Jim Webb

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, an issue I wish to address today relates to a request that Senator Clinton, my colleague from New York, made to the Secretary of Defense back in May, asking that appropriate oversight committees in the Congress, particularly the Armed Services Committee on which I serve, as does the Presiding Officer, be given briefings regarding what current contingency plans might exist in the Department of Defense if we do, in fact, begin a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq. The Secretary of Defense did not respond to the Senator from New York directly. Instead, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Eric Edelman, wrote her a letter with which she took great umbrage last weekend stating, and I quote from Mr. Edelman's letter, ``that premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia.'' He then said at the end of his letter: It is a longstanding departmental policy that operational plans, including contingency plans, are not released outside of the department. I have great concerns about this letter, having spent 5 years working in the Pentagon and knowing these sorts of letters require coordination among the highest offices inside the Pentagon. I ask that the Secretary of Defense clarify that position of the Department of Defense on the matters that his Under Secretary addressed. Is it the policy of the Department of Defense that a discussion of the withdrawal of forces reinforces enemy propaganda and that we might be abandoning our allies, as we are perceived to have done in Lebanon and Somalia? The first thing I ask is, what allies did we abandon in Lebanon and Somalia?--I was in Lebanon as a journalist. We went into Lebanon as part of a U.N. peacekeeping force in order to separate warring factions. We were there purely on a mission of peace. We were not there to side with one faction or another. In Somalia, it was basically gang warfare. We all know that now. This is the kind of rhetoric that, in my opinion, was designed purely for the purpose of attacking Senator Clinton rather than addressing the issues that we need to be looking at. There is probably no greater testimony to that than to just go back to the bill that Senator Warner and Senator Lugar offered as an amendment on the Defense authorization bill, which was just pulled because this amendment--which was put together after careful thought by the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, two of the esteemed leaders of the Republican Party--asked for the same thing. In fact, it called for the same thing. Senator Warner and Senator Lugar were stating in this amendment that the President should require, among other things, a report to be presented to the Congress no later than October 16, 2007, which specifically addressed the same issues that Senator Clinton asked to be addressed in her letter, showing what the plans might be and when they might be executable in the event we decide to withdraw our forces from Iraq. Also, I think it is a legitimate question for people in Congress to be asking when we look back at the way we ended up going into Iraq. I was not a Member of this body, but I watched, as did so many Americans, on television as this body and the House of Representatives had administration officials testifying. They asked in the runup to this war how long we were going to be in Iraq, and the answer was a litany. It was as long as is necessary and not 1 day more. For Under Secretary Edelman to in any way indicate that it is the policy of this administration that they do not have to share the thought they are putting into these options is totally out of line. For that reason, I joined with Senator Clinton, Senator Bayh, and Senator Byrd in a letter to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee specifically asking that we have hearings in the Armed Services Committee that will address these issues. If the administration wants to go into closed hearings, that is fine. But I am asking today, No. 1, that the Secretary of Defense clarify for us what his beliefs are with respect to the rhetoric that came out of a letter that took 2 months to be generated from his Department in response to what Senator Clinton asked for; and then secondly, that the other Members of this body join me in expressing their concern on this issue. We have to have contingency plans. It is within the purview of the Congress for us to examine them. Again, I ask Senators on both sides of the aisle to put their eyes on this and join me in this expression of concern.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. It is certainly OK with me. Thank you.

Mr. WEBB. That is correct.

Mr. WEBB. I would estimate 10 minutes, Mr. Leader.

Mr. WEBB

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

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any time remaining in the quorum call be equally divided.

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

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

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to address two issues this afternoon. Before I do, I say to the Republican leader that I will gladly support his joint resolution. I spent time in Burma. I have observed the situation on the ground. We do need to engage Burma and assist in its movement toward better political conditions, but I believe sanctions are clearly appropriate. (The further remarks of Mr. Webb are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

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

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I wish to speak on behalf of an amendment I was very proud to cosponsor with Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, that was passed by a unanimous vote while I was outside the Senate when we came into session yesterday. I thank Senator Warner for his leadership on this bill, and I express my appreciation to the Senate for their support. This amendment is called the minority-serving institution digital and wireless technology opportunity amendment. It will help close what is clearly a digital divide at minority institutions in the country. This was a bipartisan effort, as I pointed out, and it is directed toward ensuring we are addressing the current needs that exist in our colleges and universities by giving our students an opportunity to compete with anyone anywhere around the world. Over 60 percent of jobs require information technology skills these days, and many jobs in the information technology field pay significantly higher salaries. It is vital to our global competitiveness that all institutions of higher education provide their students with access to the most current information technology and equipment. I commend our leadership and the HELP Committee for making these sorts of issues a priority on the bill we voted on today and for ensuring that our students have the tools necessary to succeed and compete in our changing economy. This particular amendment will establish a new grant program to be administered by the Secretary of Education to assist historically Black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, and tribal colleges. These grants have a 5-year time period in which they have to be used. I believe they are highly appropriate in helping these minority institutions reach a level playing field. Virginia is home to six historically Black colleges and universities--Norfolk State University, St. Paul's College, Virginia Union University, Hampton University, Virginia University of Lynchburg, and Virginia State University. These are examples of some of the universities that will be helped by this amendment. Investing in our minority-serving institutions will give our students an opportunity to compete far more effectively in our global economy. This amendment addresses the inequality of access to technology that exists in many cases because of technical and economic restraints. I am looking forward to working closely with the appropriators to ensure that necessary funds are provided for this critical program. I again thank my colleagues, in particular the esteemed senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, for helping make adoption of this important amendment possible.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. room 253 ofthe Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing will focus on creative solutions to improve air service to small and rural communities.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Federal Acquisition: Ways to Strengthen Competition and Accountability.''

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 at 10 a.m. Room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a hearing to consider pending nominations. Agenda Robert Lance Boldrey, nominated to be a Member of the Board of Trustees, Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Foundation. Kristine L. Svinicki, nominated to be a Member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert Lyle Laverty, nominated to be the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Department of the Interior.

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Hearing to Examine the Prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean'' on Tuesday, July 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 226. Witness list Panel I: David V. Aguilar, Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC; Johnny Sutton, United States Attorney, Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX. Panel II: T.J. Bonner, President, National Border Patrol Council, Campo, CA; Luis Barker, Deputy Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Washington, DC; David L. Botsford, Appellate Counsel for Mr. Ramos, Austin, RX.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Specter, Klobuchar, and Harkin, in that order, each be recognized for up to 10 minutes as in morning business, and that at the conclusion of those remarks the Senate stand in recess, as previously ordered.

Mr. WEBB. I so modify my request, unless there is objection.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Excuse me?

Mr. WEBB. If I may say, it is more than one poll.

Mr. WEBB. If I may clarify the polls for the Senator.

Mr. WEBB. Would the Senator from South Dakota agree that the United States military is made up of people with the same diversity of political views as the country at large?

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, today I join people from throughout America in paying tribute to former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson, who passed away yesterday at the age of 94. Lady Bird Johnson served as America's First Lady during one of the most tumultuous periods in our Nation's history. During the 1960s, this Nation suffered through the assassinations of our most promising leaders. We were also bitterly divided by the war in Vietnam. With respect to Vietnam, the Johnson family was personally affected by the war. Many of us recall the White House wedding of Chuck and Lynda Bird Robb in 1967, and how Chuck Robb later distinguished himself as a Marine Corps officer in Vietnam. And many of our cities literally burned as America struggled to end segregation and to usher in a new era of civil rights. On this last issue, in particular, President Johnson and Lady Bird Johnson deserve historical credit for their leadership and political courage. It was against this backdrop of political and civil unrest that America was especially blessed by the grace, humility and quiet determination of Lady Bird Johnson. Mrs. Johnson reminded all of us that America is at her best when we are civil to each other and when we treat our adversaries with tolerance and respect. Of course, her legacy extends far beyond her grace, charm and steadfast loyalty to President Johnson. To a greater extent perhaps than any other living American, Lady Bird Johnson was the mother of the modern environmental movement. With her tireless efforts to beautify the countryside, promote conservation and combat roadside litter, Lady Bird Johnson demonstrated the power that each of us has to protect the environment and make our communities more attractive. Again, we need to embrace her legacy today. In my home State of Virginia, we have always felt a special connection to Lady Bird Johnson. She was the mother of Lynda Bird Robb, who was the Commonwealth's First Lady from 1982 to 1986, and the mother-in-law of Chuck Robb who was Governor at that time and later a distinguished Member of this body. During her frequent trips to our State, Virginians always embraced Lady Bird Johnson for her warmth, grace, and strength of character. These were the same values for which all Americans held her in such high esteem. I want to extend to her family and many friends my deepest sympathies, as well as my appreciation for her extraordinary life. America is a much better Nation because of the life and service of Lady Bird Johnson.

Mr. WEBB

Mr. WEBB. I thank the Senator for yielding for a factual reference on the one point the Senator from Arizona raised, and I will reserve the remainder of my time for later on. There is a waiver provision in this amendment that allows anyone who wants to return to duty in Iraq or Afghanistan to do so and without affecting the rights of other people to be deployed, according to the amendment.

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to vote against this measure. It is a cover measure. It is a sense of Congress. It has no legal impact. This is a cover amendment because of earlier votes. It states as a goal, a goal that members of the regular components should be deployed for no more than 15 months. The stated goal of the Department of Defense is 12 months. This is not something people should be voting for. I yield the floor.

Mr. WEBB. Madam President, I wish to take 5 minutes and address some of the issues raised on the other side and speak briefly about the Graham set-aside. First, Senator Kyl from Arizona read a communication from the administration expressing its disagreement with the approach Senator Hagel's amendment is taking. I would like to say, quite obviously, that one would expect the administration to object to rational acts that might be placing restraints--even proper restraints--on Executive authority. A number of constitutional issues have been raised. There are no constitutional issues in this amendment--any more than they were in the amendment I offered earlier. This is a proper exercise of authority under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. In fact, to respond to what Senator Graham said, there have been Presidents who have allowed this congressional authority to take place. The most graphic example was President Truman during the Korean war, when American troops were being sent overseas without proper training, and the Congress passed a requirement that no troops could be sent overseas unless they had been trained for 120 days. That was the Congress taking measures to protect the well-being of troops being sent into harm's way. We are doing essentially the same thing. There was a comment about the difficulty that might be had in the military with respect to individual troop rotations versus unit-group rotations. This is simply not an issue. It has never been an issue. Every troop returning from a combat zone or in the military has in their record book the date they came back. There are a lot of individuals who have returned from deployments overseas who were being put in the units that were getting ready to deploy. That concept is called backfill. So you can have an individual who has only been back for a few months being put into a unit that arguably has been back for a year. That is not taking care of the individual. There was a comment by Senator Graham about the Hagel amendment creating down-range constitutional issues--issues that might affect us in other wars. This is simply not true. If you read the amendment, it is limited to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Finally, there have been comments about the attitude of the U.S. military. I think that poll after poll demonstrates that the attitudes of our people in military uniform are very directly a mirror of the attitudes of the people in the country at large. There is not that much of a distinction at all. With respect to this amendment that has been offered, this side by side, clearly, it is being offered as cover for people who are going to vote against the Hagel amendment and who voted against the amendment I proposed. I urge my colleagues not to vote for it. First of all, it is a sense of the Senate. It has no legal authority whatsoever. Second, the goals that are in this amendment are no different than current policy. So there is no sense in anyone who wants to attempt to help the people who are being sent into harm's way again and again with some reasonable timelines to vote for this. It is simply a statement of existing policy. If you agree with existing policy and you want to vote for a sense of the Senate, you may want to vote for this. I urge my colleagues not to. With that, I yield the floor.