[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10526-S10528]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CALENDAR

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to an immediate en bloc consideration of the following bills: 
Calendar No. 393 to 400, 403 to 410, 420, 533, and 584.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senate will proceed en bloc.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I do not intend to object in the final analysis on this, 
but I think the American public needs to hear how this bill got here 
and the associated processes with it. I want to share my concerns over 
it. It will take me a few minutes to do that, but I think it is 
important that we do this.
  Before I lift my objection to the authorization in this package, I 
think it is important to know that this obligates the American people 
for $1.5 billion. The majority leader originally sought consent for 
this package in May and again in July. After carefully reviewing the 
package, considering the oath that I took in January of 2005, I could 
not give that consent.
  I immediately sat down with the chairman of the Energy Committee. I 
outlined in detail my concerns with him. And I am committed by putting 
my objections in writing, and I did so.

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                     Washington, DC, May 25, 2006.
     Hon. Pete Domenici,
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
     U.S. Senate.
       Dear Chairman Domenici: I want to thank you for agreeing to 
     meet with me late last week. As follow-up to our conversation 
     and per my commitment to you, I am providing a more thorough 
     review of the concerns that prompted me to place a hold on 
     the committee package.
       First and foremost, as we discussed during our meeting, I 
     want to underscore my concern that the package gives very 
     little consideration to the future impact on spending and the 
     growing deficit. With rare exception, each bill in the 
     package creates or expands' authorized spending levels, with 
     no consideration for finding similarly authorized programs 
     that have failed to meet Congressional intent or which have 
     outlived their

[[Page S10527]]

     usefulness. In other words, in creating these 
     authorizations--eventual recommendations for appropriations--
     we have given little or no thought to finding offsets or 
     attempted to prioritize diminishing federal resources.
       For example, S. 1913, ``the Indiana Dunes Visitors Center'' 
     would authorize the National Park Service to lease space and 
     construct a gift shop and theater at an estimated cost of 
     $1.2 million. H.R. 318, ``the Castle Nugent Farms study'' 
     would spend an estimated $500,000 to determine the 
     feasibility of designating the area a unit of the National 
     Park Service (NPS). Similarly, H.R. 1728 would study the 
     feasibility of establishing a NPS unit to preserve historic 
     homes in Ste Genevieve, Missouri. S. 200, S. 204, S 163, and 
     S 249 would establish National Heritage Areas (NHA) at an 
     estimated initial cost of $40 million. I am very concerned 
     about authorizing new spending on parks and associated 
     buildings when our nation already is more than $8 trillion in 
     debt and when we already have millions of acres of federal 
     lands that we are already unable to maintain properly.
       I specifically question why there has been no attempt to 
     offset the new authorizations, or in any way review the 
     priorities of agency spending. The Department of the 
     Interior--where each of these new programs will be 
     administered--is replete with wasteful and ineffective 
     spending, and provides ample opportunity for this Congress to 
     prioritize its spending. Consider the following: In adding to 
     the 672 million acres that it currently. owns, the Department 
     of the Interior and related land management agencies have 
     spent over $1.1 billion on land acquisition since 2002, and 
     an estimated $113 million last year alone. Additionally, the 
     Administration estimates that the agency carries over $4.5 
     billion in unobligated balances. Surely, we can find a way 
     to prioritize spending in these agencies, and to ensure 
     that these new authorizations don't add to the already 
     crushing debt that our children will inherit.
       Furthermore, I am concerned that many of the bills lack 
     sufficient justification for federal involvement. For 
     example, S 1346 ``the Michigan Lighthouse and Maritime 
     Heritage Act'' would authorize $500,000 for the Department of 
     the Interior ``to study and report on Michigan maritime 
     heritage resource preservation and interpretation, including: 
     potential economic and tourism benefits of preservation of 
     these resources . . .'' The tourism industry in Michigan 
     already generates an estimated $16 billion, and while I do 
     not question the importance of these local preservation and 
     promotion efforts, I fail to see a federal responsibility.
       Finally, I am concerned that a bill (S 1970) that I offered 
     to amend the Trail of Tears Historic Trail Act, was modified 
     from its original version. In the bill that I introduced, I 
     specifically prohibited any new federal appropriations for 
     the update of the trail study. First, the bulk of the study 
     has already been completed by researchers, and simply needs 
     updating. Second, I felt it was important that any 
     expenditures for the trail come from existing trail funding, 
     and not burden other NPS resources. In amending my bill, the 
     committee undermined a basic condition of my support for the 
     bill and opened up the possibility for new spending--
     something I will aggressively oppose.
       I am prepared to drop my objections to the hotlined package 
     if the committee is willing to consider other measures to 
     offset the proposed new authorizations. In briefly reviewing 
     offsetting measures within the Department of the Interior, I 
     have identified several billion dollars in potential offsets. 
     I am including an overview below:
       The President has proposed the elimination or reduction of 
     several programs within the Department of the Interior. Total 
     savings are projected to be $260,000,000. http://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/savings.pdf. These 
     savings will pay for all but one of the bills contained in 
     the hotlined package.
       The Department of the Interior spent $218.7 million on 
     conferences and travel in FY 2004, up $12 million since FY 
     2000; Reducing these expenditures by 10% will entirely pay 
     for 9 of the bills included in this package.
       The Department of the Inteior has over $4.5 billion in 
     unobligated funds already appropriated by Congress. We can 
     pay for the entire authorization package simply by requiring 
     that all future appropriations be paid for from the agency's 
     unobligated balances.
       These suggestions are by no means exhaustive, and I am 
     certainly open to other alternative offsets. We can and we 
     should find a way to prioritize spending in these areas, and 
     I look forward to working with you to accomplish this goal.
       Again, I want to thank: you for taking the time to meet 
     with me to hear my concerns, and for this opportunity to work 
     with you to preserve and protect the great heritage of 
     sacrifice that was given to us by our forefathers.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Tom A. Coburn,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will repeat today what I said in person 
and in writing. It authorizes $1.5 billion spending with not one offset 
and zero consideration for prioritization of how we spend money in this 
country.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a unanimous-consent request pending 
before the Senate.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Is the Senator required to register an objection or not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will try again, reserving my right to 
object. I will finish this statement one way or the other; otherwise, I 
will object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the right to object 
upon reservation. It is an accommodation that exists only with the 
consent of other Senators.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent after the 
unanimous-consent on this bill that I be allowed 15 minutes to speak on 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. I will not object to that.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respectfully ask the Senator from 
Oklahoma if I could do the other two pending unanimous-consent requests 
and then allow the Senator from Oklahoma to speak for 15 minutes; and 
then, after that allow either Senator Cornyn or Senator Leahy, or both, 
along with myself, to speak on the previously agreed to bill for up to 
15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. I object to that, unless we can have a more comprehensive 
agreement. I was told that a number of us concerned about drought could 
come to the floor at 11:30 this morning. Then we were told 1:30. Now it 
is 1:45. It is fine with me if we can reach an agreement that extends 
to those of us who are from states suffering from a natural disaster. I 
totally appreciate the Senator's right to at some point have a chance 
to express himself. As a matter of procedure, when a Senator has raised 
an objection, it is my understanding of the rules of the Senate that 
you have to promptly object or not. It is not a time to speak. I would 
be fully in agreement having a unanimous-consent agreement to give you 
the right to express your views. You certainly have that right at some 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I will object unless we have a chance to 
reach a more comprehensive agreement on what follows.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor. Is there 
objection to the en bloc consideration of the bills listed by the 
Senator from Texas?
  Mr. CONRAD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we finish 
the unanimous-consent requests that have been cleared on both sides, 
that there be speakers recognized in the following order: Senator 
Coburn, Senator Chambliss, Senator Conrad, and a Republican slot; 
further, that Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy and myself be allowed to 
have 15 minutes following that to discuss legislation previously 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I amend my unanimous-consent request 
to put Senator Dorgan following the Republicans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I 
understand the recognition is Senator Conrad and then a Republican slot 
at which point I would be recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I think it would be very important here to 
have time specified for these names because that is the only way we can 
have an understanding here. I will object unless we have time 
associated with the names.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[[Page S10528]]

  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent that the two 
agreed-to energy en bloc requests be granted first; following that, 
Senator Coburn for 15 minutes, Senator Chambliss for 10 minutes, 
Senator Conrad for up to 30 minutes, a Republican slot for 10 minutes, 
and Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes. I need to also have time reserved 
for Senator Leahy, Senator Cornyn, and myself following that order for 
up to 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--and I shall 
not object--I believe the Senator from Texas is discussing time for a 
colloquy that Senator Cornyn and I intend to do which will take about 5 
to 10 minutes. When would we have our colloquy?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. It would be approximately an hour and half before 
that would occur unless there would be a unanimous consent agreement 
that the colloquy could be moved up.
  Mr. LEAHY. I don't want to interfere with others who are on the floor 
already planning things. I wonder if there would be a difficulty if 
Senator Cornyn and I did our colloquy. I can assure the Senate that I 
will keep my time to 2 minutes. I do not know how much time the Senator 
from Texas would request.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I amend my unanimous consent to allow 
us to do the two energy en banc requests that have been agreed to by 
both sides; Senator Cornyn and Senator Leahy for up to 5 minutes; 
Senator Coburn for 15 minutes; Senator Chambliss for 10 minutes; 
Senator Conrad for up to 30 minutes; a Republican slot for 10 minutes; 
Senator Dorgan for 20 minutes; and Senator Hutchison for 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator may proceed with the en banc unanimous consent requests.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate en bloc consideration of the following 
bills: Calendar Nos. 393 to 400, 403 to 410, 420, 533, and 584.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments at the desk be agreed to; the committee-reported amendments 
as amended, if amended, be agreed to; the bills as amended, if amended, 
be read a third time and passed en bloc; the resolution be agreed to; 
and the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________