[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16583-16586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            SENATE PROCEDURE

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes. I have 
been a Senator for almost 4 years. I think my life experiences I bring 
to the body are somewhat different than a lot of others. I have some 
observations on what is happening to us. I hope the American people 
will pay attention because this week the Senate has failed--miserably 
failed. We just passed a housing bill that fixes only short-term 
problems and doesn't fix the long-term problems associated with housing 
and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We just did that because we are in a 
crisis. You have to do it. The Secretary of the Treasury came to the 
Presiding Officer's conference, he came to ours, and he talked about 
why this is important for them to have the flexibility to establish 
confidence in the mortgage markets. We had a great opportunity to not 
only address that confidence and make sure it was there so people have 
the proper expectations that they can get a mortgage--and a reasonable 
one--but we did other things that failed to fix the ultimate problem.
  As you play out this bill, if you look at the negative long-run end 
of it, the American taxpayers have the potential to be on the hook for 
$3.9 trillion. There are some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms in 
there. This body has known for 15 years they needed to be there. We 
didn't do anything about putting those reforms in there until it became 
a crisis.
  The point I am making is, why are we waiting for crises? Once the 
crises get here, why do we bend to the political wills of the short 
term rather than address the long-term structural problems that are out 
there?
  So there is no question we have helped a lot of people with the bill 
we passed, but you have to ask the question, What is this going to do 
to everybody else who pays their mortgage and anybody who wants to get 
a mortgage in the future and continues to keep their commitments? What 
we have done is raise the interest rates. We have raised the cost on 
anybody who purchases a home in this country for the next 15 years.
  What else have we done? We have put $3.9 billion out in CDBG funds to 
buy homes that have already been foreclosed from the banks--from the 
banks--the very people who created part of this mess we just bailed out 
with $3.9 billion of our grandchildren's money.
  So here we go, we are saying we are fixing the problem, but we are 
working on it only when it is in crisis. Then, when we have the 
political momentum to do what is right and fix the long term and the 
short term, what do we do? We run because we are more interested in our 
political futures, in our political careers than we are the 
opportunities and potential employment opportunities and lifestyles for 
our children and grandchildren.
  Just as my colleagues have been talking about energy, the Senator 
from Tennessee very well knows that the time to address the problems we 
are talking about right now in terms of more production was 15 years 
ago. Now the Senate sits stuck because we are worried about the 
political fallout of perhaps having amendments to drill where the oil 
is and that might not fit one political party's agenda. But I will tell 
you what, it fits the American people's agenda. So we have this debate 
and this division that is becoming partisan. It is all on the basis of 
how do we look good in November. I want to tell you, none of us look 
good to the American people, because we are not fixing the problems on 
a timely basis. We are not allowing the historical precedents of this 
body, which is debate and amendments, to mold and create legislation 
that adequately reflects the risks and problems that future generations 
are going to encounter.
  We are working on energy here, and the big cloud hanging over the 
room

[[Page 16584]]

that nobody wants to talk about is carbon and global warming. Let's 
take a minute and say I am wrong and that global warming and carbon is 
a tremendous problem for this country. Everybody who believes that--and 
I don't dishonor their belief--knows if we started today doing 
everything we could do, it will take us 30 years to get off of carbon-
based fuels. Everybody agrees with that. What are we going to do 
between now and the next 30 years? How are we going to address the 
problem?
  This year, American taxpayers sent $700 billion of their money--a 
large portion of it--to countries that would like to see us done in. We 
are going to continue to do that until such time as we have a cogent 
energy policy, regardless of global warming or carbon problems. It is 
at least going to take 30 years. So we ought to take that out of the 
realm and say: How do we quit giving away our fortune, our future, and 
our assets to other people? Even if we all agreed on global warming, we 
can all agree it will take a long time to transition away from carbon-
based fuels. Why would we not have a debate on every possible way in 
which we can find more American energy, American resources, American 
security, and use less foreign resources?
  I noted on the floor on Monday that our national security is at 
extreme risk today. There is a historical precedent. When the Egyptians 
took over the Suez Canal, the British and French had a great amount of 
debt. We owned most of it. We were adamantly opposed to them attacking 
Egypt to bring back the Suez Canal under their control. We didn't fire 
the first shot against the French and English. Do you know what we told 
them? We said: If you do this, we are going to put your debt onto the 
market. We will wreck your economy. We will create inflation and create 
a decreased standard of living. So you dare not do this. Do you know 
what. They knew it would happen and that we would do that. 
Consequently, a war was averted.
  Think now, with China owning a trillion dollars of our debt, and 
another trillion dollars in the Middle East. What happens if they don't 
like our foreign policy and they decide to dump our debt onto the 
market? How much national security do we have?
  So the debate about energy is not just about the $2,400 that is 
killing every American family, which represents the amount of money 
they are paying additionally this year that they didn't have to pay 
last year for energy. It is making them make choices they have never 
had to make before, making them make sacrifices they have never had to 
make before; and it is because of us, because we failed them, because 
we didn't solve this problem 15 years ago. But it also puts at risk the 
security--not just financial but the national security and freedom and 
liberty for them, their children, and the generations that follow.
  So the idea that we would not utilize every potential resource 
America has to solve this energy crisis, the fact we will not be 
allowed and are not allowed to have a true debate with true amendments 
that bring that forth to the American public, says we are highly 
dysfunctional, and that it is all about the next election, and it is 
never about the good and long-term interests of the country.
  That has to stop in this body. It has to stop. It doesn't matter if 
it is a Democrat or a Republican. It has to stop for future generations 
of this country. We need to quit worrying about whether we get 
reelected and start working on what is in the best long-term interests 
of this country.
  Finally, I want to make a comment about this. The majority leader 
filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill he calls--I don't 
remember what it is called. It is 8 percent of the bills we have passed 
by unanimous consent, which he wrapped up into one bill, and on which 
he is not going to allow amendments. Again, it is the same procedure. 
We are going to grow the Government, create 36 new programs, and spend 
$11.3 billion. We are going to do that without the ability to amend 
those bills.
  Half of those bills, I agree, we ought to do. What I don't agree 
with--which is part of the problem in terms of our future--is we should 
not get rid of the waste in the rest of the Federal Government so we 
are able to pay to do good things. Documented by the GAO, the 
Congressional Research Service, the various inspectors general, and the 
Congressional Budget Office is that we have $300 billion worth of waste 
or fraud in the Federal Government every year. Now we are going to put 
a bill on the floor that is going to grow the Government more, and not 
one of them attacks any of that waste.
  That is wrong procedurally, but let me tell you what is really wrong 
with it. It ignores the very process every family in this country has 
to go through. If they want to do something new, they don't have the 
ability to charge it to somebody else. They have to make a discernible, 
very careful calculation about what their priorities are, and they have 
to decide what they are going to give up if they are going to do 
something new. It is amazing to me that this body is so averse to 
getting rid of waste. I understand it, and I know what it is about. 
Politicians are averse to offending anybody. What we better have is 
politicians who are willing to offend this generation so that the next 
two generations can inhabit and receive and welcome the liberty our 
Founders intended for us to have.
  So we are going to have $11 billion on the floor sometime next week, 
and we are going to talk about subhuman primate transfer and the War of 
1812 Commission, but we are not going to work to solve the energy 
problems of the people in this country. We are going to talk about 
doing things the CDC and the NIH already have the power to do, but it 
doesn't look good because we cannot have a press release or press 
conference and say we didn't do something for a lobbyist's special 
interest. We are not going to create nuclear generation or go after the 
oil shale, and we are not going to go off the coast to find, in an 
environmentally friendly way, resources that will lessen that $700 
billion of our Treasury we ship out of the country every year. Instead, 
we are going to do things that politically look good. If you oppose 
them, you might politically look bad. But we are not going to address 
the real issues in front of the country, as a whole.
  It is an amazement to me that when the figures were released, they 
reflected 9 percent of the people have confidence in the Senate. I 
wonder where those people are. If they are paying attention to this 
place, they could not have any confidence in it, because we are not 
addressing the real issues that are, in fact, impacting America today, 
American families today but, more importantly, national security today 
and tomorrow, and the wealth, health, and well-being of future 
generations.
  When I heard the majority leader today say he had, in fact, made an 
offer to where we could offer amendments of any type on the Energy 
bill, I felt sorry for him, because what happened is he put himself in 
a hole because of politics. You see, there is a group of people in this 
country--and they are in the minority now--who don't think we ought to 
drill anywhere; that we should not explore on land or off land; that we 
should not use coal at all, even if we can do it cleanly; and that we 
should not expand wind or solar. And to address that political 
component, the majority leader has put himself in a box. He won't be 
hurt by it. He has the toughest job in this body, so my hat is off to 
him because it is difficult. Who is going to be hurt is every American. 
Every American. The stubborn resistance to not allow amendments to 
allow us to get rid of this $700 billion we are paying out, to create a 
transformed platform where we can become at least somewhat more energy 
independent, that we, in fact, lower the risk for our national security 
through some increased energy independence, is a tragedy we will all 
pay a great deal for.
  It is time for a rethink in this country. It is time for a rethink in 
this body. It is time for the partisanship to go out. It is time to 
think not about our next election, not about who is going to be 
President, not how you position a political party, but how in fact

[[Page 16585]]

you do the work the American people need us to do to secure their 
future, and do it in a way that says I am willing to give up my Senate 
seat to do what is best for this country in the long run. Anything less 
than that from us is cowardice.
  I will paraphrase Martin Luther King, when he talked about how people 
make decisions. He said vanity asks the question, ``Is it popular?'' 
Cowardice asks the question, ``Is it expedient?'' But conscience asks 
the question, ``Is it right?''
  We are asking the wrong questions in this body. We are putting the 
wrong questions before the American people. We need to get back to 
conscience--not expediency, not vanity, and not popularity. We need to 
be about the country's business. My great regret is we are about 
politicians' business and not about this country's business.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). The Senator from Alabama is 
recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation to 
Senator Coburn. I believe that is one of the most important speeches I 
have heard in the 12 years I have been in this Senate. We are going to 
have a test. This body will be tested in the days to come, it appears, 
because some Members who run the railroad are unhappy that one Member 
of this Senate--the hardest working Member of the Senate and one of the 
most intelligent Members of the Senate and one of the most principled 
Members of the Senate--has an odd view about legislation.
  Senator Coburn believes we ought to read legislation and, if there is 
something wrong with it, before we pass it, we should try to fix it. He 
believes we are spending too much money--and we are.
  I will note that, according to the conservative way of figuring debt, 
last year our deficit was $177 billion. Already this year, we have done 
a $150 billion stimulus package. We have done other things. The economy 
is slowing down. Our deficit this fiscal year, ending September 30, is 
likely to be $450 billion, maybe $500 billion. If you figure it another 
way, it can be another $150 billion more.
  So isn't it good that we have a Senator who will stand up here and 
fight to try to contain the recklessness we have ongoing in this body? 
He would actually read legislation and spot the weaknesses because I 
have watched him. I don't know how he possibly has the time to do all 
that he does. And it is for America.
  One of the oddest things about this body I have observed--and I have 
been one, on occasion, to hold legislation also and object to certain 
parts in it. I am sure Senator Coburn has seen this. If you object to 
something because it adversely affects Oklahoma or Alabama or 
Tennessee, some special interest in your State, why, that is fine. That 
is quite acceptable. Every Senator has to protect their own special 
interest in their State. That is why you are here. But if you actually 
protest a piece of legislation because it is bad policy, because it 
does not further America's legitimate national interest, because it 
dumps wealth and debt on our grandchildren, then that is ridiculous. 
What is the matter? You are just a crank. You are just trying to slow 
down the machine. You are stopping the train.
  I am telling you, this is a big deal that is coming up. This body is 
famous for unlimited debate. On a number of pieces of legislation they 
will ask the question--the majority leader and others frequently ask a 
question, and this is what they say: I ask unanimous consent that this 
piece of legislation pass--maybe 100, 200, 500 pages--without an 
amendment, without any debate, and we go straight to a vote and just 
pass it.
  How many Members of this body actually read it? Very few, if any. 
Senator Coburn tries to read them. He tries to analyze them. He does 
the right thing that every Senator should do. If he sees something that 
needs to be debated or corrected, he objects because he is not ready to 
consent. Isn't that fundamentally it? He is not prepared to consent 
because he thinks there is something bad in it for America. He is one 
of the most principled people I know in committing to what is best for 
America--not just Oklahoma but for America.
  So the majority leader has gotten his back up. He just wants all 
these bills to go through, and he doesn't want to have them brought up.
  Senator Coburn has repeatedly improved pieces of legislation. I hope 
if we proceed with this debate--and I don't know if Senator Coburn 
possibly has time--but I would like to see brought out on the floor of 
this Senate some of the corrections and improvements to hundreds of 
pieces of legislation that he has achieved by standing up and saying: I 
am not going to consent until you fix this problem. You know it is bad, 
go on and agree to it. And frequently they will agree. They will say 
politics made us do it. We really didn't favor that anyway, Tom. But 
maybe if it is the only way we can pass it, we will just do it and do 
the right thing. So legislation is improved time and time and time 
again as a result of his work.
  I know with regard to this African AIDS piece of legislation, I met 
with a group from Africa--a grandmother whose daughter died from AIDS 
and who had her grandchild with her who has AIDS--and they objected to 
several different things in that bill. They said they would rather have 
no bill than if we pass it the way it was originally written.
  Senator Coburn--Dr. Coburn--understands this, and he put his foot 
down. He made them improve that bill before he would agree to have it 
come up for a vote or support it, which he did eventually.
  I am just saying the good government crowd is being spun around, and 
many in the media are being spun around that good government is on the 
side of those who don't like people who put holds on legislation. I 
would say it is crystal clear that anybody who loves this country, who 
worries about reckless spending, who wants integrity in government 
should be on the side of a Senator who will stand up and read the 
legislation, who is prepared to come to the floor and debate the 
problems he sees in it, and who will offer amendments to make it 
better. That is what a Senator ought to do.
  That is what this Senate should be. It will be a dark day, it will be 
a day of shame in this Senate if we cobble all these pieces of 
legislation together and ram it through without any opportunity to 
amend it. That is what the plan is, as I understand it, to just cobble 
up 36 pieces of legislation that people have concerns about and just 
file for cloture, shut off debate, and pass them all. That is not good 
policy. It will be a dark day for this Senate.
  I am so proud I had the opportunity to be here and hear Senator 
Coburn's speech. He is doing the right thing for this country. I am 
proud of him and I will be supporting him and I think a lot of others 
will too.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator for 
his remarks. I stayed also to hear Senator Coburn, and I am glad I did. 
It was an important speech for this body in a whole variety of ways.
  The Senator from Alabama spoke about one of the ways, but another way 
is that he reminded us that we are here not to advance our own 
political interests. I don't think most of us feel as if we are. We 
come here from a variety of different directions. For most of us, it is 
an accident we are here. We don't take ourselves all that seriously. We 
know it is just a set of circumstances that put us here, and we work 
hard. I think most of us get up every day hoping by the end of the day 
that we will think of something constructive to do that will help the 
country. But the functioning of the Senate has failed us in our ability 
to do that.
  I have tried to put my finger on it over the last 6 years. I am not 
sure I have all the answers. I came here 40 years ago, with Howard 
Baker, in 1967. I was very young, just out of law school, and I watched 
things. It is never very easy--in a big complex country like this--to 
resolve things, and so many of the tougher issues get

[[Page 16586]]

thrown here. We are supposed to have big issues and fierce debates and 
big arguments and differences of opinion. That is what we are for. But 
the tradition has always been that when they come here, we not only 
bring them up and discuss them, but we resolve them; that we come to 
some conclusion. That is a part of what Senator Coburn says as well.
  We are not able to do that when the structure of the Senate keeps us 
for 9 days, as an example, from dealing with the single most important 
issue facing our country--high gas prices.
  Senator Coburn spoke about another equally important issue to our 
country--our fiscal condition in the country. So we need to think about 
what we need to do to change the structure of our Senate. I know many 
on the other side must feel the same way. I served with some of them 
when we were Governors and we were of different parties. I know they 
are well intentioned. We have our private conversations. We all express 
to each other our disappointment that we are not able to focus on a 
major issue and show respect for our opinions and then come to a 
result. We must do that.
  Our country faces many serious challenges. The fiscal condition of 
our country has to be dealt with in the next 6 years. It has to be 
dealt with. The challenge of energy independence has to be dealt with. 
Our health care system has to be dealt with. We can't do that with a 
dysfunctional Senate. We simply can't do that. So we need to dedicate 
ourselves to working across party lines and to putting the country 
first and partisan considerations second.
  I think most of us would rather do that. But there are a few here who 
prevent that, and perhaps we just need to overcome it. Maybe we are 
spending all our spare time in too many partisan meetings. Maybe we 
need to spend more together.
  But I stayed to listen to Senator Coburn because I respect him. There 
are very few Senators who are more valuable in our Senate than he. He 
is obviously here not for some partisan purpose. He has a sense of 
purpose about our country and about our Senate. I commend him for it, 
and I am glad I had the privilege of hearing him speak this afternoon.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah is recognized.

                          ____________________