Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the Senate committees may file committee-reported legislative and Executive Calendar business on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, during the hours of 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. WEBB

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed en bloc to the consideration of the following calendar items: Calendar Nos. 509 and 510.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m., Tuesday, November 20; that on Tuesday the Senate conduct a pro forma session only, with no business conducted; that at the close of the pro forma session the Senate convene pro forma on the following days and times with no business conducted: Friday, November 23, at 10 a.m.; Tuesday, November 27, at 9 a.m.; Thursday, November 29, at 9:30 a.m.; that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, November 29, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday, December 3; that on Monday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 55, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table. The concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 55) was agreed to.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I understand that there are two bills at the desk. I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading en bloc, and I object to my requests en bloc.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

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 as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, my first day in the Senate I introduced legislation that would provide educational benefits for those who have served in our military since 9/11 that would be the equivalent of the educational benefits that those who served in World War II received. We are very fond in this body and elsewhere in the U.S. Government of talking about those who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan as being the new ``greatest generation.'' Well, it seems to me very logical that if we are going to use that rhetoric, we should be able to provide those who have served in this difficult time with the same educational benefits as those who served during World War II. I was very privileged, for 4 years, to serve as a committee counsel on the House Veterans' Committee at a different point in my life, and was able to study the benefits that had been provided to our veterans from the American Revolution forward. I also noticed an interesting phenomenon; and that was, a good part of the veterans' benefits package that was provided to those who served in World War II was done so because of the wisdom of those who had served in World War I--partially because they did not receive these sorts of benefits. The World War I veterans were very adamant that the veterans coming back from World War II be treated differently than they were. One of the end results of that was the GI bill. Very recently, former Senator Bob Dole testified in front of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, of which I am a member. I asked him about his own experiences, having been wounded in World War II, and how the World War II GI bill assisted him in his transition to the civilian world. This is what he said in part: I think [the World War II GI bill was] the single most important piece of legislation when it comes to education, how it changed America more than anything I can think of. [We] ought to take the same care of the veterans today. I could not agree more strongly. The people who served in World War II--there were 16 million of them--were offered an entirely different concept in terms of fairness in American society when they returned. Eight million of them were able to take advantage of a GI bill that provided for their tuition when they went to college, bought their books, and gave them a monthly stipend. This education benefit has gone up and down since the enactment of World War II GI bill. When I came back from Vietnam, the benefit was a monthly stipend that was not very helpful to most Vietnam veterans. That has been on my mind for years, as I think about the service of our veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as the World War I veterans stepped forward and took care of the World war II veterans, I believe it is the responsibility--not wholly, but strongly--of those of us who served in Vietnam and who experienced a lot of the disadvantages of service, once we got out, to make sure we take care of those who are serving now and who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is for that reason I introduced this bill. To look back on the educational benefits that were derived from this experience, I asked my staff to take a look at those Members of this body--our colleagues--who served in World War II, just to see where they were able to go to school and to see how the World War II GI bill benefitted them, and then to compare that with what they would have been able to do today if they were the same individual having served in Iraq and/or Afghanistan and were coming back with today's Montgomery GI bill, which basically is a peacetime GI bill that was put in place well before 9/11 and was designed more as a little bit of a bump to assist in recruitment than a true readjustment benefit for people who had been in war. Our chairman, Senator Akaka, was able to go to the University of Hawaii under that program, the World War II GI bill. Today, if one were applying for the Montgomery GI bill, 41.5 percent of his education would have been paid for. Senator Inouye, who is a cosponsor of our bill, was able to attend George Washington Law School. Today, that would cost $48,460 a year. The Montgomery GI bill would pay for 12.4 percent of that. Senator Lautenberg, who also is a cosponsor of this bill, was able to go to Columbia on a full boat, graduating in 1949. Today, to go to Columbia, it would cost $46,874 a year. The Montgomery GI bill would pay for 12.8 percent of that. Senator Stevens was able to go to UCLA and Harvard Law School. His staff declined to be specific about how much of that was assisted by the GI bill, but if one were to go to Harvard Law School today, it would cost $54,066, which is about 11 percent of what the Montgomery GI bill would take care of. Senator John Warner, my senior Senator from Virginia, my esteemed colleague and friend, has told me many times he would not be in the Senate today if it had not been for the educational benefits of the GI bill. He was able to go to Washington and Lee for an undergraduate degree. Today that would cost $42,327 for 1 year, of which the Montgomery GI bill would pick up 14 percent. He was then able to go to UVA Law School, full boat, as a reward for his service. Today that would cost $44,800. Just to be fair, I am standing here today because Uncle Sam made a bet on me. I was able to go to the Naval Academy. The taxpayers of America paid for that. The taxpayers of America would pay for that today, the same amount. I was also in a different situation than most of my Vietnam war veteran colleagues because after I was wounded and had medical difficulties with a bone infection in my leg, I was medically retired from the Marine Corps and was able to go to law school on a program called Vocational Rehabilitation, which was the exact same program as the people who served in World War II received. I was able to go to Georgetown Law School. Today that would cost $51,530 a year. The Montgomery GI bill would pick up 11.6 percent of it. So on the one hand, we are saying this is the next great generation. This is the next greatest generation. We never cease to talk about how much we value their service, these people leaving home on extended deployments again and again, giving us everything we ask, and then we are giving them a GI bill that was designed for peacetime. It is not because we don't spend money on education. We just passed legislation for Federal education grants. I voted for it. I assume the Presiding Officer voted for it. If you add up these grants--and these are grants--this is not rewarding someone for affirmative service. If you add up these grants, it is going to cost $18.2 billion this year. We are having a difficult time getting an exact number on what my GI bill proposal would add up to, but the best estimates we have had informally are about $2 billion. I would submit that with the cost of this war now heading well north of $1 trillion, and with the President coming over and saying he wants $200 billion on top of that and on top of an appropriations bill, we could spend this money in a way that will allow the people who have served since 9/11 a first-class future. We are saying they are that good; let's let them be that good. For that reason, I hope all of my colleagues will step forward and join me so we can get this legislation passed this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, 24 years ago today, at 6:20 in the morning, in Beirut, a yellow Mercedes-Benz truck drove into the Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines was keeping its headquarters. The truck crashed through a barbed wire fence, went through the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, and then crashed through a gate and into the lobby of the large building where the marines were keeping their headquarters. At that point, the explosives were set off in this truck, ending up with the deaths of 241 American military servicemembers. This was the largest loss of life for the U.S. Marine Corps in one single day since Iwo Jima. It was the largest loss of life in one day for American service people from the beginning of the Tet Offensive of 31 January 1968, and it remains the largest single loss of life in one day since that time. I believe it is appropriate for us to take a few minutes and remember today the sacrifices that were made and the contributions the United States was attempting to make in that particular circumstance. I make these comments as someone who is proud to have served in the U.S. Marine Corps, who has a brother who served in the Marine Corps, who has a son who is now serving in the Marine Corps, and as someone who covered the marines in Beirut as a journalist and had recently left the country when this incident occurred. The marines who went to Beirut came in peace. They had been sent in after several incidents occurred regarding multiparty incidents, which I will describe in a minute, at the request of the Lebanese Government. We had a U.S. Marine Corps representation. We had military people from the United Kingdom, Italy, and France. They were asked to help separate the warring factions inside Beirut during a vicious civil war and also to help separate the end result of an Israeli incursion, in which the Israelis were attempting to take out large elements of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. So our marines began this ``visibility'' presence in September of 1982. They had been there through different cycles of rotation for a little more than a year when this event occurred. They operated under enormously difficult rules of engagement. The situation in Beirut at that time was rather similar to what we see in Iraq today in terms of having a weak central government and many different factions around it. On any given day, our marines in Beirut could be bumping up against Shia militia, Sunni militia, Christian Phalange, Druze militia, the Syrians over the border on one side--as well as with French, U.K., and Italian military units all operating in this environment. The Israeli military, which at this point had pulled back over the Chouf mountains, also was present. These were very fine marines. I spent a good bit of time with them on their different positions. They were overall commanded by COL Tim Geraghty, an extraordinarily capable officer who had spent more than 2 tours in Vietnam. Their battalion commander, LTC Howard Gerlach, had done a tour and a half in Vietnam as infantry leader. The rules of engagement were so strict in Beirut at the time that when our marines took fire, they could only return fire with the same type of weapon they were receiving fire from. These very restrictive rules ended up contributing to the situation in which the truck bomb went off. The sentries at the gate where the truck came in were not even allowed to have ammunition in their weapons at that time. They were precluded from being able to take out this truck when it entered because once they saw what was happening, they had to attempt to load their weapons and then fire at it. This was an incident which combines so many different factors that are still in play right now in the Middle East. We should be remembering it. We should be remembering when we look back on it that the United States must play its hand very carefully in that part of the world. As one marine said to me during a firefight at one outpost I was covering as a journalist: It is always difficult when you get involved in a five- sided argument. We ought to think about that when we are looking at what is going on in other parts of the Middle East today. But the main purpose of me speaking today is to urge all of us never to forget the courage and the risk and, ultimately, the sacrifice that so many of our young people are required to make on behalf of our country and under the direction of the leadership of those who decide to send them into harm's way.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Mikulski, in a colloquy about the importance of aeronautics funding. The chairwoman is aware that both Senator Warner and I have serious concerns about decreased funding for aeronautics. Together we look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee to ensure adequate funding for important aeronautics research programs in Virginia. Aeronautics research programs have been essential to our economic and military security for decades. Think about the millions of people who fly every year and the countless jobs and communities that have been affected by this research. From the days of the first flight of the Wright Brothers at Kitty Hawk, NC, to the modern-day aviation industry today that represents millions of jobs and contributes billions of dollars to our economy, our country has been served well by the investments we have made in aeronautics research. That history, however, and our present are at a crossroads. The advances made possible by Government-funded research in emerging aeronautics technologies have enabled long-standing military air superiority for the United States in recent decades. The vast majority of military aircraft design the U.S. military currently flies incorporate advanced technologies developed at NASA Research Centers. As a result, it is important for NASA's cooperative research efforts with the Department of Defense regarding military aviation technologies are maintained at a healthy funding level. A national effort is needed to ensure that NASA can meet the civil and military needs in the future. This issue came up when the Senate debated the budget for the 2008 fiscal year. In 2007, Congress provided $717 million for aeronautics research, in cost-adjusted numbers. I know Senator Warner and I are very thankful that the Appropriations Committee was able to provide this funding. Yet the administration proposed, in their fiscal year 2008 budget, only $554 million for aeronautics. In an age of increased global competition from Europe, China, and other nations, this decision is alarming. We appreciate the demands faced by Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby on funding all the programs under their subcommittee's purview. However, as I noted in March during the budget debate, and I repeat that message today, aeronautics research is essential for the United States to maintain its advantage in aeronautics technologies and air superiority within the military. It is essential to inspiring a new generation of children who one day might make a career in aviation, engineering, computer modeling and simulation. It is also important that Congress supports NASA Administrator's objective of 10 Healthy Centers, especially ensuring the well-being of its four research centers, which are scheduled to face significant budget decreases in the outyears. These research centers have cutting- edge facilities that are operated and maintained by highly respected scientists. Over the years, they have produced outstanding basic research, especially in aeronautics, which is then utilized by the private sector to make significant advancements in the space and aeronautics industries.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to briefly say how proud I am that this amendment has been worked out, and I express my appreciation, both to the senior Senator from Virginia for having helped us work this out and also to my colleague from Missouri who did such a great job on the floor yesterday, managing the bill. I yield the rest of our time to the Senator from Missouri.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I have grave concerns about this amendment. I spoke at length on the floor yesterday about them. We have never characterized an entity of a foreign government as a foreign terrorist organization. If we are saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is conducting terrorist activities, what we are saying, in effect, is that the Revolutionary Guard is conducting military activities against us. This has the danger of becoming a de facto authorization for military force against Iran. We have not had one hearing. I recommended yesterday that the amendment be withdrawn so we can consider it in the appropriate committees. I oppose passage at this time in the hope that we can get further discussion. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to add to the comments made by my colleague from Missouri about the Truman Commission follow-on that we have jointly introduced, along with other freshmen Members on the Democratic side, the Independent side, and with a total of 27 cosponsors as of this morning. I don't think there is a more important or volatile issue, in terms of Government accountability, than the issue of the expenditures that have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan and the accountability of not only contractors but of the quasi-military forces operating there. We have put a great deal of effort into designing a wartime commission that was inspired by the Truman Commission in World War II but has its own uniqueness, given the issues of today. I am very proud to be one of the original sponsors on this amendment. I hope Members on both sides of the aisle can support it. We are attempting, in a fair way, with experts in the field--not simply a group of Senators forming a panel, bringing in experts from the areas, experts in competence from the areas they would be looking at in a short period of time, 2 years--to examine the amounts of money that have been spent, where this money has gone, to try to bring some accountability into the system and to make their reports, in some cases with legal accountability, and then to wrap it up and go home. This is not an attempt to create a permanent standing organization but, rather, one that can come in with the right people, take a look at what went wrong, make a report to the American people and, in some cases, give them their money back, since all of these now nearly a trillion dollars have been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without a lot of accountability--that is taxpayer money--to try to find out how it was spent. In most cases, it has been spent properly. But in those cases where it has not, we want to get people their money back and get accountability to the people who did not spend it back. This is about improved transparency. It would be forward looking in terms of looking at systemic problems and attempting to address them. It is more than that. This amendment is supported by nearly every major taxpayer watchdog group. We are now, with the present state of the Department of Defense and of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, outsourcing war in ways that we have never seen before in our history. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been allocated for reconstruction and for wartime support, creating a strong potential for fraud, waste, and abuse. This commission will ensure financial accountability in those areas where there has been fraud, waste, and abuse with provisions that allow for legal accountability in cases of wrongdoing. It also will look at such organizations as Blackwater, which has recently been in the news for the alleged series of wrongful killings of Iraqis and excessive use of force. This is an area that has slid past us as a representative government which is a cause for great concern for anyone who has been involved in national security affairs over the years. We now have in Iraq 180,000 contractors working in a war where there are 160,000 troops. They are doing a whole panorama of chores that traditionally have been done by military people, all the way from operating the mess halls to providing security for even, on some occasions, General Petraeus himself. There is no accountability, none, in terms of legal accountability for actions that have been taken that result in inappropriate use of force and, in some cases, wrongful deaths of people in the area. This committee would help address that. We are also looking at basic contractor accountability. As one example, not long ago the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction reported that of the $32 billion at that time that had been spent on reconstruction and relief funds--this is State Department programs--$9 billion was unaccounted for. We need desperately to have an independent, fair, objective analysis of what has happened, what is happening, not only for accountability but also to help us design a structure for the future. Again, we are not trying to create a new bureaucracy. The commission will rely on the inspectors general in agencies that already exist for most of the analysis. We are sunsetting the provision at 2 years. We are very comfortable with SIGIR's excellent performance in uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq of reconstruction projects. We believe that is proof of the ability to do this on a more comprehensive and thorough level. I strongly urge our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to lay aside political differences and come together with the reality that all of us have an obligation to put accountability into the system for the American people and, in some cases, to give people back the money they spend in tax dollars for programs that were wrongfully carried out or, in some cases, not carried out at all. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I would like to express my concern about amendment No. 3017, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which among other things--and most troubling--would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. I think we all have a great deal of concern about the activities of Iran. We as a nation have stood strongly and will continue to speak strongly about those activities. We have taken no options off the table. I fully support all of those precepts. At the same time, I do not believe that any serious student of American foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists. We know there are problems in Iraq. We are trying to decipher the extent of those problems as they relate to Iranian weapons systems and the allegations of covert involvement. We also know that in Iraq other nations are playing covertly. The Saudis, for instance, are said to have the plurality of the foreign insurgents operating in Iraq and the majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq. We also know there is potential for volatility in the Kurdish area of Iraq with respect to the relations with Turkey. We are addressing these problems. In fact, the ``whereas'' clauses in this amendment speak clearly as to how our troops on the ground are addressing these problems. I fought in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam war because of the location of Vietnam, the propinquity of China. I think it can fairly be said that in virtually every engagement in which I was involved in Vietnam, we were being shot at with weapons made either in China or in Eastern Europe. There is a reality to these kinds of wars, and we are addressing those realities. But they need to be addressed in a proper way. Probably the best historical parallel comes from the situation with China during the Vietnam war. China was a rogue state, had nuclear weapons, would spout a lot of rhetoric about the United States, and had an American war on its border. We created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively, through diplomatic and economic and other means. And we have arguably succeeded, along with the rest of the world community, in bringing China into a proper place in that world community. That is not what this amendment is about. The first concern I have, when we are talking about making the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, is, who actually defines a terrorist organization? The Congress, to my knowledge, has never defined a terrorist organization. The State Department defines terrorist organizations. At last count, from the information that I have received, there are 42 such organizations that have been identified by the State Department in accordance with the laws the Congress passed. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. WEBB. The second concern I have is that we as a government have never identified an organization that is a part of a nation state as a terrorist organization. From the statement of the Senator from Connecticut yesterday, there are potentially 180,000 people in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard who are part of a military force of an existing state. Categorizing this organization as a terrorist organization is not our present policy of keeping the military option on the table. It is for all practical purposes mandating the military option. It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them. What is a terrorist organization? Traditionally, we have defined a terrorist organization as a nongovernmental entity that operates along the creases of international law and does harm to internationally protected people. By the way, it is kind of interesting to note that last week the Iraqi Government claimed that Blackwater is a terrorist organization for the way it operates inside Iraq. I am not making that allegation. I am giving an example of how people categorize these groups. The Revolutionary Guard is part of the Iranian Government. If they are attacking us, they are not a terrorist organization. They are an attacking army. But are they? I am not sure about that. If they were, we would be hearing some pretty strong expressions of support. Last weekend we had Admiral Fallon, who is General Petraeus's operational commander, responsible for all of the nations in that region, not simply Iraq, saying: I expect there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for. We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all. This constant drumbeat of conflict is what strikes me-- Says Admiral Fallon-- which is not helpful and not useful . . . I expect there will be no war. . . . We have General Petraeus, whose comments are widely quoted in the ``whereas'' clauses. When he was testifying in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee in his official testimony, he did mention that Iran was using the Quds Force to turn Shiite militias into a Hezbollah-like force to fight a proxy war, et cetera. But then when he was asked a question about it, General Petraeus said: The Quds Force itself, we believe, by and large, those individuals have been pulled out of the country as have been the Lebanese Hezbollah trainers who were being used to augment that activity. We have the statement of Prime Minister Maliki in today's Washington Post. He said: Iran's role in fomenting violence diverges from the administration's. His opinion. His government has begun a dialogue with Iran and Syria, according to him, and has explained to them that their activities are unhelpful. Our relations with these countries have improved, he said, to the point they are not interfering in our international affairs. Asked about the Revolutionary Guard forces, which the U.S. military charges are arming, training, and directing Shiite militias in Iraq, Maliki said: There used to be support through borders for these militias. But it has ceased to exist. Now, I am not saying all of this is factually 100 percent right. I am not saying the other side is right. Here is what I am saying: We haven't had one hearing on this. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee, I am on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military, and we have not had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It is not the way to declare war, although this clearly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted this way. These who regret their vote 5 years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and acts are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are a regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this administration. This kind of rhetoric will only encourage the Iranian people to rally around bad leadership because of the fear of foreign invasion. Fear of the outside is the main glue that authoritarian regimes historically use when they face trouble on the inside. Admiral Fallon agrees with this view. The Baker-Hamilton report was adamant about the need to engage these nations. The facts of our economy say so. Going back to the beginning of the Iraq war, in the fall of 2002, 5 years ago, oil was $25 dollars a barrel; it is $82 a barrel today. The price of gold was below $300, yesterday it was $740. The value of our currency is at an all-time low against the Euro, at parity for the first time in 30 years with the Canadian dollar. This proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream. It is not a prescription for success. At best it is a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining congressional validation for military action without one hearing and without serious debate. I believe this amendment should be withdrawn so we can hold sensible hearings and fulfill our duty to truly examine these far-reaching issues. If it is not withdrawn, I regrettably intend to vote against it. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.