to rush it, as we are seeing right now, to get something in place by the end of the year that is arguably not within the Constitution. The first portion of this amendment basically says the President will direct the U.S. Special Representative to the United Nations to seek an extension of the multinational agreement that already is in place under the rubric of the Security Council of the United Nations. It also states it is the sense of Congress that this extension should expire within a year or earlier. It should expire at the end of next year, unless we have a strategic framework agreement in place, at which time it will expire earlier. The second goes to the notion that this agreement must be approved with the consent of the Congress. I have not gone so far in this amendment as to say we should treat this agreement as we would treat a longer, more formal treaty, with the recognition that treaties sometimes get tied up for years, but that we should have a law by the Congress, a vote by a majority of the Congress, approving this major step forward in our relationship with the country of Iraq. As it stands right now, I am a member of the Armed Services Committee. I am also a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. We have not been shown one word of the actual document that is being negotiated. There are members of the Iraqi Parliament that have been shown portions of this document, if not all of it. I think it is very important for us to give this agreement the time we can give it if we extend the mandate of the United Nations for a year but also to get the proper involvement of the Congress in this most important step into the future of our relationship with Iraq. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I hope we can have bipartisan support on it. This is an amendment that goes to the propriety of the constitutional process and also is intended to take the time constraints out of the negotiation of this agreement with Iraq. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I want to take a few minutes today to speak about the state of paralysis we seem to have found ourselves in on the Senate floor, and then also to make a brief comment about two nominations the Senate will be considering. First, we are paralyzed, obviously. The other side of the aisle has voted against a windfall profits measure for oil companies at a time when we have seen record profits for any company in American history, which has only increased. How did they get these profits? Certainly not by working any harder. In fact, as people have mentioned on the floor today, it seems a lot of production actually has gone down. I don't know how else you define a windfall than what has happened in the price of oil and the profits that have gone to the oil companies over the past 6 or 7 years. They will not give us a vote on the rampant speculation that has now taken place in the oil market. I have to say at the outset that I don't have a fundamental disagreement with a lot of the things that are being said on the Republican side about what we need to do. I think we very much need a comprehensive energy strategy in this country. I am not opposed, personally, to the idea of expanding exploration for oil and gas in those cases where it is appropriate, and to get down and find the assets that are available to us as a nation and increase our national security. This may not be, as some people say, the answer in the distant future, but it is certainly an essential transition for us as we reach toward that future. I personally support nuclear power and expanding nuclear power programs. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in more than 30 years. There has been ample comment about that on the floor. I think nuclear power is safe. We are the best in the world at it. The experiences of the U.S. Navy at sea for at least a half century demonstrate that. It is environmentally clean, and we have gotten better technology, advanced technology, in terms of taking care of nuclear waste. I believe we can reach a point where we have cleaner coal. This requires new technology. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal. We are looking to improve national security, and we are looking for independence from countries where we have seen an enormous transfer of wealth from the United States. This transfer of wealth is going to result in better infrastructure for these other countries, and it is going to harm us in the long-term. I believe we need to support conservation and alternative energy programs of every sort. I went to high school in Nebraska. If you draw a line from Canada to northern Texas, where the winds come down from the Arctic Circle, you will see there is not a mountain in the way. There are actually trees in Oklahoma that bend toward the south because of the power of those winds. I believe we must invest, in terms of alternative energy technologies, whether it is wind, solar, or other areas. At the same time, when do we debate this? How do we develop a strategy? What should we be doing now, today, looking into the immediate future? The bill our leadership brought to the Senate floor is the best short-term fix, when we are talking about the incredible increase in the price of oil. If you go back 6 years to when this Congress voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq, oil was $24 a barrel. The price of oil went all the way up to $147 a barrel. It has tamped down a little since then, but that is a sixfold increase in 6 years. I can guarantee this is not simply a supply-and-demand issue. The demand didn't go up six times in the last 6 years. There are other interests, including the speculation market, that have driven the price of oil up that high. We have had testimony from oil companies' executives saying that, in a pure supply-and-demand environment, oil would probably be at $60 a barrel. That is an issue we can affect. We can affect it in the short term by regulating a market that has dramatically changed because of the participants in that market since late 2000. I hope we can have some sort of agreement on this. We should have a vote on the speculation issue. I compliment our leadership for having attempted to bring that issue before the Senate. Pending Nominations Madam President, I want to speak for a couple of minutes about two nominations that are pending before the Senate. First, I express my appreciation to the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, today for the comments he made about Kathy Stephens, who has been nominated to be Ambassador to South Korea, has cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and has been waiting for a vote on this floor. I know of very few people who have better qualifications to serve in that part of the world. I have spent a good part of my life in and out of Asia. She began as a Peace Corps worker in South Korea. She is fluent in Korean. I believe she is the best qualified person to address all of the issues that people on both sides have expressed their concerns about, in terms of politics, the culture, human rights issues, et cetera. I was very gratified to see Senator Warner mention his support for her nomination today. I hope we can find a way to get her out there doing her job in the very near future. The second nomination I want to mention is that, regrettably, I am unable to support the nomination for the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. This is an individual who, in an earlier billet, at a key time after the invasion of Iraq, was asked repeatedly to give answers to a question for which I personally believe there were answers. I was writing about it at the time. I have very strong feelings about this. Regrettably, I am going to be unable to support that nomination. I go back to what General Matthew Ridgway said some 50 years ago, when he was describing the role of a military adviser. He said: He should give his competent professional advice on the military aspects of the problems referred to him, based on his fearless, honest, objective estimate of the national interest, and regardless of administration policy at any particular time. He should confine his advice to the essentially military aspects. I believe if we do not insist on this standard in the relationships between the U.S. military and the Congress, then we are going to continue to have the same difficulties that we saw with attempting to get straight comment out of the U.S. military as we went into Iraq. There was a very wise Marine general who said, at the time I was entering the Marine Corps, ``It is very important in the United States to get the politics out of the military and to keep the military out of politics.'' I believe that, if we believe in that, we need to insist that those military officers who testify before the Congress abide by it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Freddie Hutchins who passed away suddenly yesterday, on July 29. Freddie served on my staff since my election. He managed my Roanoke Senate office. He was a tremendous individual with a great deal of promise. I had selected him from a number of very talented people down in southwest Virginia to run this office. He passed away, as I said, suddenly only at the age of 26. Freddie was a product of southwest Virginia. He grew up in Botetourt County. He was very heavily influenced by his grandfather, who was a very active Democrat and railroad man, a union man down in southwest Virginia. He was known for having made himself a business card at the age of 13 saying Freddie Hutchins, Democrat. He loved the rich culture of southwest Virginia. He represented the values that characterize that region. He loved his country. He had a great sense of service and a determination to work hard. He developed a very early interest in politics. He was a C-SPAN enthusiast at a young age. Before joining my office, he had worked for State Delegate Onzlee Ware as a legislative aide and had been active in a number of political campaigns. He was a tireless and vocal advocate for working people in this country. He was committed to social justice and was someone who was always eager and enthusiastic to help people. He was one of the most honorable and friendly individuals I have ever had the pleasure of knowing. He was a mainstay in that community and had a very bright future. I had always assumed that Freddie Hutchins would be running for elective office in the near future. He was a friend to all who knew him. Again, I express my condolences to his mother Karen and the rest of his family and all of those whom he had reached out and done so much with and for over the years. He will be greatly missed. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Jobs, Energy, Families and Disaster Relief Act of 2008, S. 3335. Earlier versions of this bill failed to overcome minority opposition. But now is the time for the Senate to pass this legislation in an expeditious manner. This narrowly targeted and fair-minded bill contains several important provisions. Some of these provisions will help promote economic fairness. For example, this bill extends critical tax relief for working families and college students. Moreover, this legislation will help incentivize the development of alternative energies that will reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil. In addition, I support this bill because it contains provisions to help repair our Nation's aging infrastructure, provide relief for Americans suffering from recent natural disasters, and require parity for mental health care treatment with other medical treatment. One of the noteworthy provisions in this legislation relates to an issue that is important to constituents in my home State of Virginia-- namely the research and development tax credit--referred to as the ``R&D'' tax credit. This bill will extend the R&D tax credit for another year. As most of my colleagues know, Congress originally enacted the temporary R&D tax credit in 1981. Expenditures for R&D go to wages paid to employees performing qualified research activities, as well as supplies used to conduct this research. Since 1981, U.S.-based research and development have had a track record of spurring U.S.-based innovation. The Commonwealth of Virginia has helped to lead the innovation revolution. Since the 1980s, small and large businesses across Virginia have thrived. Many of these Virginia businesses engage in fields such as information technology, telecommunications, manufacturing, computer software, aerospace, and energy. A renewed R&D tax credit extension will help Virginia's businesses continue to compete effectively around the world and help protect Virginia's economy. As Virginia's research-driven companies have flourished, many Virginians have found employment in the R&D field. These jobs traditionally are stable, high-paying jobs that have helped to strengthen not only Virginia's business sector but also Virginia's families and communities. The Commonwealth of Virginia is among the top States ranked by number of firms engaged in R&D activity. Virginia's industrial R&D activity totals over $2 billion per year. And my home State is among the top States contributing to our Nation's R&D performance. If Congress allows the R&D tax credit to lapse, the consequences will be large. The lapse of the tax credit could cost the American economy tens of millions of dollars per day, as companies delay or cancel R&D- related activities. Many of our Nation's overseas competitors-- including China and several European nations--offer an R&D tax credit and would gain a big competitive advantage over the United States. Failure to renew the R&D tax credit would allow our foreign competitors to attract researchers and facilities at the expense of U.S. research. But most importantly, if Congress does not renew this much-needed tax credit, we will see more Americans lose their jobs at a time when hardworking families already are suffering. On three occasions this year, many Senators have thwarted the majority leader's attempts to begin debate on tax extenders legislation. I ask my colleagues this time to allow this tax legislation--including the R&D tax credit--to move toward final passage. Let us work together to keep our R&D sector competitive and let us support policies that will drive the next generation of American innovation.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Advancing America's Priorities Act, S. 3297, which contains a provision that would provide much needed funding for the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, WMATA. This provision mirrors the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007, S. 1446, which I proudly cosponsored with Senators Cardin, Mikulski, and Warner. In short, the Metro funding provision would authorize $1.5 billion over 10 years for Metro to finance capital and preventive maintenance projects for the Metrorail system. The Federal funding would share the funding burden with the States because the money would be contingent on the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia jointly matching the Federal contribution towards Washington Metro's capital projects. Appropriate funding for the Metro system is critically important to our federal workforce, millions of tourists who visit our Nation's Capital area, as well as the millions of people who live around Washington, DC. I have worked diligently with my Senate and House colleagues for the past 2 years to pass this legislation, and I ask my colleagues to help secure passage of this provision this week. Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than 1 million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred mode of transit for traveling around the National Capital Region. As the price of gasoline has soared, more people are turning to Metro as their primary mode of transportation. I would note that in fiscal year 2008, 215 million customers rode Metrorail. That is 7 million more customers than in 2007. In fact, 22 out of 25 of Metrorail top ridership days have occurred since April of this year. And 133 million customers rode Metrobus in fiscal year 08, which is the highest yearly total ever, an increase of 1.4 million relative to 2007. New funding authorized in this legislation would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity and meet forecasted ridership demands, before the system and region become totally mired in congestion. The federal role in supporting Metro is clear, with a long track record to draw upon. Washington Metro began building the rail system in 1969 with Federal funding authorized under the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969. On two separate occasions, Congress has authorized additional funding for Metro construction and capital improvements. According to a 2006 Government Accountability Office report: WMATA provides transportation to and from work for a substantial portion of the federal workforce, and federal employees' use of WMATA's services is encouraged by General Services Administration guidelines that instruct federal agencies to locate their facilities near mass transit stops whenever possible. WMATA also accommodated increased passenger loads and extends its operating hours during events related to the federal government's presence in Washington, DC, such as presidential inaugurations and funerals, and celebrations and demonstrations on the National Mall. In fact, during rush hour, Federal employees account for over 40 percent of Metro ridership. The Metro system was also critical to the evacuation of Washington, DC, following the 2001 terrorist attacks. Metro was deemed a ``national security asset'' in a Federal security assessment conducted after 9/11. In short, the operation of the Federal Government would be nearly impossible without the Metro system and the Federal Government's emergency evacuation and recovery plans rely heavily on Metro. The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many benefits not only to the region, but also to the Federal Government and the entire nation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I do not believe that the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297 corresponding to the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act constitute a ``congressionally directed spending item.'' However, out of an abundance of caution and after discussions with the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and pursuant to my best of understanding of Senate rule XLIV, I certify that neither I nor my immediate family has a pecuniary interest in the provisions of title VI, subtitle A of S. 3297, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 9 of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. WEBB. I will do my best. I wish to speak for a few minutes today about why I believe it is not only appropriate but important for us to be focusing on the issue of oil market speculation, separate from the larger issues that confront us in our energy policies, as a way to address the most serious problem and the most fixable problem as it relates to the high price of oil and the high price of gas. There are many on the other side who have commented that speculation is not the reason gas prices have gone up so dramatically, that this is simply the free market working. I am reminded that when this Congress voted in October of 2002 to go to war in Iraq, the price of oil was $24 a barrel. It has gone up all the way to $145 a barrel. That is six times the cost of oil when we went into Iraq. I certainly wouldn't venture that demand has gone up six times in the last 6 years, even if we adjust for the devaluation of the dollar taking place for a lot of reasons, that demand has gone up in those kinds of multiples. I, similar to many on this side of the aisle, would like to see a comprehensive energy package, a comprehensive energy strategy that addresses all our assets and all the assets we can bring to this issue in the future. This simply is not the right time. You cannot do this with a series of amendments, whether it is for another week or another 2 weeks. You can only do that with another serious consideration of a piece of legislation that addresses all these different areas. I am among those on this side of the aisle who are not opposed to the idea of offshore exploration for oil and natural gas and have joined the senior Senator from Virginia in a proposal to that effect. I would like to see us go into a more serious development of nuclear power. We have not had a new nuclear power plant built in this country in 30 years. Nuclear power technology has improved. Carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants is benign. It is good for the environment. It would have a dramatic increase in jobs. These are all positives. I also would like us to explore, in a proper way, alternative energy proposals that have become increasingly popular and increasingly viable over the last 20 years. There has been a lot of attention on wind power over the past few days because of what Mr. T. Boone Pickens has proposed. Solar technology has dramatically increased in its capabilities over the past 10 to 15 years. I come from a State that produces a lot of coal. I think the answer to coal--which is a national asset in this country in terms of the supply that is available--when it is used under the right circumstances can be environmentally neutral, when we develop the right technologies. Those are all issues which should be on the table as we approach a full energy strategy in terms of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and becoming more energy independent. But they are simply not the only issues we should be addressing this week. Why is speculation so important? Quite obviously, because as of the end of 2000, there are people other than users who have been buying oil futures. They have been buying them not for their use, but purely as if they were buying stocks. They are doing this in an environment where there are no regulations in the same sense as there are in other investment areas, the areas that apply to stocks. As I said, this policy changed in late 2000, and this is when the speculation market began to have these aberrations in it. You can buy oil futures for 3 or 4 percent on margin. We have dramatically more investors than we have users, and there are plenty of estimates available as to how this has affected the market, totally absent from supply and demand. A whole series of big oil executives have agreed that the oil market has been affected by as much as $60 a barrel because of this type of speculation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that four of those testimonies be printed in the Record at this time, rather than going through them, in the interest of time.

Mr. WEBB. The whole point of this is, we need, as a government, to gain control over this process for the benefit of all Americans.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I appreciate that. We need to gain control over this process for the benefit of all Americans, as a necessary, preliminary step before we begin addressing all these other areas I mentioned, as we move toward a more balanced and independent energy future. This is an area where the potential for immediate impact on the price of oil is available, and it is not only appropriate we address the issue of speculation, in my view, it is absolutely necessary if we are going to bring down, in a reasonable time period, the price of oil and the price that our citizens are paying at the pump. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, we are going to be talking this week quite a bit about the situation with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. We had news this weekend that the Federal Reserve and Treasury are intending to intervene to shore up Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This situation underscores the depth and the persistence of our Nation's housing crisis. Last week, I joined a bipartisan majority of Senators in voting to approve a housing bill that is intended to strengthen oversight in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to allow the FHA to guarantee up to $300 billion in new loans for at-risk subprime borrowers. But I think it would be useful at this time to review a few recent data points in other areas because they should cause all of us some concern about where we are heading and the decisions we are making as fiduciaries of the public trust. In March of this year, Bear Stearns, the Nation's fifth largest investment banking firm, was battered by what its officials termed a sudden liquidity crisis regarding or related to its large exposure to devalued mortgage-backed securities. At that time, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan, and the Federal Reserve reached a negotiated deal. JPMorgan purchased 95 million newly issued shares of Bear's common stock, and the Fed, which in reality means the people who pay the taxes in our country, became responsible for up to $29 billion in losses if the collateral provided by Bear Stearns for the loan proves to be worth less than their original claims. That is $29 billion guaranteed by American taxpayers in the private market. This decision was unprecedented. Never before had the Fed bailed out a financial entity that was not a commercial bank. The Fed's unprecedented role has generated a widespread debate on the implications of these types of interventions. Many have had concerns that the Government's action tells the market that the Fed is willing to help a large and failing financial enterprise, which, in many people's view, sets a bad precedent in terms of corporate responsibility. And by way of information, Bear Stearns' CEO earned $38.4 million in 2006. They did not file a proxy statement in 2008; his compensation was not available for 2007. But I will say that again. In 2006, previous to this crisis, the CEO made $38.4 million. Last week, IndyMac Bank of Pasadena, CA was closed by the Federal Office of Thrift Supervision, and the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, was named conservator and therefore took over this bank's operations. According to the FDIC, the bank's board of directors was dissolved, the CEO was fired, and upper management may remain, although this has not yet been determined. But the new CEO in this situation is now an FDIC employee and is therefore compensated per a Government payscale. As conservators, the FDIC will operate the bank to maximize the value of the institution for further sale and to maintain banking services. So when we look at the situation we are now facing with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I think it is important to lay down three guiding principles. The first is, we do need to ensure that the measures we are taking protect these Americans who remain at risk of foreclosure. We have to take some proper action now so that this crisis does not grow deeper. But we also need to be very sensitive to the thousands of workers, many of whom live in this area, who have built careers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Many of those workers have their retirement savings tied up in the plummeting stock of these formerly robust companies. But as we focus rightly on those two concerns, on the homeowners and on the workers, we also need to be equally clear that any solution to this crisis has to be fair to the American taxpayers who ultimately are going to foot the bill. When times go bad like this, quite often the people who are paying the taxes are people who do not even own stock, or maybe it is somebody who makes $40,000 a year driving a truck who now is being asked to put money up to preserve an entity where, again, we see executive compensation and stock values over the years have increased. Paul Krugman wrote a piece in the New York Times today addressing elements of this issue. I want to read a portion of it. The case against Fannie and Freddie begins with their peculiar status: although they're private companies with stockholders and profits, they're ``government-sponsored enterprises'' established by Federal law, which means that they receive special privileges. The most important of these privileges is implicit: it's the belief of investors that if Fannie and Freddie are threatened with failure, the Federal Government will come to their rescue. This implicit guarantee means that profits are privatized but losses are socialized. If Fannie and Freddie do well, their stockholders [and the corporate executives] reap the benefits, but if things go badly, Washington picks up the tab. Heads they win, tails we lose. Such one-way bets can encourage the taking of bad risks, because the down side is someone else's problem. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire New York Times article printed in the Record.

Mr. WEBB. Looking at or thinking about Mr. Krugman's piece, we should also recall that the chief executives of those two companies last year earned multimillion-dollar compensation packages. We respect the guidance and the leadership that allows corporate CEOs to make these kinds of compensation, but at the same time, we should not be asking the taxpayers of this country, many of whom do not even own stocks, if we are buttressing the activities of these companies, to continue to assist financially this type of corporate compensation. We have seen one example with the recent IndyMac Bank failure where the FDIC came in and the acting CEO gets a regular Federal salary. I urge all of my colleagues to think about this this week, that, as Mr. Krugman says, ``the profits are privatized,'' meaning the small group of people who own stocks take advantage when things go well, and sometimes we talk about economic Darwinism and how the fact that they make that sort of compensation relates to their talent, ``but losses are socialized'' meaning that everyone in the country ends up having to pay when things go wrong in order to protect the system from falling apart. Well, the bottom line of that is, if our taxpayers are going to be required to chip in to solve the problem, they should not be alone. The executives who are involved in the operations of these institutions should also be willing to do the same. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to participate in this remembrance today. For more than 200 years, the American experiment in self-government has been a witness to all nations about the power of ``the people.'' The Declaration of Independence establishes a fundamental principle that a government exists, not because some humans have a hereditary right to dominate others, but because the people themselves have consented to be governed by others. In 1826, the Mayor of Washington, Roger Weightman, invited Thomas Jefferson to attend the 50th anniversary of the Declaration. In his letter of reply, dated June 26, Jefferson reiterates one last time, his belief in the principles of the Declaration. Thomas Jefferson died a week later, on the Fourth of July. In that letter, Thomas Jefferson stated: I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self- government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Are we in order to proceed on the supplemental?

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I don't expect very many people to vote against this supplemental. It comes to us from the House with a vote, I recall, of 416 to 12. The President asked for most of the provisions in this bill. The one provision I would like to speak very briefly about tonight is the GI bill provision that is in this supplemental. This is not an expansion of veterans' benefits. This is a new program. This is the first wartime GI bill benefit since Vietnam. I wish to thank very much people on both sides of the aisle for all the work we have been able to do. There were 11 Republicans who cosponsored this provision, in addition to others who voted for it the first time around. There were more than 300 sponsors in the House. Those sponsors in the House included 90 Republicans. I especially express my appreciation to Senator Hagel and Senator Warner, as well as Senator Lautenberg, for being the principal cosponsors along with me on this measure, also Chairman Akaka of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and the majority leader, who was with us early on. There are people on my staff who were working on this every day for 18 months, it is a very complex bill: Paul Reagan, my chief of staff; Michael Sozan, my legislative director; William Edwards, my legislative assistant for veterans' affairs; Jacki Ball; Jessica Smith and Kimberly Hunter, who are on our communications staff; Phillip Thompson and Mac McGarvey, both former Marines, who worked hard early on. And those from the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Bill Brew, staff director, and Babette Polzer. This is a landmark piece of legislation that will be in this provision. There are going to be a lot of veterans in the United States who are going to be very happy with the Senate tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to speak actually in conjunction with the senior Senator. It is fine with me if he wants to follow me for 4 minutes. I wish to speak for a bit about the announcement from the White House today to the effect that the President has agreed he will not veto the GI bill we have worked on so hard for the last 17 months; that he is willing to accept this legislation. I wish to say how grateful I am to all the veterans groups that over the last 17 months worked so hard to get the right bill. This bill will be reported back to us, I am told, in the exact form we sent it over, with the vote of 75 to 22 not long ago. There was another provision Senator Warner and I had worked on as a separate amendment regarding transferability that will be put in this bill in a slightly different form. But there was some mischaracterization in terms of how the White House portrayed this transferability provision. I think it goes to the heart of some work Senator Warner has done over many years, and I think it deserves to be clarified in this body. The announcement by the White House was to the effect that this transferability provision would be a new provision. In fact, Senator Warner and a number of Senators on our side of the aisle enacted this as law 6 years ago. We have heard from people on the other side, from the administration, from people in the Pentagon, that there was a priority 1 item out of the Pentagon. But it has been in law, at the discretion of service Secretaries for 6 years. So we are willing to accept this provision as it comes over. We are enormously grateful the President said he will not veto this bill because, quite frankly, it has been almost 7 years since 9/11. The operational tempo of the people who have been serving has gone up. They deserve a wartime GI bill. They are going to get it. I wish to express, again, my appreciation to all the members of this body--we had 58 sponsors, including 11 from the Republican party--and to all the veterans groups who helped make this possible.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the senior Senator's amendment last year when he offered it. I would like to join him as a cosponsor today on the legislation he has just introduced which is a modification of the amendment that was introduced last year. I know there are justifiable concerns about the issue of offshore drilling. I know the Chair has spoken eloquently about those concerns on many occasions. Also, I would like to say that the senior Senator from Virginia has been one of the great voices in favor of moving cautiously with respect to issues concerning our environment. He was one of the principal cosponsors on the climate change bill we just recently debated. He has proceeded carefully with respect to this legislation. There are appropriate safeguards in the legislation. I express my strong concern that we as a body must proceed carefully forward over the next year or so to renew our efforts to address the issue of global warming and climate change on the one hand and a sensible policy that allows us to bring forward all of the aspects of energy production and technology that will allow us to take advantage of the assets our country has. A part of that would be a renewal in the proper form of nuclear power production, such as we have seen in countries such as France and Japan. Part of it would be a sensible policy with respect to coal production, the assets of which are so vast in this country. We can move forward in that area with the right sort of technology in place, but also in the areas the senior Senator is addressing in his legislation today. He is proposing to move forward carefully with respect to offshore drilling. There are safeguards with respect to State involvement that are a good counterbalance to concerns people would have. He has built in a reserve to mitigate potential environmental damages, if they were to occur. Most importantly, he is realistic at looking at where we have to move as a country. We need affirmative leadership. We can't simply step away and not address solutions with respect to different energy alternatives. This legislation allows for revenue flow that we need to address other issues such as rebuilding our infrastructure. Part of this revenue flow would go to the Federal Government; part of it also would go to the State government. As the Senator and I are so well aware, because of a lot of different issues, we are having difficulty in the State of Virginia addressing infrastructure issues, transportation issues, the types of things we must get on top of if we are going to remain the preeminent Nation in the world in terms of being able to compete in a global economy. This process, once approved--actually, a two-step procedure by State government--would allow for income flow through royalties into the State government so that we can address these issues, one of which is so glaring in Virginia right now: our inability to see transportation projects funded at a time when the population of Virginia has so dramatically increased. In my view, the senior Senator has put forward legislation that is responsible. He is a friend of the environment. He is careful in terms of the different aspects of government involvement. I am pleased to support it.

Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 16, 2008. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Each day, as America contends with rising gasoline prices, we see and hear stories of how individual Americans are coping with this serious problem as they conduct their daily lives with their families and in their work environments. They are finding ways to reduce their consumption of gasoline by driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing family vacation plans. These efforts bring hardships, but save dollars that are necessary to meet essential family needs. And while small in comparison to the overall problem of supply and demand of gasoline, these efforts do add up. I never dismiss the American ``can do'' spirit. In one word, it is individual conservation. And in cases such as this, when individuals are leading the way, the government should join. The purpose of this letter is to urge you to lead the vast federal government to likewise take initiatives to cut back-- even in a small measure--its daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels. I believe such a move would signal to Americans that their government is sharing the daily hardships occasioned by this turbulent, uncertain energy crisis. Having worked in and with the Department of Defense for many decades, and recognizing that this government department is the largest user of petroleum products, I believe that the men and women of the armed services would pitch in to share the hardships on the home front and lead the effort. Their families are experiencing many of the same hardships as other families across America. Recognizing that our nation must maintain its defense posture, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our forces are courageously carrying out their missions, the department's initiative to further conserve on fuels must be done without any harmful diminution in readiness or training. By cutting back the number of flying or steaming hours in our military ships and planes, by even a percentage point or two, the armed forces could point with pride to their efforts in our nation's conservation movement. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, John Warner.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I voted in favor of the senior Senator's amendment last year when he offered it. I would like to join him as a cosponsor today on the legislation he has just introduced which is a modification of the amendment that was introduced last year. I know there are justifiable concerns about the issue of offshore drilling. I know the Chair has spoken eloquently about those concerns on many occasions. Also, I would like to say that the senior Senator from Virginia has been one of the great voices in favor of moving cautiously with respect to issues concerning our environment. He was one of the principal cosponsors on the climate change bill we just recently debated. He has proceeded carefully with respect to this legislation. There are appropriate safeguards in the legislation. I express my strong concern that we as a body must proceed carefully forward over the next year or so to renew our efforts to address the issue of global warming and climate change on the one hand and a sensible policy that allows us to bring forward all of the aspects of energy production and technology that will allow us to take advantage of the assets our country has. A part of that would be a renewal in the proper form of nuclear power production, such as we have seen in countries such as France and Japan. Part of it would be a sensible policy with respect to coal production, the assets of which are so vast in this country. We can move forward in that area with the right sort of technology in place, but also in the areas the senior Senator is addressing in his legislation today. He is proposing to move forward carefully with respect to offshore drilling. There are safeguards with respect to State involvement that are a good counterbalance to concerns people would have. He has built in a reserve to mitigate potential environmental damages, if they were to occur. Most importantly, he is realistic at looking at where we have to move as a country. We need affirmative leadership. We can't simply step away and not address solutions with respect to different energy alternatives. This legislation allows for revenue flow that we need to address other issues such as rebuilding our infrastructure. Part of this revenue flow would go to the Federal Government; part of it also would go to the State government. As the Senator and I are so well aware, because of a lot of different issues, we are having difficulty in the State of Virginia addressing infrastructure issues, transportation issues, the types of things we must get on top of if we are going to remain the preeminent Nation in the world in terms of being able to compete in a global economy. This process, once approved--actually, a two-step procedure by State government--would allow for income flow through royalties into the State government so that we can address these issues, one of which is so glaring in Virginia right now: our inability to see transportation projects funded at a time when the population of Virginia has so dramatically increased. In my view, the senior Senator has put forward legislation that is responsible. He is a friend of the environment. He is careful in terms of the different aspects of government involvement. I am pleased to support it.

Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, May 16, 2008. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Each day, as America contends with rising gasoline prices, we see and hear stories of how individual Americans are coping with this serious problem as they conduct their daily lives with their families and in their work environments. They are finding ways to reduce their consumption of gasoline by driving less, altering daily routines, and even changing family vacation plans. These efforts bring hardships, but save dollars that are necessary to meet essential family needs. And while small in comparison to the overall problem of supply and demand of gasoline, these efforts do add up. I never dismiss the American ``can do'' spirit. In one word, it is individual conservation. And in cases such as this, when individuals are leading the way, the government should join. The purpose of this letter is to urge you to lead the vast federal government to likewise take initiatives to cut back-- even in a small measure--its daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels. I believe such a move would signal to Americans that their government is sharing the daily hardships occasioned by this turbulent, uncertain energy crisis. Having worked in and with the Department of Defense for many decades, and recognizing that this government department is the largest user of petroleum products, I believe that the men and women of the armed services would pitch in to share the hardships on the home front and lead the effort. Their families are experiencing many of the same hardships as other families across America. Recognizing that our nation must maintain its defense posture, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our forces are courageously carrying out their missions, the department's initiative to further conserve on fuels must be done without any harmful diminution in readiness or training. By cutting back the number of flying or steaming hours in our military ships and planes, by even a percentage point or two, the armed forces could point with pride to their efforts in our nation's conservation movement. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, John Warner.

Mr. WEBB

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