[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16621-16632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  JOBS, ENERGY, FAMILIES, AND DISASTER RELIEF ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed to 
Calendar No. 898, S. 3335, the energy extenders package, and I ask that 
the clerk report the cloture motion at the desk.


                             cloture motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 898, S. 3335, the Jobs, Energy, 
     Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Bernard Sanders, Christopher J. 
           Dodd, Maria Cantwell, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. 
           Inouye, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Patty Murray, Ron 
           Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, Patrick J. Leahy, Dianne 
           Feinstein, Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, Sherrod 
           Brown, Carl Levin.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the junior Senator from Oklahoma has a 
matter he wishes to bring before the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the majority leader for the time.
  Mr. President, in the bills we did not agree to go to, I have worked 
with Senator Biden on the child exploitation alternative bill, which 
would protect our children from pornography and Internet exploitation. 
That bill is at the desk and has been filed.
  After working with Senator Biden, adding the SAFE Act, which is an 
act that would decrease the amount of graphic and vile images of child 
pornography currently available on the

[[Page 16622]]

Internet and help root out people selling, trading, and displaying 
images, and by expanding the requirements for the Internet service 
providers to report on online child pornography, which is a bipartisan 
bill as well, as were two of these components I never held in the bill, 
I ask unanimous consent that we call up and pass that bill, as amended, 
with the concurrence of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, what we have here is one of the most blatant 
attempts to get a cover for a vote the Republicans can't justify. The 
Republicans just voted against the bill that had these child 
pornography and child exploitation provisions in it. A few minutes ago, 
we had a cloture vote on the motion to begin debate on that bill. The 
Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it. We got three Republicans 
to vote for it, each of those running for reelection.
  Because they feel bad about siding with big oil over important 
American priorities, they now want to have it both ways. Here is who 
they voted against: They voted against Americans with Lou Gehrig 
disease, they voted against American mothers who suffer from postpartum 
depression, they voted against justice for people murdered during the 
civil rights struggle, they voted against expanding programs to keep 
kids off drugs, they voted against Americans who want to be sure kids 
are safe when they visit America's beaches and swim in the oceans, and 
a bill including numerous other important provisions--dealing with 
strokes, with paralysis. If a Member of my party, a Member of my caucus 
forced me to vote against so many important priorities based on 
specious and misleading arguments, I would want a way out too.
  So what we have here is a consent agreement, a consent request, I 
should say, that is about providing cover, not about trying to enact 
this legislation. To bring up Senator Biden's name is, at the very 
least, unfair, disingenuous. Senator Coburn didn't even bother to talk 
to the offices whose bills are cobbled together in his unanimous 
consent request. And in fact he didn't even bother to attend a hearing 
on this issue the Judiciary Committee held in April. And because this 
is about cover and not trying to enact legislation, the bills in this 
unanimous consent request are not identical to the provisions in the 
bill they voted against.
  So keep in mind what my friend from Oklahoma has tried to do. First, 
he got his Republican Senators to walk over the cliff, and they are 
already down there fumbling around trying to find some way to breathe, 
because it is the water down there, and deep. Now he is saying this 
package of 34 bills we have--he is taking parts of that out and 
changing those, not accepting what is in the bill.
  Mr. COBURN. Is it my understanding there is an objection to the 
unanimous consent?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. When we complied with the provisions in S. 3297, we cleared 
the language with the House. We wanted to be sure that once we passed 
that bill, the Coburn package, the House would pass a bill 
instantaneously. But this unanimous consent uses different language, as 
I have explained to the Chair and those within the sound of my voice.
  It is ironic. Last week, my friend from Oklahoma held a press 
conference railing against passing bills that no one has seen or had a 
chance to vet. This is what he is trying to do now--what he held a 
press conference against last week. So I must object, as I have done, 
to this consent request.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3297

  Mr. REID. I do, however, offer a unanimous consent request that, if 
accepted, I know would lead to enactment of this important legislation. 
Not only that, it would deal with child pornography, and it would deal 
with 33 other issues, all of which are extremely vital and important.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 3297, the 
Advancing America's Priorities Act; that the bill be considered read a 
third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  Mr. SPECTER. Objection.
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I again say that Republicans should be 
grateful, because we certainly agree, but they should all be very 
grateful that Senator Kennedy got out of his sickbed, flew down here 
against doctors' instructions, came onto the Senate floor against 
doctors' instructions--because his immune system is very low and he 
shouldn't have been here--to save Medicare, and a number of 
Republicans, because they were at the cliff on that one also. But for 
Senator Kennedy, they would have voted against that and destroyed 
Medicare.
  Mr. COBURN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  Mr. REID. So Republicans refused to allow us to debate and vote on 
speculation, on----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield for a parliamentary 
inquiry?
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, was I not recognized to offer two 
unanimous consent requests, and that the floor was actually mine, other 
than the objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator was recognized to offer a 
unanimous consent request. I objected to that and I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma was recognized in 
his own right and does maintain the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to the Chair and to Senator Coburn.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would make the point--I understand the 
majority leader's concern with my actions. My actions are not of impure 
motives, nor are my attempts to embarrass anyone. But the fact is, we 
could pass these bills if we weren't struggling with politics. The fact 
is, if we wanted to do something about it--and I believe many of the 
Members of this body do--we can continue the game of reducing minority 
rights or we can truly work to try to work out the problems on the 
bills. That is what the attempt was. I will not go any further with 
that.
  I will take this time to ask unanimous consent for another 
agreement--the Emmett Till bill, which I offered multiple times; 
multiple potential amendments to solve this problem. I met with Mr. 
Sykes, who is leading this effort. I agree with the purposes of the 
bill. I have always agreed with the purposes of the bill, and I 
objected because the Justice Department spent over $400 million in the 
last 7 years on conferences, and the Justice Department says they can 
do what we want done for about a third of the amount of the money. So I 
am willing to offer a way to pass the Emmett Till bill tonight on the 
floor, a way that allows the Justice Department to take funds from 
within their other funds and pay for the costs of this bill, which will 
be about a third less than what we would have authorized, and that will 
happen in spite of the fact that we do not plan to offer any 
appropriations bills this year.
  The Emmett Till bill could become law and be in effect at the level 
at which we would all want it by agreeing to the following unanimous 
consent request, the bill I filed, and I ask unanimous consent it be 
adopted and passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are at the 
same place we were just a few minutes ago. This, of course, is not a 
genuine effort to resolve the issues. This is a genuine effort to 
obfuscate what we are trying to do here on the floor.
  The Emmett Till bill here--in fact, one of the people who were with 
him the night he was murdered was up in the gallery today. We worked 
very hard to get this legislation passed. Now my friend from Oklahoma 
wants to change what the agreement was, that was reported--what passed 
the House almost

[[Page 16623]]

unanimously and was reported out of the committee almost unanimously.
  This again is a blatant attempt to get a cover vote for a vote the 
Republicans cannot justify. They just voted against a bill that had the 
Emmett Till language in it. It had the child pornography language in 
it. I repeat, because they feel bad about siding with big oil over 
important American priorities, they now want to have it both ways.
  As I said a little while ago, they voted against Americans with Lou 
Gehrig's disease, they voted against American mothers who suffer 
postpartum depression. My friend from the State of Illinois--
  Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Yes, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COBURN. I make the note that what we have is the majority leader 
saying I want cover. I don't cover for anything, I say to the majority 
leader. I have been out front opposing these bills from the start 
because they were not paid for or they were not good policy. To claim 
that my effort to pass this legislation now in a way that both saves 
money for the next few generations and also will accomplish the very 
goal that he says he wants to accomplish--that has nothing to do with 
feeling guilty. I think it is a great victory for the American people 
today that we did not spend $11 billion and get on a bill that would 
spend it.
  I understand there is a permanent disagreement, both on how we have 
done this and also on the policy questions, but the fact is, if we want 
to solve unsolved civil rights violations, the way to do it is this. 
The way not to do it is to say: We are not going to do it, we are not 
going to work with you, we are not going to change it.
  The whole purpose of not agreeing to the unanimous consent request on 
the bill in the first place was there is so much waste in the Justice 
Department. It would be my recommendation that maybe after a few days 
we take another look at that, and I will work with the authors of the 
bill in a good-faith effort to try to make both those bills capable of 
being passed. I know many on your side would like to get the 
legislation done no matter what.
  This is no attempt to cover for anybody. I have too many holds to try 
to cover for anything.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I will yield to the Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Senator Coburn, with regard to the Emmett Till bill, 
you have been open about your objection. This is not a secret hold, is 
it?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely not.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You worked on it. You spent a lot of your time. You 
talked to the Department of Justice, you studied the bill, you studied 
the language in it. You have a sincere concern about the way it was 
originally written; is that right?
  Mr. COBURN. I have a concern with the money authorized in this bill 
that will be wasted and appropriated when we have not taken care of a 
large amount of the waste in the Justice Department.
  Mr. SESSIONS. In fact, you talked to the Justice Department about it, 
I believe; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. I have.
  Mr. SESSIONS. You spent a lot of hours of your personal time trying 
to make this legislation better. Have they told you they needed as much 
money as the bill originally authorized?
  Mr. COBURN. They said they needed one-third of what the bill 
authorized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. The Department of Justice said they can meet the goal 
with one-third less money than the bill has in it?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct.
  Mr. SESSIONS. And you are willing to accept that amount?
  Mr. COBURN. And have it paid for out of wasted funds at the Justice 
Department.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I don't think that is an unreasonable position, I would 
say to my friend the majority leader. I think that is good work, what a 
good Senator should do. They should ask questions.
  You served on the Judiciary Committee, so you were engaged with that 
discussion when it first came up?
  Mr. COBURN. I first raised reservations on this bill when it first 
came up.
  Mr. SESSIONS. On the Child Protection Act, the goal of that was--I 
served on that subcommittee--the goal of that was to create task forces 
around the country to exploit computer technology to identify 
pedophiles and child molesters, a goal which I support and I think you 
support. But the amount of money just seemed to be drawn out of thin 
air, one-point-something billion dollars; is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is correct. The bill as offered brought that number 
down to $360-some million, which was never offered to me but was in the 
bill as it came to the floor.
  Mr. SESSIONS. OK. When it came out of the subcommittee, as I recall--
and I talked to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Biden, at 
length, and our staff talked, and we asked him to bring the amount 
down.
  I served 15 years in the Department of Justice. I know the Presiding 
Officer was a U.S. attorney also. I know something about how task 
forces work. We didn't need $1.2 billion. I tried to get that down.
  I was placed in an uncomfortable position to either vote for a bill 
that I supported in general or insist that the number, the amount of 
funding, be reduced to a reasonable level. Sometimes you wonder, maybe 
they want to put you in that position. I voted against the bill in 
committee.
  After you raised an objection and placed a hold on it or made clear 
your objection, the bill has been reduced in amount?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes, it has, by three-quarters.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to me?
  Mr. COBURN. I will.
  Mr. SPECTER. I have waited more than an hour to speak while the 
quorum call was on, and we couldn't get the quorum call taken off.
  With all due respect, the real issue, which is on the floor now, is 
not the amounts of these dollars or the virtue of all of the bills you 
are blocking, but the real issue is whether----
  Mr. REID. Is there a question the Senator has for the Senator from 
Oklahoma?
  Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Alabama spoke at some length without 
any objection being offered.
  I will pose a question to you, Senator Coburn, since the majority 
leader wants to find some way to stop me from speaking. He didn't stop 
Senator Sessions from speaking. My question to you, Senator----
  Mr. REID. Is there a question the Senator from Pennsylvania has?
  Mr. SPECTER. My question to you, Senator Coburn----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator from Pennsylvania use his 
microphone.
  Senators may yield the floor for a question.
  Mr. SPECTER. The question to the Senator from Oklahoma: Isn't the 
real issue behind the cloture vote an effort to dislodge the pending 
legislation on the oil speculation bill? Is it the substance of the 
legislation which you have opposed and blocked, most of which if not 
all of which I agree with. But isn't the real point as to what the 
Senator from Nevada is seeking to do here is to find some way to get 
off the oil speculators bill?
  Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his question. I 
think you accurately assessed it. The fact is, this country has an 
energy crisis. We have chosen not to address American resources for 
that. We have chosen to do anything but that, and that is why we have 
seen bill after bill forcing political votes rather than solving the 
real problem Americans want the Senate to address, which is how do we 
stop sending $700 billion of our treasure out of this country every 
year, knowing we are going to be on carbon-based energy for at least 
the next 20 to 30 years, and how do we use American resources.
  You are absolutely right. That is the real question. That is what we 
should be about. That is why Republicans

[[Page 16624]]

stood and said the thing the American people are interested in is us 
addressing the issues that are impacting them directly today, the 
$2,400 per family, trying to get to work or get to school.
  The question the Senator asked is absolutely right. The real question 
is energy and trying to take us off energy and run out the clock and 
not deal with this before we go on summer break.
  Mr. SPECTER. My next question to the Senator from Oklahoma is, when 
the Senator from Nevada rejects the traditional standing of Senators to 
offer an amendment to any bill at any time--until the past 15 years, 
majority leaders, both Democrats and Republicans, have adopted this 
filling the tree to preclude amendments, and the Senator from Nevada 
says there is insufficient time to take up the amendments. Isn't it 
true that if the Senate and the House stayed in session during the 
month of August and did not take the recess, we could take up any 
number of amendments to give Senators the traditional rights, which had 
been enjoyed until 1993, when both Democratic and Republican majority 
leaders have stymied the process by this process of filling the tree?
  Mr. COBURN. I think the Senator makes a good point. The answer to 
that is yes. As a matter of fact, we would have been halfway through 
this bill had cloture not been filed when it was introduced at the same 
time, as we just saw on the bills this evening. A bill is introduced, 
cloture is filed at the moment of introduction, as it was with the 
Advancing America's Priorities or, as I call it, the Grow Government 
and Spend More of Your Grandkids' Money bill, the point being we could 
have already accomplished half of what this country needs had we had an 
open amendment process that was germane to the energy needs of this 
country.
  Mr. SPECTER. My next question to the Senator from Oklahoma is whether 
Senator Reid was correct when he spoke, on February 28, 2006, as noted 
in the Congressional Record on the Patriot Act Reauthorization:

       I am disappointed that he--

  Referring to a Senator who wanted to offer an amendment--

     has been denied that opportunity by a procedural maneuver 
     known as ``filling the tree.'' This is a very bad practice. 
     It runs against the basic rule of the Senate. The hallmark of 
     the Senate is free speech and open debate.

  Was the Senator from Nevada correct when he decried and criticized 
this business of filling the tree to preclude the offering of 
amendments?
  Mr. COBURN. I answer the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying yes, he 
was. No majority leader should fill the tree, Republican or Democrat. 
It goes against the best traditions of the Senate. It goes against the 
tradition of full debate and full amendment.
  Our energy problems could be solved tomorrow as far as this bill. We 
could ask a unanimous consent to withdraw the amendments filling the 
tree. If we had unanimous consent to do that, we could have open 
amendments with the provision there would only be germane amendments to 
the energy needs of this country. We could do that, but we have moved 
from debate about what is in the best interests of this country to what 
is in the best interests of the next political election. That is what 
this debate is about. It is not about energy. It is not about what is 
in the best interests of the next two generations. It is not what is in 
the best interests of the Nation from a national security standpoint or 
energy security standpoint. It is about what is best for the next 
election.
  We need to get away from that. Regrettably, Republican leaders have 
used it but never to the extent of 15 times has it ever--it has not 
been used 15 times in total until the present leader has exercised it 
15 times. He has cut off debate and all amendments.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I have stated 
for the record my reason for opposing cloture on the oil speculators 
bill was not that I did not agree with the underlying approach of 
legislation to deal with the high prices of oil and the high prices of 
gas at the pump, but I voted against cloture on that bill, opposed 
putting the majority leader in a position to move for final passage 
because I had amendments I wished to offer.
  Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I have been pressing to get 
an amendment, along with Senator Kohl, a bipartisan amendment, to bring 
OPEC nations under the antitrust laws so they could not meet in a room, 
lower production, lower supply, and thereby raise the price of oil in 
the international market?
  Mr. COBURN. I was not aware of that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I am the 
principal author of the legislation to provide for the reporter shield, 
along with Senator Schumer and Senator Lugar?
  Mr. COBURN. I am.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that if that issue 
goes through the process of the tree filling and cloture is invoked, 
that legislation will displace the oil speculators bill?
  Mr. COBURN. I am aware of that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware of the detailed 
effort I made on the legislation involving global warming coming to the 
floor several times during the week of June 2, listing a number of 
amendments which I sought to offer, essentially from the Bingaman-
Specter bill, and that I was precluded from offering those amendments 
because the Senator from Nevada filled the tree?
  Mr. COBURN. I was.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware of the fact that I 
voted against cloture on the global warming bill, notwithstanding the 
fact that I think that is an issue that has to be addressed and worked 
for more than a year with Senator Bingaman, producing the Bingaman-
Specter bill, but voted against cloture to advance the bill because I 
and others wanted to offer amendments to the global warming bill?
  Mr. COBURN. I am.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware of that when the 
Senator from Nevada thwarted the proceedings under the FAA bill, that 
there were key issues to be decided, such as modernizing air control to 
move to satellite, to provide for greater safety, and the processing of 
that bill was thwarted because the tree was filled and, again, a motion 
for cloture was denied because Senators were not given an opportunity 
to offer amendments?
  Mr. COBURN. I was aware of that.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I had two 
important amendments relating to air control over my State, 
southeastern Pennsylvania, actually over Delaware, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania, that I had an amendment which dealt with the scheduling, 
where there were enormous delays on takeoffs and landings because they 
were overbooked, and that the efforts to change the law on that were 
thwarted by the procedures adopted by the Senator from Nevada?
  Mr. COBURN. I was aware.
  Mr. SPECTER. Was the Senator from Oklahoma aware that a number of 
Senators were on the floor for about an hour today and could not get 
recognition and had to wait because a quorum call was on and that the 
Senator from Nevada saw to it that the unanimous consent to take off 
the quorum was denied?
  Mr. COBURN. I was aware of that. I had actually offered unanimous 
consent to waive the cloture and was denied.
  Mr. SPECTER. Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that there is a 
determination by this Senator, and I think by more than 40 other 
Senators on this side of the aisle, to fight these procedural moves 
come hell or high water, and no matter what legislation the Senator 
from Nevada offers, if it is legislation similar to the shield bill 
that I have worked on for a long time, I think it is very necessary, 
that we are going to rebel against the tyranny of what has been 
established by the majority leader in following a procedure to fill the 
tree and then blame Republicans who refuse cloture and exercise finger-
pointing backward and forward?
  Is the Senator from Oklahoma aware that I and others are determined 
to do everything we can to stop this procedure, which has undercut the 
basic purpose of the Senate?
  Mr. COBURN. I am. I am very pleased in your effort.

[[Page 16625]]


  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I will not take but a moment longer. I think it is fair 
to allow the majority leader to regain the floor.
  The Senate I know and the Senate I studied was not about limiting 
debate. It was not about having a Rules Committee of one, it was about 
unlimited debate, germane but unlimited. It was about amendments. It 
was about using the parliamentary rules we have in a fair and 
straightforward way to advance what you thought was best for this 
country.
  The majority leader has the toughest position in this body. It is a 
hard job. There is no question. I defer to his judgment. I am not 
critical of his judgment. I am sorry for the Senate that we are to the 
point now where we can only move legislation when it is approved and 
the amendments are approved by the majority leader and his leadership.
  I think that fails the test of our Founders' version of the Senate. I 
think we will rue the day that we have gone down this path. But I will 
continue to use every parliamentary maneuver I know to lessen 
Washington's wasteful spending, to pass good bills and make them better 
and not to say that just because you do not approve of a unanimous 
consent request that you do not have something to offer.
  The fact is, we have passed 855 bills by unanimous consent. I may 
have let too many go. But the fact is we negotiated with a lot of 
people and got a lot of bills through. The frustration factor is part 
of the Senate. Working together we solve problems, working against each 
other what we do is we lower the rate of acceptability and confidence 
in this body to the 9 percent it has today.
  My hat is off to Harry Reid for the amount of time he has put in, the 
amount of effort he puts in it. I would hope he would choose to go a 
different way, reaching across the aisle, working across the aisle. 
Everybody's ideas have value. Everybody's input should be offered and 
there should be real negotiation.
  One last comment. This omnibus package of bills had 34 bills in it. 
There were only three bills that I absolutely opposed, nine bills I 
never objected to at all. And every other bill in that I made an offer 
to reach out, offer amendments, offer suggestions. Most of the time it 
was flatly rejected: We are going to roll over you. You cannot have 
input.
  If that is the way the Senate operates, then we are going to be back 
here a lot of times in the future. I know, pretty heady times, thinking 
that we may not have the power to do that. But that power, if it goes 
away, will not last for very long being in absence. It will be back. 
The American people get it.
  This country is on a crashing course, financially. Fiscally, we 
cannot handle what is happening to us. Until we start handling the 
problems now that are going to be the crisis in the future, we will 
fail the American public.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am going to be very patient and try to run 
through the accusations and statements made by my friend from Oklahoma 
and my friend from Pennsylvania.
  The Emmett Till bill was introduced in February of 2007. It is now 
July of 2008. How much more patient can Senator Biden, members of that 
committee and, frankly, how much more patient can I be?
  I revere the work done by John Lewis and others; civil rights leaders 
in those early days. I have listened to him talk at great length in a 
private, personal basis about what he went through. We had here at a 
DPC luncheon within the last few months a woman who proceeded to go 
down there with John Lewis and others, a White woman from here, in 
Virginia.
  She believed what she had heard, that this was a country that was 
open to everyone. She, too, was beaten, thrown into prison, as were 
hundreds of other people. But, sadly, Emmett Till was murdered, as were 
lots of others. Most of those civil rights murders have been unsolved. 
That is what this is all about. Let's get to the bottom of it.
  Make all the excuses you want, but we have had lots of time to deal 
with the legislation. No matter how many times my friend from Oklahoma 
talks about the huge cost of this package of bills, he can say it once, 
he can say it 1,000 times, it does not matter. The bill costs nothing. 
It is in the Congressional Record. I introduced it today. The head of 
the Congressional Budget Office said it costs nothing.
  So any talk about saving huge amounts of money is nothing but 
wasteful talk because it does not. To have other Senators come here and 
say: Well, what we want to do with this Emmett Till bill you could do 
it for one-third of the amount.
  That is what the legislative process is all about. There are three 
other opportunities for us to do that. All we are doing is authorizing 
that so the legislation can move forward. You can do it at the 
subcommittee level in appropriations, the full committee level of 
appropriations, and then when the bill gets to the Senate floor.
  For Republicans to come and cry crocodile tears about my tyranny on 
the Senate floor is laughable. I have had to file almost 90 cloture 
motions to try to stop the filibusters they filed. We have had to file 
cloture on things they agree with because they are stalling for time. 
They want to maintain the status quo.
  I would say to anyone, including my friend from Pennsylvania who 
comes to the floor and says we are going to do this no matter what 
because we want to stay on the Energy bill, I offered a unanimous 
consent not once but twice, saying we would stay on the Energy bill. We 
could finish this package of bills just like that and move to energy. 
We would never get off that. That was the consent I offered. So these 
are all excuses, real excuses.
  The question is, The Republicans have decided to stick with big oil, 
the oil companies that last year made $250 billion. That is what they 
have decided to do. It is a decision they made. It was calculated. They 
decided to do that.
  There is not a Democrat over here who does not say we should do more 
with the domestic production. We have said that time and time again. 
Now, I can be threatened with a lot of things, but do not ever consider 
that anyone here is going to outwork me. I do not care if we are here 
during the August recess. If you want to talk politics, we do not have 
a single Democratic Senator who has an election contest that is at all 
troubling. There are 11 of them over there.
  If they want to stay here during the August recess, that is fine with 
me. The only thing I have planned would take me about 20 minutes to get 
out of. I have a trip to Afghanistan. It is something I feel I need to 
do. I can do it some other time. I am taking five or six other Senators 
with me. They can do it some other time. So do not come to the floor 
and say we are going to stay here in the August recess. Who suffers 
more for doing that, Democrats or Republicans? They do, I would think.
  If they have any common sense--I know they do--those Senators who 
have election contests would rather be home than here. So do not 
suggest that somehow I am afraid to be here. We may not be doing energy 
legislation during that time, but we have so much to do.
  We have the Defense authorization bill. If we don't get the media 
shield, we have that too. We have a number of other important issues we 
have to do. Consumer product safety, we have to do that conference 
report. So there are plenty of things we can do during the August 
recess, if the Republicans would rather be here. So don't say: We are 
going to really get you. We are going to ask you to stay here during 
the August recess.
  Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the 
President now for some time. We don't let him have recess appointments 
because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before 
the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro 
forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks. We don't need 
a vote to recess. We will just be in pro

[[Page 16626]]

forma session. We will tell the House to do the same thing. So let's 
not be threatening about staying in during the August recess.
  People ask: Why do the Democrats think Republicans may be somewhat 
mischievous in amendments they offer? Let's look at recent history. We 
have tried in good faith to legislate on bills, one of them we thought 
would be a good idea. Let's have an open amendment process. The first 
amendment they came here and offered was something that has been panned 
by every editorial writer in America, an 18-cent tax holiday. Remember, 
in Nevada we paid about $3.30 for a gallon of gas. Everyone knew the 
McCain issue to deal with the energy crisis was laughable. But that was 
the amendment they offered.
  Then we decided, well, there is another piece, maybe they will not do 
it this time. But, bango, one of the first things they did was offer 
their own GI bill of rights because John McCain said the bill that is 
now law is too generous. So, again, we got off track on that.
  All of my friends lamenting what the present status of the Senate is, 
all they have to do is look back at recent history. Presidential 
elections have consequences. Presidential elections always cause 
problems on the Senate floor. It is difficult to legislate when one 
Senator can do so much damage.
  I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, he read from the 
Congressional Record something I said in 2006. I said that. But if he 
were logical--and I think he is--he should have read the rest of that 
because, if you understand, he voted to go with Senator Frist that 
filling the tree was just fine. Suddenly, he has found religion. Back 
then, he didn't have it. Senator Specter voted with Senator Frist to 
fill the tree.
  NOPEC--he talks about that. I know a little bit about that piece of 
legislation. I believed strongly, with Senator Kohl and Senator 
Specter, that OPEC should be subject to the antitrust laws of this 
country. I have said so publicly, and I tried here to bring that matter 
to the floor. I asked consent that we would be able to do that. Who 
objected to it? The Republicans objected to it. We didn't. We wanted to 
legislate on that. They wouldn't let us.
  My friend from Pennsylvania has joined the throng to vote against 
Medicare, speculation, the energy package of tax extenders, LIHEAP, 
global warming--all these issues, and this package today.
  I say that people who voted today against this package decided they 
wanted to have a vote to satisfy big oil. And to use the lame excuse 
that Harry Reid was a tyrannical guy and was stopping them from 
legislating. They have stopped themselves from legislating because they 
want to maintain the status quo. That is what this is all about. 
President Bush is for the status quo, and his people in the Senate are 
marching along behind him.
  Again, I repeat, you go home and explain, I say to my Republican 
friends, you go home and explain to your constituents, the next person 
you see in a wheelchair, go up to them and say: You know, I voted 
against you because Harry Reid was being a tyrannical guy in the 
Senate.
  You go home to someone whose family is bereaved because their mother, 
sister, or friend had a baby, and they were so depressed that they are 
now in a mental ward of some hospital or they committed suicide. You go 
home and explain to that family that is the case.
  You go home and explain to someone who is a stroke victim or a family 
who has a stroke victim: I decided to vote against you because Harry 
Reid didn't give me an amendment to vote on whether OPEC should be 
subject to the antitrust laws.
  You go home and tell people--there is going to be 5,600 new people 
this year who will be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease. From the 
time they are diagnosed to the time they die is an average of 18 
months. You go home and tell them and their families, their friends: I 
voted that way because Harry Reid wasn't handling the Senate right. I 
had a chance to vote on it, but I didn't like the way he was doing it. 
So you understand, Harry Reid was the bad guy. I am a good guy, even 
though I voted against your best interests.
  You go home and tell people who are struggling every day raising 
children, trying to keep them away from evil people who do things that 
are very horrible with pornography with children, they exploit 
children--we have legislation here that would stop that. You go home, 
go to a PTA meeting and tell them: Well, we had something that would 
help this pornography with children, but Reid, I just don't like the 
way he runs the Senate.
  You can go home and talk about the 34 pieces of legislation. You go 
home, you Republicans, go home and explain to your constituents how you 
did that. It is pretty hard to do, but you can go ahead and do it.
  If any Member of my party suggested to me or the members of my caucus 
to vote against so many priorities based on specious and misleading 
arguments, I would want a way out too. I understand the rights of my 
friend from Oklahoma. He has a right to do what he has done. I think he 
is wrong. But I do say this: His Republican colleagues know him as well 
as I do, and what he has done is no surprise. But I am just saying they 
should join together, as they did earlier this year, when there were 
over 90 pieces of legislation he had held up for the same baseless 
reasons he is holding this stuff up.
  They voted because they said: Enough is enough. Well, enough is 
enough. They have decided they want to go along with the crowd. Eric 
Hoffer, somebody I thought was a great author, just had a birthday. He 
is dead, but they announced it was his birthday, a longshoreman, 
philosopher. He wrote a lot about what happens in crowds; people go 
along with the crowd. He wrote about it. He was President Kennedy's 
favorite author.
  These folks over here are going along with the crowd, just like Eric 
Hoffer said people do on certain occasions. They will regret having 
done so.
  I do the very best I can, trying to be fair, fair to everyone in my 
caucus and fair to everyone in the Republican caucus. I have never been 
a bully. I have been involved in a few fights in my life, but I very 
rarely ever picked a fight. I certainly haven't picked a fight here. I 
want to get along. That is my personality. So I am not upset at anyone, 
other than to say: How foolish what is going on here in the Senate. I 
say, with a clear conscience, I am not the cause of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, without prolonging this discussion 
endlessly, I want to take a moment to congratulate my friend from 
Oklahoma for his courage in making an extraordinarily important point 
to our colleagues, which is the way you pass legislation on a 
consultative basis. I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, I remember 
when we were in the majority and I was the second ranking member of our 
conference, having to tell our Members frequently that the only way we 
could get anything accomplished was to take tough votes, and that was 
the challenge of being in the majority. If you want to move something 
along, you have to give the minority an opportunity to have their 
votes.
  There was always grumbling about it: Can't you do anything? 
Invariably people would say: I am up this cycle; I can't possibly do 
this.
  In order to make a law rather than just check the box, the process in 
the Senate means the minority gets to offer amendments. What is going 
on here is a fundamental shifting of the way the Senate has 
historically acted. I know the majority leader is under a lot of 
pressure from his Members frequently to avoid tough votes. I have been 
there. I have heard those demands. But if your operating mode is to 
avoid all tough votes, you never accomplish much.
  We haven't given up on this side. Our hope is that this Congress 
could actually be remembered for having done at least a few things that 
were important to the country. So I want to shift now to the issue that 
we have been sort of sparring back and forth on over the last week or 
so, and that is the energy issue. I owe the majority leader a report on 
a leadership meeting I had just

[[Page 16627]]

a few hours ago. We had a good discussion. I think my membership and my 
leadership team believed that the consent agreement he offered earlier 
today went a long way toward meeting the requirements that many of us 
on this side of the aisle had believed were sort of a bare minimum 
threshold of credibility to actually have a chance of making a law 
rather than checking a box. When we finally end our public discussion 
tonight, I just want to say to my friend the majority leader publicly, 
I would like to have a discussion privately about how we might go 
forward. It sounds to me like we are very close to having a consent 
agreement that would give us a chance to operate on a major issue in 
the way the Senate has historically dealt with significant issues.
  I want to end my comments tonight on a note of optimism, that we 
might be close to doing something important for the country on a very 
large issue. Again, on the question of the way the Senate functions, I 
congratulate not only the Senator from Oklahoma but the Senator from 
Pennsylvania for their strong insistence that they be allowed and that 
all Senators, really, be allowed to be part of the legislative process. 
It is really the only way we can actually pass laws, rather than just 
score points with each other. I think the American people would like to 
see us do something significant about the No. 1 issue in the country.
  I end the evening publicly--and I will continue conversations with 
the majority leader privately--on a note of optimism that we might well 
be on the verge of getting an agreement that would be acceptable to 
both sides and give us a chance to go forward.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator from 
Pennsylvania if he is seeking the floor to speak. Perhaps we can reach 
a time agreement and he can speak and I could speak as well. I would 
like to ask him, does he have a period of time for which he is seeking 
recognition?
  Mr. SPECTER. I would like 10 to 15 minutes tops.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and ask unanimous consent that I be recognized immediately 
thereafter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Illinois. 
I had sought recognition to try to speak about an hour ago, 5 past 6, 
but we were in a quorum call. If there is somebody watching on C-SPAN, 
they probably don't understand what is going on on the Senate floor. 
But a quorum call can't be taken off if one Senator objects. As I said 
earlier, the majority leader objected until he got to the floor and 
took off the quorum call. Then I made a number of comments in a 
discussion with the Senator from Oklahoma.
  For those who do not know the Senate procedures, I could only ask him 
a question, could not make any statements. Although the Senator from 
Alabama engaged in a considerable amount of comments without questions, 
the majority leader objected when I sought recognition. So I now want 
to address a few basic points in what is going on.
  The institutions of the Senate are very important to this country. 
That is because this body has been called the world's greatest 
deliberative body, because under the precedents, any Senator can offer 
any amendment to any bill at any time, virtually. There are some 
limitations, but that is the valid generalization. If you combine that 
with unlimited debate, this forum has been a place where ideas can be 
expressed, the public can hear them, the public can understand them, 
and momentous matters of public policy are decided by the Senate 
because of our ability to bring up these issues. Nobody can limit it. 
That has made America great. The Senate is a very important 
institution.
  Now, regrettably, in the past 15 years--and it has been the fault of 
both Democrats and Republicans; and I have not hesitated, as the record 
shows, to criticize the Republican caucus. I did so in some detail 
during the judicial battles during the Clinton administration, where I 
thought the Republican caucus was wrong in denying confirmation. I have 
voted in an independent way and have disagreed with Presidents of my 
own party and the majority of my own party.
  In noting what has happened on this procedure of filling the tree--
that is an arcane expression, but let me take a moment to explain it.
  When a bill is filed, called up by the majority leader, the majority 
leader then has what is called primacy of recognition. If two Senators 
seek recognition, and the majority leader is one of them, he has the 
right to recognition first. So he then offers an amendment to the 
pending bill. Then he offers another amendment in the second degree. I 
won't go on to detail the kinds of amendments, but the consequence is 
that no other Senator can offer any amendment. That is called filling 
the tree.
  Then, when the majority leader has done that, he moves for cloture. 
That is to cut off debate. Senator Reid did not invent this process. It 
had been used very sparingly until 1993, only 15 years ago.
  In one Congress, for example, the 101st Congress, 1989 to 1990, the 
Democratic majority leader, George Mitchell, did not use it at all. 
Then, in the session from 1993 to 1994, Senator Mitchell used it nine 
times. Then it got to be in vogue. Senator Lott used it nine times in 
the session from 1999 to 2000. Senator Frist then used it nine times in 
2005 and 2006. Senator Reid has now used it 15 times, and it has had 
the consequence of precluding Senators from offering amendments.
  Let me be very specific. The global warming bill came to the floor on 
June 2 of this year. I had a whole series of amendments I wanted to 
offer, and came to the floor and talked about: No. 1, emission caps; 
No. 2, cost containment safety valve; No. 3, the energy-intensive 
manufacturing competitiveness amendment; and No. 4, the steel process 
gas emissions amendment.
  But what happened? Senator Reid filled the tree on June 4. I could 
not offer those amendments. Then, on June 6, he moved for cloture to 
cut off debate. Cloture was defeated 48 to 36. Then the bill was taken 
down.
  A similar thing happened on the FAA bill. It was called up on April 
28--a very important bill because it was going to change air control 
practices using a satellite system to provide for greater safety. There 
were important amendments I wanted to offer on scheduling. We have 
overscheduling at the Philadelphia International Airport. People wait a 
long time for takeoffs and circle a long time on landings. I could not 
offer that amendment. There were also significant problems on flight 
patterns, and I could not offer that amendment.
  Now, regrettably, this has gone on on many bills for a very long 
time.
  Then, we have the oil speculators bill. It is important the Congress 
deal with the escalating prices of oil and gasoline at the pump--
heating oil. What has happened on the bill? There was a motion to 
proceed filed on July 17. On July 23, the tree was filled. Then the 
motion for cloture on the bill was defeated on July 25.
  So here we have no action. The only action is a lot of finger 
pointing. Senator Reid points at the Republicans, and the Republicans 
point back. Senator Reid says the Republicans killed the bill because 
they would not invoke cloture, and Republicans say that was caused by 
Senator Reid's filling the tree and not allowing us to offer 
amendments.
  Well, I am sorry Senator Reid is not on the floor at the moment. But 
he made a speech about explaining this to our constituents, and I do 
agree with him on that one point that it is going to be very hard to 
explain to our constituents why we have done what we have done.
  We had a vote on LIHEAP, low-income heat and energy assistance, last 
week. Senator Reid called that bill to the floor to put Senators such 
as Arlen Specter on the spot. I have been a proponent of funding for 
that

[[Page 16628]]

second to none. As chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee having 
jurisdiction over that subject, enormous sums were added. But had that 
bill gone forward, the oil speculators bill would have been displaced.
  Now, it is very important in the long run that oil prices be dealt 
with for those people who need LIHEAP, who need heat in the winter in 
Pennsylvania and Maine and other States, or air-conditioning in the 
summer. It is going to be a job to explain it, there is no doubt about 
that. But I am willing to undertake that risk, that difficulty. I have 
town meetings all over Pennsylvania every year and will have a chance 
to talk to my constituents about it, and I am prepared to deal with it.
  Senator Reid said on the issue of suffering, if we are in in August, 
the Republicans will suffer more than the Democrats because there are 
more Republicans who are up for election. Well, I submit that the 
question of suffering by the American people is more important than 
whether there is more suffering by Democrats or Republicans in the 
Senate.
  I do believe it would be salutary and appropriate for the Congress to 
stay in session during the month of August providing we deal with real 
issues and providing we do not have weeks, as the Senate has had, where 
there are only one or two votes. We have plenty of time to deal with 
these issues if we allow Senators to offer amendments and if we then 
proceed to consider them, so that I call upon the majority leader to 
keep the Senate in session providing we take up the issues of oil 
prices and gasoline prices and providing we do not engage in the same 
circular, dilatory finger-pointing practices which have characterized 
the Senate for months now during the time when Senator Reid has offered 
15 instances where the so-called tree has been filled and no other 
amendment can be offered by any Senator.
  When I quoted Senator Reid about his denouncing the filling of the 
tree, his comment was that I had supported Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, and it is not true. I did not support him on that. I think 
Senator Reid was exactly right when he objected to the procedure to 
foreclose amendments by saying that the filling of the tree ``is a very 
bad practice.'' These are Senator Reid's words:

       It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The 
     hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate.

  Senator Christopher Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, had this to say on 
the subject on May 11 of 2006:

     . . . to basically lock out any amendments that might be 
     offered to this proposal runs contrary to the very essence of 
     this body. . . . when the amendment tree has been entirely 
     filled, then obviously we are dealing with a process that 
     ought not to be. . . . the Senate ought to be a place where 
     we can offer amendments, have healthy debate over a 
     reasonable time, and then come to closure on the subject 
     matter.

  This is not a new position I have taken. More than 18 months ago, on 
February 15, 2007, I introduced S. Res. 63 to change the standing rules 
of the Senate to bar the majority leader from filling the tree.
  So, in conclusion, I do believe the rules of the Senate and the way 
we have functioned to allow any Senator the opportunity, virtually, to 
offer any amendment at any time on any bill is a very precious 
procedure in our democracy and it is worth fighting for. It is worth 
fighting for even if it is going to be misunderstood on the litany of 
items which Senator Reid talks about. Illustratively, the people who 
have LIHEAP will be better served in the long run by a Senate where 
Senators can offer amendments and deal with the problems of the high 
price of oil in the long run by amendments such as the one Senator Kohl 
and I have offered to bring OPEC under the U.S. antitrust laws.
  When we talk about where the suffering exists, we ought to focus a 
little more on the American people who don't have the money to go on 
vacation in August with the high gasoline prices or with the high 
prices generally to take vacations at all. I am not anxious to come 
back in August, but I am prepared to do so, and I think it would be in 
the national and public interest to do so if we tackle the issue. The 
August session ought to be for oil and gas prices, and that would be 
worth our while.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois for agreeing to this time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am trying to visualize somewhere in 
America where a father walks into his living room and says to his son: 
What are you watching?
  The son says: Well, I was watching C-SPAN. I was watching the Senate.
  The father says to the son: What were they talking about?
  The son says: Filling the tree.
  The father says: What is that?
  The son says: I don't have any idea.
  The father says: You would think they would talk about things that 
were important to us. Turn off the television. Watch the cartoons.
  I listened to this debate and wondered how we can get tied into 
knots, just as we have today. I will tell you that we had 34 bills 
before us today. They were in a package. These are 34 bills that were 
considered noncontroversial bills--bills that had passed the House of 
Representatives without dissenting votes, in many cases, or 
overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis. These are bills reported out of 
our committees--including the Judiciary Committee Senator Specter and I 
serve on--unanimously. These are bills which, in the ordinary course of 
business in the ordinary history of the Senate, wouldn't have caused a 
ripple because they had been agreed to and written and both sides said: 
This is a good idea; let's do it.
  However, under the rules of the Senate--and it is a unique 
institution--any Senator can object to any bill. They can stop the 
train and say: Don't go forward, don't consider the bill, if one 
Senator--just one Senator--should object. Well, in this case, the 
Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, objected.
  Senator Coburn is a friend of mine. We use that term a lot around 
here, but this is for real. He is a friend of mine. He is the ranking 
Republican on a subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee on Human 
Rights and the Law of the Judiciary Committee, and we have done a lot 
of work together. In fact, he has been the cosponsor of some bills that 
have been enacted and signed by the President which I initiated and he 
joined me, so we truly do have a good working relationship.
  I think he has a peculiar fiscal philosophy, and here is what it is. 
There are two kinds of bills that we consider. One is an authorization 
bill, and the other is an appropriations bill. Let me use an example.
  That same father I mentioned earlier says to his son one day: Why 
don't you go out and buy a bicycle.
  The kid says: You mean I can buy a bicycle? Great, he says.
  At that point, the son says: Can I have some money?
  The father says: No, we don't have the money, but you can buy one if 
you want to.
  The kid says: I don't have the money.
  That turns out to be the important question--not whether you have the 
permission to buy the bicycle but whether you have the money to buy the 
bicycle. Permission--authorization. The money to make it work: 
appropriation. So the 34 bills here are all permissions to spend money. 
That is it. They don't provide any money. That is another part of the 
process.
  I think that is the critical difference which Senator Coburn does not 
acknowledge. We are authorizing these. We are permitting these things 
to occur, but we are not spending the money for them. That comes later. 
We have a finite, limited amount of money to spend in our Federal 
budget and we will decide: Will this be the priority or will it be 
something else? Senator Coburn believes that if you give permission, 
all the money is going to be spent. Historically, that never happens, 
but that is his philosophy, that is his point of view. So he objected 
to some 34 bills.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3297

  Now, it is my understanding that there is a consent script available

[[Page 16629]]

which I would like to propound before Senator Specter leaves the floor.
  Of the 34 bills which were included in S. 3297 which was considered 
today, Senator Coburn has come to the floor and asked that 1 or 2 of 
the bills be modified, changed, and passed. I wish to make sure it is 
clear for the record that we are asking consent on our side, unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to S. 3297, the bill in its entirety, 
that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider 
be laid upon the table, and that any statements be printed at the 
appropriate place in the Record as if read.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Coburn, who could 
not be present, on his behalf, I am objecting.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the bills I just asked to be passed and 
the ones which were not passed earlier today, some 34 bills, were 
permission bills, authorization bills. I think they were meritorious 
and valuable and very important--for some families in America, more 
important than maybe anything else we would consider.
  What kind of issues do they take up? You have heard it here on the 
floor: Lou Gehrig's disease. Just down the block from where I live in 
Springfield, a fellow I practiced law with had a son who contracted Lou 
Gehrig's disease. He didn't last long. His wife would come to me 
begging that we do more in medical research so that her son would be 
spared. When it became obvious he couldn't survive, she still pushed 
for more research, saying no family should ever have to go through this 
again. Well, we understand that, all of us do--anyone who has had an 
illness in the family--and that is what the bill did. The bill would 
establish a registry of Lou Gehrig patients around the United States to 
track them, to gather information, to try to find out a way to find a 
cure.
  Now, who is going to object to that bill? Well, it turns out that in 
the House of Representatives, the bill was passed 411 to 3--
overwhelmingly passed. It came to the Senate in May of last year, over 
a year ago, and was reported by one of our committees, the HELP 
Committee, on December 4 of last year, and that is when Senator Coburn 
objected to it and put a hold on the bill. He didn't want it to go 
forward. I think this is a good bill. I don't know who would argue 
against it, but one Senator did, so it became the top bill on our list 
of 34.
  Most people remember Christopher Reeve, who played Superman in the 
movie and then got involved in an equestrian accident and was paralyzed 
and spent the rest of his life pushing for more research and more work 
to deal with paralysis. Well, there was a bill introduced that pushed 
for paralysis research and rehab at the National Institutes of Health. 
It was so overwhelmingly popular that it passed the House with a 
unanimous vote, by voice vote. No one dissented. It came over here, and 
Senator Coburn said: No, I am stopping that bill--a bill that Senator 
Cochran of Mississippi and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts offered 
involving stroke victims for comprehensive systems to treat these 
stroke victims to save their lives and to save their faculties. It 
passed by a voice vote in the House of Representatives with not a 
single dissenting vote. When it came over here, despite support by our 
Senate committee, Senator Coburn objected.
  The Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act, this is one I am familiar 
with. It deals with women suffering from postpartum depression. Sadly, 
many of these women are not only sad but resort to suicide. This bill 
was trying to work out a way so that new mothers would have someone to 
speak to.
  I met with some of those mothers in my State who have been through 
postpartum depression. It turns out everybody is focusing on the new 
baby and how beautiful it is, and mom is over there as blue as can be, 
not going to see another doctor for some time. Well, she will see a 
pediatrician with the baby, and we were trying to find a way for 
pediatricians to be sensitive to this and try to help deal with 
depression before it got more serious. That is what the bill is all 
about. It passed the House 382 to 3 on October 15 of last year. Senator 
Coburn held it up. He said he didn't want this bill to go forward.
  The Vision Care For Kids Act, this one establishes a State grant for 
the Centers for Disease Control to help kids be tested to make sure 
their vision is good and to help them get glasses if they need it. You 
would think there is enough there, but there isn't. A lot of kids 
failing in the classroom just can't see the blackboard or read the 
computer in front of them. This is why this is necessary. It passed in 
the House by a voice vote unanimously in October of last year. The lead 
sponsor, incidentally, is a Republican--Senator Bond of Missouri--and 
Senator Coburn held up the bill.
  The list goes on and on. In the Judiciary Committee, efforts to 
establish and reauthorize programs for runaway kids; the Emmitt Till 
Unsolved Civil Rights Act to try to bring to justice those who killed 
civil rights workers so many years ago; an effort for funding mental 
health courts to deal with mental illnesses, one of the important 
elements when it comes to crime in this country; the Child Pornography 
Prosecution Act--all of those bills, incidentally, passed out of the 
committee, which Senator Coburn serves on, and then he held up the bill 
after it passed out. It is a long list of bills. Drug Endangerment of 
Children. All of these bills are designed to deal with real-life 
problems and issues, and Senator Coburn objected to every single one of 
them. It was his right to do it.
  So we brought these bills together with many others and said: 
Certainly the Senate, understanding these are bipartisan measures with 
strong bipartisan support, would want to bring these to the floor and 
vote on them. Senator Coburn could have voted no. If that is what he 
wants to do, it is his right to vote no, but that isn't what he wanted 
to do. He wanted to preclude the opportunity for anyone else to vote on 
this bill; he put a hold on the bill.
  We had a test rollcall on this earlier today, and if you followed the 
debate earlier, you would know that only three Republicans joined us on 
the Democratic side. We didn't get the 60 votes we needed. This package 
of bills, all the things we mentioned, and many other items, 
unfortunately, are not going to go forward.
  Now, it is not right that bills that are so important, that have 
strong bipartisan support, that have been carefully worked on, won't 
even get the chance to pass. I think it is unfortunate. It is 
unfortunate that a number of Republican Senators, even those who 
cosponsor these bills, would not come forward and join us in this 
effort. I don't know that we will have the time to get back to this, 
but I hope we will at some point. Senator Reid has said, and rightly 
so, we are running out the time. We just can't keep doing this over and 
over.
  The last point I wish to make is there has been a lot of talk about 
suffering here. Most of the people who are suffering here are staff who 
have to weather these storms of oratory on the floor of the Senate. 
Senator Reid brought up that issue because some people are threatening 
we are going to stay in session all the way through August to deal with 
energy. Senator Reid made the point that it is no hardship for him, nor 
for our side of the aisle if that happens, if that is what we end up 
doing, and that, in fact, there are many others on the other side of 
the aisle who are anxious to get home for political reasons in a pretty 
tough election year. That was the point he made. He didn't diminish the 
suffering the American people are feeling all across this country, of 
families who are trying to pay gasoline bills. I hope tomorrow will see 
a better day and a more reasonable approach.
  We have tried repeatedly to bring up an energy bill and offer the 
Republicans a chance to bring up their amendments, we would bring up 
our amendments, subject them to a 60-vote margin, and let the better 
amendment win. They rejected that last week. I hope they will 
reconsider. I hope they

[[Page 16630]]

will understand, as we do, that it is much more important for us to 
take up bills such as the ones that were objected to today so that some 
families across America with genuine concerns can have their concerns 
addressed by the Senate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to add to the 
legitimate complaints my colleague from Illinois, the majority whip, 
raised. Currently, in this country, we spend $29 billion researching 
ALS and other motor neurological diseases. The CDC says we don't need 
an additional registry. Their quote:

       The CDC already has the authority to create a registry 
     under the Public Health Service Act--S. 1382 is not necessary 
     to achieve the purpose of the bill. The goal of a registry is 
     to create lists of patients with ALS so that government has 
     records of the incidence and prevalence and researchers have 
     lists to find patients for research.
       The goals of a registry can be achieved without a registry. 
     The National Institutes of Health already reports on the 
     prevalence of ALS, ``As many as 20,000 Americans have ALS, 
     and an estimated 5,000 people in the United States are 
     diagnosed with the disease each year. . . .''

  Scientific experts think a registry for ALS is a misguided use of 
resources. According to the CDC, ``Putting patients in contact with 
medical researchers is a worthwhile goal, but a registry is not a means 
to accomplish it.'' There are better ways of putting patients in 
contact with researchers. For example, a quick search on 
www.clinicaltrials.gov reveals many ongoing clinical trials related to 
ALS and a new recruitment effort called ``ALS Connection.''
  We increased funding last year for www.clinicaltrials.gov. So it is 
not about not wanting to help people. The question is, are we going to 
spend $75 million on another bureaucracy for ALS or spend $75 million 
to increase the pure research associated with that disease?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. COBURN. I wish to finish my statement first. But I will play fair 
and yield to the Senator when I am finished. So I will be here.
  A large amount of resources is associated with the registry. We have 
registries, but they are not comprehensive. I identify with the 
families and the people who have ALS. I have had patients and some in 
my family who have had it. The hope is we would find a cure or a 
treatment to slow the progress of it. If we spend $75 million on a 
registry, which the CDC and NIH both say we don't need, that is $75 
million we are not going to spend on research.
  One of the things that didn't come up in the debate today is let's 
take this $10 billion and get rid of $10 billion worth of waste, and 
increase NIH from $29 billion to $39 billion a year. It would make a 
big difference in lots of diseases.
  Let me talk about the Christopher and Dana Reeve bill. To want to 
help people who have suddenly become, or were for a long period of 
time, a paraplegic or a quadriplegic is a noble cause. According to HHS 
and CBO, the only thing this bill will do that is not already being 
done--the only thing it will do--is allow us to name some buildings and 
facilities after Christopher and Dana Reeve. I am not against 
additional research in those areas. But if we are going to do it, we 
ought to get rid of wasteful spending somewhere else. It is the same 
with ALS. If we are going to spend an additional $75 million, let's 
take it from some of the waste. I understand the difference in 
agreement I have with my colleague from Illinois in terms of 
authorization versus appropriations. But it is that very difference in 
agreement that got this country $10 trillion in debt, that helps 
account for the fact we are going to have the highest deficit in our 
history this year.
  Common sense has to come back to Congress. We cannot keep authorizing 
bills and turn a blind eye to deauthorizing things that aren't working. 
We use a quaint little argument that it doesn't spend any money. No, it 
doesn't, until you appropriate it; but if you appropriate it for a new 
bill and you are still appropriating for the old--which we do--all you 
have done is grown the size of the Federal Government and made it less 
efficient and more imprudent.
  I believe there is a case to be made that we ought to operate the 
Government finances the way families operate theirs. We ought to have 
to make hard choices. I know from the 109th Congress that this body 
doesn't like to do oversight. It doesn't like it. We don't like to do 
the job of making sure the money is spent well, that it has metrics on 
it. By the way, neither of these two bills has any metrics on it to 
measure whether they are successful or accomplish anything. There is no 
way for us to know that we have made an actual improvement for the 
people under these two disease categories.
  I think it is fair game for us to talk truthfully and very clearly 
about what the differences are, in terms of what the Senator from 
Illinois said. It is not about not wanting to help people; it is about 
wanting to help more people. Do you know what. We can do more research 
on ALS and more to help paraplegic and quadriplegic people, and more to 
help our kids and grandkids. The way we can do that is being very wise 
and frugal with the money that comes to Washington. Quite frankly, we 
are not doing that. So the debate isn't about setting up somebody who 
is injured and should have our care and attention. The debate isn't 
that somebody doesn't care or does care. The debate is how best to 
solve the problem: the status quo in Washington that doesn't solve the 
problem, continuing to do what we have always done--authorizing new 
spending and never getting rid of the old, never looking at it or 
fixing it.
  I also put forward one other argument: If authorizations don't matter 
in terms of spending, then there should be no objections to my offering 
a deauthorization to other programs that don't matter. If 
authorizations don't matter, then if I deauthorize something else, that 
won't matter either.
  So we have this wonderfully circular argument that says spending is 
only spending when we spend it, but if you want to decrease spending in 
an authorization bill by offsetting other authorizations, that is 
spending and you are cutting. You cannot have it both ways. It is about 
how do we live within our means? How do we, in fact, guarantee these 
great opportunities--and we still haven't spotted all the problems in 
front of us as a nation--how do we guarantee that they go on to the 
next couple of generations?
  This isn't about paralyzed people or ALS; it is about changing the 
culture of the Senate and the Congress to start meeting the 
expectations of the American people. The expectations are that we will 
start thinking long term and start thinking about their kids. We need 
to get rid of the waste and be much more efficient in the programs we 
have. To do less than that is dishonest with those very people who we 
say we care about in this bill.
  This bill is a $5 million museum in Poland. How many people in 
America think today, with a $600 billion deficit, and them struggling 
to buy gasoline and food, and milk at $4 a gallon--the same price as 
gas--that we ought to spend $5 million across the seas? I agree there 
is a good argument about our foreign policy in terms of our involvement 
with Iraq. That is fair game--building museums, forgiving debt, sending 
another $24 million to the U.N., which won't tell us a penny of 
anything they spent, or where they spend it, because we cannot see it, 
and we are already spending $5.6 billion there a year.
  This is a real debate. I hope the debate stays at the level that 
doesn't accuse anybody of not supporting what is in the best interests 
of every American. The question is, how do we do that? What we have 
heard on the floor

[[Page 16631]]

today is that if you voted against this bill, you don't care about 
women with depression. I have delivered 4,000 babies. I have treated 
postpartum depression. The flippant way we talk about that--this is a 
serious disease that is being treated. There are multiple programs out 
there.
  I will also make a final point, and then I will yield to my friend 
from Illinois. Under the Health, Education, Labor, Pension parts in 
this bill, on only two out of six bills I had a hold on. There was the 
Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. I didn't have a hold. It has never 
been offered. The Vision Care For Kids Act; I didn't have a hold on 
that. It has never been offered. On prenatal and postnatally diagnosed 
conditions, I am a sponsor of that. The Stroke Treatment and Ongoing 
Prevention Act, I never held that bill, not once. Under the judiciary 
bills, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Crime Reduction Act, I never 
held it. The Drug Endangered Kids Act, I never held it. The Effective 
Child Pornography Prosecution Act, I never held it. Enhancing Effective 
Prosecution of Child Pornography Act, I never held it, not once. 
National Sea Grant College Program Amendments I never held. Federal 
Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, I never held it.
  So what is it about wanting to work to meet the needs of everybody 
having input? The question is, can we do things better or do we have to 
keep doing them the old way? Does it have to be that if you read the 
bill and if you have concerns, do you let them go and say it doesn't 
matter? That is how we got into the energy crisis we are in, and the 
housing crisis.
  I don't believe we can let things go anymore. We have to look at 
them, and if we think they ought to be fixed, we ought to have the 
courage to say they ought to be fixed or paid for.
  With that, I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I apologize publicly on the record if I 
said at some point that Senator Coburn was holding a bill that he 
wasn't. I certainly don't question his statements in the Record about 
which bills he held. I will tell you that there is a small group--and 
he is the most visible member of that group on his side--that is now in 
the practice of routinely holding routine bills. If he is not the 
reason why some of these were held, I hope the Record will be clear. 
But it won't, because they are secret holds--except for you, and I 
acknowledge that you are very open when you hold a bill.
  Mr. COBURN. If the Senator will yield for a second.
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. COBURN. I write a letter the day I hold it to the committee and 
the majority leader and minority leader and the sponsors. They know 
what I am holding. I will make one point to you. Most of the bills we 
hold at first are held so we can read them. It is a strange thing. We 
ought to read the bills before we say let them go.
  Mr. DURBIN. I acknowledge that. As I tried to make clear, the Senator 
from Oklahoma does this differently and more honorably than some. Some 
sneak around and don't want people to know. I have the same attitude. 
If I am going to put on a hold, I want them to know why. Maybe they 
will change or withdraw a nomination. But it is very open and clear. I 
try to do it that way.
  Having said that, let me say, if you object to the Lou Gehrig 
registry, it passed through the committee you serve on, it was reported 
to calendar in December of last year with an amendment. It must have 
been debated in committee to some extent. You had a chance then to 
amend it, to vote against it, and from what I hear you say on the floor 
today, you would vote against it today. That should be your right. I 
would defend your right to do that.
  But I think it reaches a different level where you say I don't have a 
right to vote for it if you are opposed to it, and that you are going 
to put a hold on it and won't let the measure come to the floor for a 
vote.
  If the measure came to the floor for a vote and the Senator from 
Oklahoma had spoken against it and voted against, he would have done 
the right thing. But to deny me a chance to vote for this bill, I think 
that goes too far. I do.
  Whether we go through one or the other, I can discuss each one the 
Senator brought up, but that is the underlying issue. Should I have the 
right to deny him even a chance to vote on this bill? That is the 
position he has taken on some of these bills. That, to me, is 
troubling.
  I will say in terms of fiscal sanity, I do wish to make a statement 
for the Record. The current administration inherited a surplus. The 
current administration inherited a budget surplus. It was the first 
time in 30 years that the Federal Government had a surplus.
  Bill Clinton, for whatever his faults might have been, put America's 
economic house in order. We started generating a surplus in the Federal 
Treasury. Why? Some taxes were raised, some spending was cut, but it 
was done in such a way that it worked. The economy grew dramatically. 
Jobs, new businesses, housing grew dramatically, and we reduced the 
deficit of this country by generating a surplus.
  This President inherited that situation and brought to it his own 
George W. Bush economic philosophy. I would not attribute it to the 
Senator from Oklahoma unless he wants to say that was his philosophy, 
too, but it was a philosophy that, best said, the best way to give this 
economy more is to give tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this 
country, cut taxes for the wealthiest people and a thousand flowers 
will flourish.
  Unfortunately, September 11, 2001, occurred. We found ourselves 
spending a lot of money for the security of this Nation and then found 
ourselves in two wars. This President continued to call for tax cuts in 
the midst of a war. He became unique in American history. No President 
has ever done that.
  The Senator from Oklahoma, the fiscal conservative that he is, must 
acknowledge it is mindless to have tax breaks in the midst of a war. 
You know the war is an add-on cost to your overall economy and budget, 
and then to cut revenue--that is what he did. As a result of that 
action by the President and his decision to initiate a war in Iraq that 
has gone unpaid for now into its sixth year, we have now piled up the 
biggest deficit in the history of the United States of America.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is vigilant on bills that come that may 
cost us money in the future, but his party and his President have led 
us into the deepest deficit in our history. Having inherited a surplus, 
President Bush drove us into a fiscal mess, where we are borrowing 
money from all over the world. The last thing I will say is this, and I 
know the Senator from Oklahoma is never going to agree with me, but I 
want to make a point. If every one of these 34 measures that he and his 
side objected to today had passed, it would not add a penny to the 
deficit tomorrow, not a penny, and not next year either. We have to 
pass the spending bill. These bills give permission for a museum. These 
bills don't spend a penny for a museum, not one.
  I am on the Appropriations Committee. We sit there, and they give us 
a finite pot of money and say: Take your pick. You want some new 
programs? Go ahead, fund them, but you cannot fund the old programs if 
you fund the new ones. You have a finite pot of money. Make your 
choices.
  That is what happens in appropriations and on the floor of the 
Senate. That is a point which the Senator and I have debated repeatedly 
and probably will never resolve between us. But we have a genuine 
difference of opinion, and the only thing I have supporting me is a 
statement in the Record from the Office of Management and Budget saying 
I am right, he is wrong. Don't take it personally, but it was put in 
the Record.
  I say to the Senator, I don't think it was right what happened today, 
that we stopped consideration of 34 bills. If he wanted to have his 
recorded vote as no on any one of those bills, it was his right to do 
it. But to stop me from trying to promote treatment of people with Lou 
Gehrig's disease and paralysis, because I think these are good

[[Page 16632]]

bills, I do not think that is appropriate.
  Today, we tried to get the Senate to rule the other way, and they did 
not. The Senator's side prevailed. But only three Republicans would 
join us, and now these bills are not likely to be passed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank 
him for his debating skills and his heartfelt positions.
  I guess the first thing I would say is the Appropriations Committee 
spends $875 billion every year that is not authorized. The Senator from 
Illinois knows that.
  The second thing I would say is there is no ability to amend any of 
these bills in the appropriations process, unless you are on the 
Appropriations Committee. So if you are not on the subcommittee, you 
can't amend it. If you are not on the main committee, you can't amend 
it.
  Last year, we couldn't amend anything because the omnibus bill came 
to the floor without any ability to amend it. So we haven't had any 
opportunity to amend it. It is whatever the appropriators say goes. 
There is no amendment with that.
  I am not going to get into the debate. I am as disgusted with 
Republican spending priorities as the Senator from Illinois is. I will 
correct the record on real accounting principles. We had 1 year, and 1 
year only, of a true surplus, 1999. The rest of the years we didn't 
have a surplus, if you count what we borrowed from Social Security.
  I would not defend any of the spending of this President or this 
Congress, but I will make it known the President cannot spend the first 
penny until Congress passes the bills. I note that over the last 18 
months, his party has not been in charge. A different party has been in 
charge. The bills that have gone to him have been controlled by the 
majority party.
  Look, both of us admit that our children are in tall weeds right now 
if we don't start doing something about our fiscal situation.
  The final point I will make is most of these bills would take less 
than an hour. Every one of them I have communicated on and I am happy 
to see on the floor. Give me the right to offer one significant 
amendment and one amendment for every billion dollars. I will debate it 
for 15 minutes, have two votes, and we will be done with the bills.
  Nobody is withholding anybody's right to vote for a bill. The 
majority leader can put any bill he wants on the floor at any time, 
with my agreement to never try to dilatate, never try to spread it out, 
to only bring pertinent amendments that are germane and do that in a 
very short period of time. He knows that. The Senator from Illinois has 
known that. That has been the way I work. I don't play the games of 
political position to spin something.
  My hope is--and I have a great relationship with the Senator from 
Illinois. I value his friendship. He is not ``just my friend,'' he is a 
friend. It is not the collegial statement of the body, it is Dick 
Durbin is my friend. My hope is that when Dick Durbin and I can pass 
three significant bills out of our subcommittee that make a real 
difference in the world of human rights, that if we can do that, then 
certainly the Senate can come together on energy and all these other 
bills. My hope is we will do that.
  I do not want to delay our staff or the Presiding Officer any longer.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________