[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22993-23005]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            FEDERAL RAILROAD SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2007

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page 22994]]


  Mr. WEBB. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. WEBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Tribute To Senators

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I know this afternoon at some point the 
majority leader intends to speak about the service of a number of the 
Members of this body who are going to be retiring at the end of the 
year. But seeing that people are elsewhere right now, I thought I might 
seize this moment and say a few words about two of my Republican 
colleagues with whom I have had long relationships, and both of whom I 
respect a great deal, and to wish both of them success as they leave 
this body.


                          Senator John Warner

  The first is Senator John Warner. Right now, with the situation 
facing this country, we are in more turmoil, we are facing greater 
problems than at any time, probably, since the combination of the Great 
Depression and the end of World War II. We need people who are willing 
to work to solve the problems of this country rather than simply 
falling back into partisan rhetoric or simple party loyalties.
  I think it can fairly be said that throughout his lifetime of 
service, and particularly his service in politics, there is one thing 
everyone can agree on about John Warner: He has always put the 
interests of the people of Virginia and the people of this country 
ahead of political party. He has been very clear at different times 
that he and I are in different parties. But this is an individual who 
has served this body with great wisdom and a deeply ingrained sense of 
fairness, and someone who has the temperament and the moral courage of 
a great leader.
  Our senior Senator has a history and a family heritage involving 
public service. If you go into Senator Warner's office, you will see a 
picture of a great-uncle who lost his arm serving in the War Between 
the States. His father was an Army doctor who participated in some of 
the most difficult campaigns of World War I. Senator Warner himself 
enlisted at the age of 17 in the Navy toward the end of World War II 
and was able to take advantage of the GI bill to go to college. Then 
when the Korean war came about, he joined the Marine Corps, went to 
Korea as an officer of marines, and, in fact, remained as a member of 
the Marine Corps Reserve for some period of time.
  He, as most of us know, gave great service in a civilian capacity in 
the Pentagon. He had more than 5 years in the Pentagon, first as Under 
Secretary of the Navy, and then as Secretary of the Navy, and after 
leaving as Secretary of the Navy, was the official responsible for 
putting together our bicentennial celebrations in 1976.
  I first came to know John Warner my last year in the Marine Corps 
when I was a 25-year-old captain and was assigned, after having served 
in Vietnam, as a member of the Secretary of the Navy's staff. John 
Warner was the Under Secretary at the time. John Chafee--later also to 
serve in this body--was the Secretary. Then, toward the end of my time 
in the Marine Corps, John Warner was the Secretary of the Navy and, in 
fact, retired me from the Marine Corps in front of his desk when he was 
Secretary of the Navy. I have been privileged to know him since that 
time.
  I was privileged to follow him in the Pentagon, when I spent 5 years 
in the Pentagon and also was able to serve as Secretary of the Navy.
  Shortly after I was elected to this body, Senator Warner and I sat 
down and worked out a relationship that I think, hopefully, can serve 
as a model for people who want to serve the country and solve the 
problems that exist, even if they are on different sides of this 
Chamber. We figured out what we were not going to agree upon, and then 
we figured out what we were going to be able to agree upon. I think it 
is a model of bipartisan cooperation on a wide range of issues, ranging 
from the nomination of Federal judges, to critical infrastructure 
projects in the Commonwealth of Virginia, to issues facing our men and 
women in uniform, to issues of national policy.
  It has been a great inspiration for me, it has been a great privilege 
for me to be able to work with Senator Warner over these past 2 years.
  Last week was a good example of how bipartisan cooperation, looking 
to the common good, can bring about good results when Judge Anthony 
Trenga made it through the confirmation process, an individual whom 
Senator Warner and I had interviewed and jointly recommended both to 
the White House and to the Judiciary Committee.
  I am particularly mindful--I see the Senator; the senior Senator has 
joined us on the floor--I particularly am mindful of the journey I took 
upon myself my first day as a Member of the Senate when I introduced a 
piece of legislation designed to give those who have been serving since 
9/11 the same educational opportunities as the men and women who served 
during World War II.
  Perhaps the key moment in that journey, which over 16 months 
eventually allowed us to have 58 cosponsors of that legislation, 
including 11 Republicans, was when Senator Warner stepped across the 
aisle and joined me as a principal cosponsor, and we developed four 
lead sponsors on that legislation--two Republicans, two Democrats; two 
World War II veterans, two Vietnam veterans--that enabled us to get the 
broad support of the Congress and eventually pass that legislation. 
History is going to remember John Warner as a man who accomplished much 
here during his distinguished tenure. He was the first Virginia Senator 
to support an African American for the Federal bench. He was the first 
to support a woman. He was the first Virginia Senator to offer 
wilderness legislation. Senator Warner has never wavered in his 
determination to do what is right for America, even when it caused him 
from time to time to break with the leadership of his own party.
  There are important legacies, but perhaps more than anything else, we 
will remember Senator John Warner's tenure here as having been a 
positive force for the people who serve in uniform. There is not a 
person serving in the U.S. military today or who has served over the 
past 30 years whose life has not been touched by the leadership and the 
policies of John Warner and whose military service has not been better 
for the fact that Senator Warner, as a veteran, as someone who has 
served in the Pentagon, and as someone who served on the Armed Services 
Committee, understood the dynamic under which they had to live, 
understood the challenges they had to face when they served, and 
understood the gravity of the cost of military service. Senator John 
Warner has stood second to none in protecting our troops and their way 
of life.
  When John Warner announced his retirement 13 months ago on the 
grounds of the University of Virginia, he reminded us that at the end 
of the day, public service is a rare privilege. In my work with him 
over these many years, and particularly over the last 2 years, I can 
attest to the fact that he certainly approaches this work in that 
humble spirit.
  So on behalf of the people of Virginia and all those who have worn 
the uniform of the United States in the past 30 years, I wish to thank 
Senator Warner for his exceptionally talented leadership and all he has 
done and his staff has done for our State and for our country. This 
institution will miss John Warner, his kindness, his humility, his 
wisdom, and his dedicated service. I know we in Virginia will continue 
to benefit from his advice and his counsel for many years to come.


                              Chuck Hagel

  Mr. President, I also wish to say a few words today about Senator 
Chuck Hagel, who will be leaving this body.
  Chuck Hagel and I have known each other for more than 30 years. We 
both came to Washington as young Vietnam veterans, determined to try to 
take care of the readjustment needs of those who had served in Vietnam. 
Senator Hagel had been an infantry sergeant in Vietnam; wounded, came 
up, worked in

[[Page 22995]]

the Senate for awhile, became a high-ranking official in the Veterans' 
Administration. He later ran the USO before he came to this body. He is 
known in this body as an expert on foreign affairs.
  Again, as with Senator John Warner, he is someone who puts country 
first, who puts the needs of the people who do the hard work of society 
first. It has been a rare privilege for me to have made a journey with 
someone, beginning in the same spot in the late 1970s and ending up 
here in the Senate. I know this country will hear more from Chuck Hagel 
in the future. I certainly wish him well.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia is 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am very deeply moved by this moment. As 
a matter of fact, now--this is just a month or so short of 30 years--I 
can't think of another opportunity or moment in the Senate when I have 
been so moved and so grateful to a fellow Senator. I have served with 
five individuals, you being the fifth now, in the Senate to come from 
Virginia, to form the team we have all had, some different in different 
ways, but generally speaking, Virginia's two Senators have worked 
together on behalf of not only the Commonwealth but what is best for 
the United States.
  I remember one time so vividly we stood together here at the desk on 
a rather complex issue, and there were clear political reasons for us 
to vote in a certain way. But you turned to me and you asked what I was 
going to do, and I replied, and you said: That is what I will do 
because that is in the best interest of the country though it may not 
be politically to our benefit, or possibly to our State. But that is 
this fine man whom I finished my career in the Senate with as my full 
partner and, most importantly, my deep and respected friend. Our 
relationship, as you so stated, started many years ago--over 30--when 
we worked with the Navy Secretary together.
  You mentioned Vietnam. To this day, I think about that chapter in my 
life. I remember John Chafee, whom I am sure you recall very well. He 
and I one time were asked to go down to the Mall. The Secretary of 
Defense sent us down there, and we put on old clothes and went down, 
and there were a million young men and women--over a million--
expressing their concerns about the loss of life, the war in Vietnam, 
and how the leadership of this country had not given, I believe, the 
fullest of support to those such as yourself, Senator, and Senator 
Hagel, who fought so valiantly and courageously in that war.
  In the years I have been privileged since that time to serve here in 
the Senate--I might add a footnote that Senator Chafee or then-
Secretary of the Navy Chafee, and I was Under Secretary--went back 
directly to the Secretary of Defense and sat in his office, and that 
was sort of the beginning of the concept of ``Vietnamization'' when we 
tried to lay those plans to bring our forces home.
  But anyway, in the years that passed, I remember so well working with 
Senator Mathias on the original legislation to establish the Vietnam 
Veterans Memorial. I felt strongly that it would be some tribute 
fitting to the men and women who served, as you did, so valiantly 
during that period. I think time has proven that while there was 
enormous controversy about that memorial, it has in a very significant 
measure helped those families and others who bore the brunt of that 
conflict, you being among them.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia for working together this short 
period we have been here. As I leave, I leave with a sense of knowing 
that for our Virginia, but perhaps even more importantly, for the 
United States of America, there is one man in Senator Webb who will 
always do what is right for his country and will fear absolutely no one 
in trying to carry out that mission. Whether it be a vote or a piece of 
legislation, or whatever it may be, he will persevere. He showed that 
on the GI bill legislation.
  I was privileged, as I might say, just to be a corporal in your squad 
on that, but you led that squad with the same courage that you fought 
with in Vietnam and that you will fight with today and tomorrow and so 
long as you are a Member of the Senate. I hope perhaps maybe you might 
exceed my career of 30 years in the Senate, and that wonderful family 
of yours will give you the support my family--my lovely wife today and 
my children--has given me so that I could serve here in the Senate.
  America will always look down on you as a proud son. I don't know 
what the future may be, but I know there are further steps of greatness 
that you will achieve, Senator. I wish you the best of luck from the 
depths of my heart. I thank you for these words today, similar to words 
we have shared, both of us, in speaking of our working partnership here 
in the Senate. I thank you, sir. I salute you.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, if I might address the senior Senator 
through the Chair, it is a rare opportunity to say something like this 
on the Senate floor, but I will reiterate my appreciation for the 
leadership the senior Senator from Virginia has shown in my case since 
1971--it is hard to believe--as an example, the example he has set here 
in the Senate for 30 years in terms of how to conduct the business of 
Government. I can think of no one whom I would rather have shared the 
past 2 years with in terms of learning the business of the Senate and 
having something of a handoff here in terms of how we take care of the 
good people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. There is only one other 
person in this body I can say these words to, but I say them from my 
heart: Semper fidelis, John Warner. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank you.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I 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. HARKIN. 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. HARKIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate in 
morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the motion to 
concur.


                Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the Senate floor with a heavy 
heart and a clear purpose. Last Thursday would have been the 56th 
birthday of a great actor, a devoted father and husband, Christopher 
Reeve. Many Americans got to know Christopher Reeve when he put on that 
blue and red uniform of Superman and acted in so many Superman roles. 
He was also on television and stage. So we always think of Christopher 
Reeve as the first Superman.
  Then, in May of 1995, Christopher Reeve was involved in an equestrian 
accident. He was riding a horse and got pitched off the horse. He 
suffered injuries to his spinal column, starting in his neck, which 
left him paralyzed from the neck down.
  In the years following the accident, Christopher Reeve not only put a 
face on spinal cord injury for so many, but he motivated 
neuroscientists around the world to conquer the most complex diseases 
of the brain and the central nervous system.
  Even before I met Mr. Reeve in 1998, I was a big admirer. Of course, 
I liked Superman movies. Then I watched what he did after he had been 
paralyzed. After the accident, he could afford the very best doctors 
and nurses, the best caregivers and therapies. He could have just 
withdrawn into himself, focused on his own well-being which was a full-
time job in and of itself.
  Christopher Reeve made a different choice that defined him as a great 
human being. He chose to become the man whom I first met in 1998 when 
he first testified before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education on which I was a ranking 
member at that time. I had been chairman

[[Page 22996]]

before and then Senator Specter was ranking. In 1998, Senator Specter 
was chairman of that subcommittee. Mr. Reeve came on a mission to give 
hope and help to other people with disabilities and thus became a kind 
of real-life hero to people around the world.
  Later on, I got to know Christopher Reeve as a friend, someone who 
had an impish sense of humor, a great smile, was warm and personable. 
He spent all of his waking time, days, thinking about and getting 
information about spinal cord injuries, research that had been done, 
how it was being researched here and in other parts of the world, at 
the same time finding time to direct a movie.
  Christopher Reeve began to inform me and others on the committee that 
the kind of research we were doing into spinal cord paralysis was 
disjointed; it was not well put together. Then he went on a mission to 
think about, with others--with scientists and researchers and those of 
us in the Senate and the House--how we might accomplish pulling this 
research together in a more unified structure.
  In 2002, I first introduced the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Act with 
bipartisan cosponsors. The bill has passed the House twice, but we have 
never succeeded in passing it here.
  As I said, it is a bipartisan bill. It addresses the critical need to 
accelerate the discovery of better treatments and one day a cure for 
paralysis. As I said, currently paralysis research is carried out 
across multiple disciplines with no effective means of coordination or 
collaboration. Time, effort, and valuable research dollars are used 
inefficiently because of this problem. Families affected by paralysis 
are often unaware of critical research results, information about 
clinical trials, and best practices.
  This bill will improve the long-term health prospects of people with 
paralysis and other disabilities by improving access to services, 
providing information and support to caregivers and their families, 
developing assistive technology, providing employment assistance, and 
encouraging wellness among those with paralysis.
  In August of last year, the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee cleared this bill for full Senate consideration. Two months 
after that, our colleagues in the House passed the bill unanimously by 
voice vote. Yet for the last 12 months, this bill has languished in the 
Senate, as I understand it, due to the objections of one Senator, my 
friend, the junior Senator from Oklahoma. At least that is what I am 
told. I could be corrected, but that is what I am told.
  In the past, I have heard the Senator from Oklahoma question our role 
in promoting health legislation because he has said sometimes in the 
past that too often we get caught up in one cause or another pushed by 
a celebrity and other worthwhile causes get left behind because they 
don't have someone famous out there pushing for them. I guess once in a 
while I might agree with that point. But even though this legislation 
has Christopher and Dana Reeve's names behind it, it was really written 
for the thousands of ordinary Americans living with paralysis and 
spinal cord injuries and their families and friends who pushed the 
cause of improved research and treatment.
  I want to read a couple of stories of Americans today. One story 
belongs to Marilyn Smith of Hood River, OR. She is one of the many 
paralysis advocates who volunteer their time through the Unite to Fight 
Paralysis organization. She took the time recently to share her story 
with me. I want to read a portion of it for the Record. Here is what 
Marilyn said:

       Paralysis doesn't just happen to an individual, it happens 
     to a family. In December of 2002, our son became a 
     quadriplegic when a careless driver failed to tighten the lug 
     nuts on one of his wheels. It came off and flew into our 
     son's pickup, shattering his cervical vertebra. Our family 
     was thrown into physical, emotional and financial chaos. We 
     have done the best we could after this calamity, but our 
     lives will never be the same. As parents, our greatest wish 
     before we pass on is to see our son's health restored. We 
     have traveled from Oregon to Washington, DC, for 4 straight 
     years to lobby for passage of the Christopher and Dana Reeve 
     Paralysis Act, a well-crafted piece of legislation with 
     bipartisan support that will make a measurable difference in 
     our lives.

  I think Marilyn's story underscores the tremendous cost paralysis 
imposes on families. The Spinal Cord Injuries and Illness Center at the 
University of Alabama Birmingham has done a lot of work to quantify 
that cost. I believe their findings might surprise some of my 
colleagues.
  According to the Spinal Cord Injury and Illness Center, the first-
year cost of an injury to the C-1, C-4 vertebrae is upwards of 
$683,000, with costs in each subsequent year averaging out at more than 
$120,000. Think about that for a moment. That figure represents a cost 
of personal care attendants, medical treatment and therapy, 
transportation, and all the necessary modifications made to one's home.
  Leo Halland of Yankton, ND, knows this cost all too well. He has been 
living with paralysis for the past 32 years. He, too, has a story to 
tell. I will read a short selection from a letter he sent over the 
weekend. He said:

       I know there is much in life I will never understand, and 
     now near the top of that list are: One, how a single Senator 
     can stop a piece of good legislation; and, two, how some of 
     his colleagues can support those efforts. Failure to act on 
     this legislation is doing great medical harm.

  I just have to say, frankly, I am surprised there continues to be an 
objection to moving this bill. I negotiated this bill with my 
Republican colleagues before it was marked up in the HELP Committee in 
July of last year. During the course of those negotiations, we received 
through Senator Enzi, who is the ranking member of that committee, 
specific requests to, one, remove authorizations for the titles related 
to the National Institute for Health Research. In the interest of 
getting legislation passed, we accepted this change. We removed the NIH 
reporting provisions in response to concerns that they were duplicative 
of reporting requirements in the NIH reauthorization legislation. So we 
took that out.
  We responded to all of the feedback from the Department of Health and 
Human Services and the NIH by incorporating both substantive and 
technical changes they wanted.
  At that point, we were assured there were no more objections, and the 
bill passed out of our committee with no amendments and no objections. 
We just passed it out of committee.
  So given all of the efforts we made to meet concerns raised by 
Senators on the other side of the aisle, and given that Senators had an 
opportunity to file amendments at that time in the committee but chose 
not to, I had every expectation that the bill would pass the full 
Senate. Instead, it continues to be held due to one Republican 
objection. This bill is long overdue for passage.
  When I introduced the bill 17 months ago, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the 
Director of the NIH, spoke at a rally in support of the bill. They had 
suggestions on some changes which we did. But he spoke in support of 
the bill. Here is something Dr. Zerhouni said that day:

       So really as the Director of an institution that is 
     committed to making the discoveries that will make a 
     difference in people's lives, I feel proud and I feel 
     pleased. But at the same time, I'm humbled. I'm humbled 
     because in many ways [the Christopher and Dana Reeve 
     Paralysis Act] is the harbinger of what I see as the 
     combination of the public, the leadership in Congress, and 
     the administration and government in our country that is 
     absolutely unique, and humbled because at the same time, I 
     know it contains a lot of expectations from us. And I am at 
     the same time confident that we can deliver on these 
     expectations of NIH, with our sister agencies throughout the 
     government. But the key thing I would like to provide is an 
     expression of commitment. At the end of the day, if you do 
     not have leaders and champions that look at a problem in its 
     entirety, today in the 21st century, you cannot make 
     progress.

  That was Dr. Zerhouni. I wholeheartedly agree with him. You have to 
look at it in its entirety. Progress is vital in science and biomedical 
research. It is also important in the legislative process. As Senators, 
of course, we have a duty to ensure due diligence in considering 
legislation. That is one of our responsibilities. But to keep this bill 
from getting an up-or-down vote, despite strong support from both sides

[[Page 22997]]

of the aisle, and the fact that the House passed it unanimously, I am 
not certain that is exercising due diligence. I don't know what it is 
called, but I don't know if that is due diligence.
  Brooke Ellison of Stony Brook, NY, is another passionate advocate. 
She was paralyzed from the neck down when she was 7 years old after she 
was struck by a car while walking home from the first day of school. 
She is now 25 years old. In the years since her accident, she has 
graduated from college--Harvard--with an undergraduate degree and a 
master's degree, and founded the Brooke Ellison Project for those 
facing paralysis and adversity, and she asked me to pass along these 
words.

       I have seen up close and in person how very quickly any one 
     of our lives can change and we find ourselves facing 
     challenges unlike anything we may have expected. Eighteen 
     years ago, I learned this lesson in a personal and profound 
     way. Yet each day, an increasing number of people find 
     themselves in similar circumstances, and we need to do all we 
     can to alleviate their suffering. Christopher Reeve lived his 
     life as a testament to helping to reduce the challenges 
     people suffering from paralysis face. The Christopher and 
     Dana Reeve Paralysis Act is critical to changing the fate, 
     and sometimes even dire conditions, that millions of people 
     face. And the events in my life have shown me all too clearly 
     how essential it is to be passed.

  I wish to be clear; by putting this bill on hold, we are also putting 
Brooke Ellison and Leo Hallan and other people living in paralysis on 
hold. It tells the more than 400 Iraq war veterans who have returned 
with spinal cord injuries that they are on hold. It puts the needs of 
Bethany Winkler from Yukon on hold. She has been paralyzed for 7 years, 
since falling in an accident. She has taken the time to come to 
Washington to lobby for this legislation. I met Bethany in the past, 
and I can testify to what a passionate and effective advocate she is 
for the cause of paralysis research and care.
  Although we often find ourselves on different sides of the table, I 
wish to say publicly I respect the fact that Senator Coburn believes 
strongly this legislation inappropriately grows the size of the Federal 
Government. I have heard that stated. I see my friend is on the floor, 
and he can state it if he wants. But if that is the case, I wish to say 
I disagree with that assessment. I am on the Appropriations Committee, 
sure, but I am on an authorizing committee as well, and this 
legislation appropriates no money for paralysis research. It doesn't 
appropriate any money for care or quality-of-life programs. It simply 
says we authorize funding for programs. So they still have to be funded 
through the regular appropriations process.
  So I come down to the floor with renewed hope. This past week, the 
Senate passed several bills by unanimous consent with new authorization 
for Federal spending. Two of those bills, the Drug Endangered Children 
Act and the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which were 
also being held up, and again were authorizations for appropriations, 
received unanimous consent and were passed. So I have come to the floor 
today, and as soon as I finish, in another page or two, I will ask 
unanimous consent that the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act 
pass.
  But I am going to give two more cases. One is from Donna Sullivan, 
another of the many concerned advocates for paralysis research and 
care. Donna is fighting not for herself but for her son, and here is 
what she said:

       Three years ago, my son was the lone survivor of an 
     airplane crash. His injuries were extensive, and my heart 
     literally felt as if it was broken. After numerous operations 
     and procedures, under the care of well-trained doctors in 
     three States, he has overcome all of his injuries except for 
     one, it is his spinal cord injury, which waits for science to 
     move forward and allow him further recovery.
       Together, we have attended research symposiums and visited 
     our legislators in Washington, DC, to share our story and the 
     promise that research holds. It is our hope that the Senate 
     will join others who understand the potential and release 
     this bill. When you understand the potential paralysis 
     research holds, it is difficult to ignore, and it is 
     difficult for me to accept that some do.

  Christopher Reeve spoke up passionately for people such as Donna 
Sullivan and her son. Christopher Reeve's untimely death in 2004 robbed 
the paralysis community of its most passionate and effective advocate. 
As we know, his widow, wife Dana, continued her husband's quest until 
her untimely death in 2006 of lung cancer. Across the country, 
thousands of ordinary Americans, whose lives have been touched by 
paralysis, have taken up Christopher and Dana Reeve's advocacy work at 
great cost to their health and wealth.
  Well, I have one last story I have to share with you. It has to do 
with a young man--a big kid; strong. His dad had been in the Navy in 
World War II and imbued that in each of his kids. Each kid went in the 
military--different branches. But this one kid, Kelly--big Irish kid--
he went in the Navy. He went in the Navy. He went to work on an 
aircraft carrier. He was one of the launch people, an enlisted guy on 
the deck of an aircraft carrier.
  They were cruising off the coast of Vietnam. Unbeknownst to Kelly, on 
one of the planes--it was an A-6 Intruder--the pilot had run up his 
engine. The intakes on an A-6 are on the bottom. They are big intakes. 
He was not supposed to have run up his engine, but he ran up his engine 
to 100 percent of power. Kelly, doing his job, got too close to the 
intake and got sucked into the intake. He had a hard hat on--his Mickey 
Mouse ears and his hard hat on--and evidently the pilot, through later 
investigations, saw something going wrong with his engine, heard a thud 
in his plane, and pulled the power back. Someone saw Kelly's feet 
sticking out of the intake, and they got people up there and rushed him 
down to the infirmary on the ship and then put him in some kind of 
traction thing, got him off the ship, and got him back to the States.
  I will never forget the day my sister called me about Kelly. It was 
my nephew. When my sister called me, I was a Member of the House of 
Representatives, and she called me up to see what I could do to help. 
She was extremely distraught, as you can imagine. Kelly was 20 years 
old and had his life ahead of him. So I went to work, as any 
Congressman would, for my family, and I got him in at the VA hospital 
out in California, near Stanford, and that is the first time I flew out 
to see him. He was quadriplegic at the time. He couldn't move anything.
  I can remember walking in there and seeing this kid--and I don't mean 
to be overly maudlin about this, but you see, I was a Navy pilot. I 
used to fly my plane around a lot of times, and these kids always 
looked up to their father because he was in the Navy and I was in the 
Navy. I was a Navy pilot. I still have pictures of my jet and young 
Kelly as a kid sitting in the cockpit of my jet with my helmet on 
dreaming that someday he, too, would do something such as that. So I 
kind of felt a lot of responsibility for this because I had encouraged 
him to get into the Navy, to go into aviation, to do things with 
airplanes.
  I will never forget the first time I saw him lying in that hospital 
bed at Stanford--I think that is right, the Stanford VA hospital--and 
the look on his face. I mean, this kid was scared. He couldn't move 
anything, and he was wondering what was going to happen to him.
  Well, he had good medical care, and the good news is that over some 
years he actually got the use of his arms back, through sheer will and 
determination. And through those years he then went back to school. I 
remember how tough it was for him, using a wheelchair to get around on 
campus. That was before the Americans with Disabilities Act. That was 
before we had ramps and widened doorways and things such as that. This 
was in the 1980s when he was going to school.
  I remember his father building him ramps and stuff so he could get in 
and out of places and learn how to live. Well, that happened 28 years 
ago--28 years ago. Now, the good news is Kelly is alive and well. He 
lives by himself, in his own home, and has a van that has all these 
automatic lifts that put him into the van so he can drive himself 
around. He can't use the lower half of his body, but he can drive 
around.
  He started a small business and he is very self-sufficient. I saw 
Kelly--well, whenever the Democratic Convention was--because he lives 
in Colorado, and

[[Page 22998]]

so I went to see him. We were talking about this and that, a lot of 
things, and I can't begin to tell you what a profound effect 
Christopher Reeve had on my nephew's life. It seemed as though all of a 
sudden there was someone like him, who was big and strapping and full 
of life, with a lot of energy, and then one accident and that is it. So 
I could see Kelly could identify with someone such as a Christopher 
Reeve, a healthy, strong, vibrant man, and suddenly one accident and 
that is it. So he followed him. Kelly is on the computer, on the 
Internet, and he follows research all the time. During this period of 
time in the late 1990s, he became more and more encouraged by what 
Christopher Reeve was doing and how he was pulling all this stuff 
together. He kept asking me about it: What are you guys going to do? 
Are you going to pass this? Are you going to do something about 
paralysis research? Kelly follows this today to the nth degree.
  Then Christopher Reeve passed away, and then his wife. I saw my 
nephew Kelly out in Colorado last month. Once again he asked me, he 
said: Are you going to get that bill passed or not?
  I said: I don't know. I will try. I am still trying.
  Of course he knows all about this. He knows it passed the House. He 
follows all this. He just wondered what the problem was.
  I said: A person has a hold on it.
  Can't you bring it up, do this?
  I don't know if we can bring it up or not--go through cloture and 
debate and all that kind of stuff. I don't know. He reminded me it 
passed the House. I said: I know that, it passed the House unanimously. 
It passed out of our committee.
  So I told Kelly when I saw him in August: We will come back in 
September and I will try another go at it and we will see what happens. 
I hope we get it passed.
  Here we have the medical community, in the personage of Dr. Zerhouni, 
saying this does what we should be doing, bringing everything together, 
coordinating it. It authorizes appropriations but doesn't appropriate 
any money.
  I can tell you, it is not just because there was a famous person 
behind it. There are people such as my nephew Kelly all over the United 
States who are wondering, are we going to pursue this? I don't like to 
give anyone false hope. My nephew is a realistic person. He has lived 
with this for 28 years now. But he still believes strongly that we 
ought to be pushing the frontiers and that we ought to be doing 
everything we can to promote research, of course--obviously into 
paralysis, because that is what affects him. If anybody wants to talk 
about this and what needs to be done, he can talk about it at greater 
length and in more depth and understanding than can I.
  I was not going to do this until my colleague from Oklahoma came to 
the floor. I see him here. All I say is I hope we can move this bill. I 
am hopeful, after looking it over and understanding we do not 
appropriate any money, and looking at what we did with a couple of 
other bills earlier, we can get this bill through. I will be glad to 
engage in any colloquies such as that.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1183

  I am constrained to ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 326, S. 1183, the Christopher 
and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, that the committee substitute amendment 
be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed, and 
the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, first let me say to my 
colleague, I know he is dedicated to this cause. It is an important 
cause. I have four basic problems with what we are doing here.
  We did negotiate this bill. I also expressed in public that I would 
not allow this bill to go unless we had a full debate on the Senate 
floor. That has never been in confusion.
  I also stated if we were in fact to offset the authorizations in the 
bill with some of the wasteful spending that we have today--and I 
understand the contention by the Senator from Iowa, who is also an 
appropriator who does not believe this will lead to spending--if we do 
not believe it will lead to spending, why authorize it in the first 
place? It is a false hope.
  The third point I would make is everything this bill wants to do can 
already be done, except name it after Christopher and Dana Reeve--
everything. So what I would like is a unanimous consent request, after 
rebuttal from the Senator from Iowa, that I be given 10 minutes to 
explain my objections to the bill in detail, and also to offer for the 
record a letter from Dr. Zerhouni, dated July 30 of this year, in which 
he adamantly opposes any disease-specific bills. He outlined 
specifically why they should not be there.
  The final point I would make, we spend $5.9 billion on this right 
now. We should spend more, but we do not have the money to spend more 
because this Congress will not get rid of $300 billion worth of 
wasteful spending. We appropriate $300 billion that is pure waste every 
year. It is not that we do not have the money. It is not that this bill 
will spend the money. It is not that we cannot have this; it can happen 
right now under the leadership at NIH. It is the fact that the very 
problems we are faced with today in terms of the financial collapse of 
this country and the liquidity of this country is because we have gone 
down a road of fiscal irresponsibility.
  On that basis, I will object and await Senator Harkin's rebuttal. I 
do congratulate him for his commitment and his dedication. I believe 
the people at NIH want to solve this as well as anybody else and they 
recognize that they already have the power to do this.
  I will make one final comment. This bill could have come to the 
floor. We could have taken care of it in 2\1/2\ hours if we had debate 
and amendments. The majority leader refused to let this bill come to 
the floor.
  It is important for the American people know what a hold is. A hold 
is saying: Let the bill come to the floor, but I don't want to pass it 
with my vote unless I have an opportunity to debate it and amend it, 
and what has been done has precluded us on that.
  We did a lot of negotiations on this. The one thing we couldn't get 
negotiated is offsetting the negotiating level. Everybody knows that is 
a nonstarter with me. That is the only way we establish fiscal 
discipline in this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Objection is heard.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, as I mentioned, and I ask my friend from 
Oklahoma, two bills I understand went through by unanimous consent this 
week, the Drug Endangered Children's Act and the Emmett Till Unsolved 
Civil Rights Crimes bills. I understand the Senator from Oklahoma had 
holds on those bills. Is that correct?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely. In response to your question, the Emmett Till 
bill, we attempted to do that. It was passed in connection with other 
bills, and we believed, since we had assurances that the appropriators 
would in fact take care of that inside the Department of Justice, we 
did not have that in the bill but outside, the appropriators would take 
care of that and we wouldn't spend additional money.
  Mr. HARKIN. Do I understand from my friend from Oklahoma there was 
not an offset for the authorizations in that bill? And then the other 
was the Drug Endangered Children's Act. I am told there was not an 
offset for the authorization in that bill either. The Senator did not 
have a hold on that bill?
  Mr. COBURN. No, I never had a hold on that.
  Mr. HARKIN. Those were just two passed by unanimous consent that did 
not have----
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. HARKIN. Certainly.
  Mr. COBURN. What I can tell the Senator is I have held every bill 
that comes before this body that we have an objection to 
constitutionally, or from the Director of NIH, that does spend money 
that is already for them.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask my friend from Oklahoma, did the director of NIH--I

[[Page 22999]]

don't have a copy of that letter. Did the Director of NIH object to 
this bill? Because he already said he supported it.
  Mr. COBURN. I will gladly deliver to the Senator a copy of his 
letter. You can read it. What he objects to is any disease-specific 
bill. The reason for that is very simple. There are over--let me give 
you the exact number. There are 12,161 subcategories of diseases. His 
principle is we ought to let the scientists decide the direction of the 
research, not Congress. Because if we decided on this and we set it up 
and a consortium will take it directly from the research--if we did 
that on everything, we would have the most misguided, misdirected, and 
wasteful expenditures on research you could imagine. He lists 
specifically the fact that we had 2,036 categories and over 12,000 
subcategories, and philosophically he objects to all disease-specific 
bills.
  Mr. HARKIN. I respond to my friend from Oklahoma, one of the reasons 
he wouldn't mention this is because, as my friend from Oklahoma surely 
knows, paralysis is not a specific disease. Paralysis can happen across 
a wide spectrum of diseases and illnesses and conditions. So this is 
not a specific disease. In that way, this is not a disease-specific 
bill as such, and that is probably where the confusion comes in. 
Because Dr. Zerhouni was very supportive of this approach; I read it in 
his comments that he made. But he is against disease-specific 
authorizations or appropriations. I can tell the Senator from Oklahoma, 
so am I, and I chair that. I chair it now. I have been ranking member 
or chair of that subcommittee going back 18 years. I cannot remember 
one time ever appropriating specifically one disease over another.
  There are times, of course, I say to my friend from Oklahoma, in 
which we as legislators, as public servants, take information and input 
from our constituents or from the country and through the hearing 
process--and this is usually on the authorizing side more than the 
appropriating side--try to give some guidance and direction to those to 
whom we give our taxpayers' money. Again, we have prodded NIH in the 
past to perhaps do certain things.
  I mean we, the Congress, have started different institutes at the 
National Institutes of Health. At different times people come together 
and say there should be an institute to look at this and we, as public 
policy people, set that up.
  Then there are times when we get the Director of NIH, or some of the 
other heads, some of these people here from these different institutes, 
and we ask them, What are you doing about this kind of research? Spinal 
muscular atrophy, which I never heard of before until a few years ago, 
I found out it is even more prevalent and has a higher mortality rate 
than muscular dystrophy. But they weren't doing much research into 
spinal muscular atrophy, so we talked about that, we explored that. We 
talked about a lot of things in cancer or Parkinson's disease, in which 
we explored with these heads of NIH what the public wants and what we 
are hearing from the public. They take that into account. They may make 
some adjustments one way or the other.
  I don't see anything wrong with that. That is part of our legitimate 
role as public servants, and responding to the legitimate requests and 
needs of the public. The people who work at NIH, and the people who run 
these institutes, are not high priests of some religious order who do 
not answer to anyone except the head person. They have to answer to the 
public. These are public moneys that go in there.
  Sometimes we consult with them, we talk with them, bring them 
information and say, here, the public wants to know why we are not 
doing more in this area. They take that into account, sometimes 
respond--sometimes better than others--sometimes not. But at least that 
is the input we have and that is what we are saying here with this 
legislation. We are not telling them exactly what they have to do.
  Again, the Senator from Oklahoma says they can do everything that is 
in this bill. But they are not doing it. That is the point. They are 
not doing it. You can disagree. You can say they should not do it. I 
did not hear the Senator from Oklahoma say they should not be doing 
what we have in the bill. He is not saying that. All I heard him say 
was that he wanted to debate it for a couple of hours and offer an 
amendment.
  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, as a member of the HELP Committee 
from which this bill came, the Senator from Oklahoma had all kinds of 
opportunities in the committee to amend this bill. For all I know, some 
of the changes we made may have come from him. They came through 
Senator Enzi, who is the ranking member, and we incorporated them into 
the bill. But the Senator from Oklahoma cannot deny that he was a 
member of this committee when this bill passed out of committee. If the 
Senator from Oklahoma wanted to amend it, he had every opportunity to 
do so at that time. Yet no objection was raised when we passed it out 
of committee; only when we get it here on the floor.
  We operate around here a lot of times on unanimous consent. And we 
usually do it on bills that are generally accepted by everybody. We 
hotline, and our staffs look at them to see whether anyone has an 
objection. This bill has been hotlined on both sides of the aisle. Out 
of 100 Senators, only one Senator has an objection, the Senator from 
Oklahoma.
  Now, again, people wonder--this one letter from this one woman says: 
How can one Senator stop something like this? Well, you are seeing one 
Senator can.
  Now, again, to the extent that the Senator from Oklahoma has a 
legitimate point, his point is that this could be brought up under the 
normal process and debated and passed. Well, it looks as though we are 
going to be back again on Wednesday. I will have to consult with our 
leadership. But if the Senator from Oklahoma would agree to a couple of 
hours of debate, an amendment that would be voted up or down, if he has 
an amendment or two, and then final passage, maybe we could do that on 
Wednesday.
  I do not know what the heck we are going to be doing Wednesday. Quite 
frankly, we could do that. I understand we are going to be in tomorrow, 
but no legislative business can be done tomorrow under the Jewish 
holiday, but we could on Wednesday.
  So if the Senator from Oklahoma wants to enter into an agreement for 
an hour or two, I do not know if anyone else wants to debate it. If he 
wants to offer an amendment or two or something like that, maybe we can 
have a vote on it, voice vote it. Maybe he wants a record vote on it. I 
do not know. But I have not heard any kind of a suggestion from the 
Senator from Oklahoma that we could do something like that.
  So, again, we operate around here in a spirit of comity. What that 
means is we kind of trust one another. You know, I kind of trust the 
Senator from Michigan; I trust the Senator from Idaho on a lot of 
things. We build ourselves on trust. We do not try to pull the wool 
over someone's eyes here. We do not try to slip something through to 
which someone may have an objection.
  So if we have bills like this we hotline them. We have them called 
around. Lord knows, we have plenty of staff around here. They look at 
all of these things to see if there is something in a bill their 
Senator would object to or want to change. We do that for bills that 
are generally widely accepted. A lot of times bills come back: There is 
no objection. Go ahead and pass them through.
  I thought this was one of those simply because it came out of 
committee. The Senator from Oklahoma was on the committee--is on the 
committee--and had no objections when it came out of committee. We had 
incorporated all of the changes that Senator Enzi gave us. We 
incorporated those plus changes from NIH and the Department of Health 
and Human Services. So it is very frustrating then to have this 
objection at this time.
  Now, one other point the Senator from Oklahoma said. He said this is 
an authorization for appropriations. That is true as most of the bills 
are that we pass around here. One way or the other it is an 
authorization. But he says that

[[Page 23000]]

will lead to new spending and blah, blah, blah. That is not necessarily 
true. It may be that we may want to put some money in this program, but 
we may want to take it from someplace else. We could do that. That has 
been done a lot around here. We may think that, well, perhaps we will 
take a little bit here and a little bit here and put it into this. 
Appropriations committees do that all the time. So it is not 
necessarily true this is going to lead to any new spending. It may lead 
to a realignment of spending but not necessarily new. So the Senator 
from Oklahoma is not quite correct that it would lead to new spending.
  Secondly, paralysis is not a disease-specific illness. It cuts across 
all kinds of diseases, illnesses, and conditions. Then I do not know--
the Senator mentioned something about $5.9 million. I brought that 
down, but I have no idea what that is all about.
  I also have a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, dated July 
25, 2008, to the Honorable Kent Conrad as chairman of the Committee on 
Budget. There were certain questions in here that I thought were 
pertinent to one of the objections raised by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Question No. 1: Does an authorization of future appropriations 
provide the authority for Federal programs or agencies to incur 
obligations and make payments from the Treasury?
  Answer: No. A simple authorization of appropriations does not provide 
an agency with the authority to incur obligations or make payments from 
the Treasury.
  Question: Even if legislation authorizes appropriations for a 
program, is it not the case that a subsequent act of Congress is 
required before an agency can spend money pursuant to the 
authorization?
  Answer: Yes.
  This is from the head of the Congressional Budget Office.
  For discretionary programs created through an authorization, the 
authority to incur obligations is usually provided in a subsequent 
appropriations act. An agency must have such an appropriation before it 
can incur obligations.
  Question No. 4: If no new spending occurs under authorizing 
legislation, does it have the effect of increasing the Federal deficit 
and/or reducing the Federal surplus?
  Answer: No. An authorization of appropriations by itself does not 
increase Federal deficits or decrease surpluses. However, any 
subsequent appropriation to fund the authorized activity would affect 
the Federal budget.
  I ask unanimous consent this letter appear at this point in the 
Record, as well as the July 30, 2008, letter to Congressman Barton from 
Dr. Zerhouni.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2008.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to the questions 
     you posed on July 17, 2008, about the impact on the federal 
     budget from enacting legislation that authorizes future 
     appropriations but does not affect direct spending or 
     revenues. Consequently, this letter does not address 
     legislation that would permit agencies to incur obligations 
     in advance of appropriations (for example, legislation 
     providing new contract authority).
       Question #1: Does an authorization of future appropriations 
     provide the authority for federal programs or agencies to 
     incur obligations and make payments from the Treasury?
       Answer: No. A simple authorization of appropriations does 
     not provide an agency with the authority to incur obligations 
     or make payments from the Treasury.
       Question #2: Can an agency or program spend money without 
     the authority from Congress to incur obligations and make 
     payments from the Treasury?
       Answer: No. An agency is not allowed to spend money without 
     the proper authority from Congress to incur obligations. (See 
     31 U.S.C. Sec. 1341, which outlines limitations on expending 
     and obligating funds by officers and employees of the United 
     States Government.)
       Question #3: Even if legislation authorizes appropriations 
     for a program, isn't it the case that a subsequent act of 
     Congress is required before an agency can spend money 
     pursuant to the authorization?
       Answer: Yes. For discretionary programs created through an 
     authorization, the authority to incur obligations is usually 
     provided in a subsequent appropriations act. An agency must 
     have such an appropriation before it can incur obligations. 
     (Legislation other than appropriation acts that provides such 
     authority is shown as increasing direct spending.)
       Question #4: If no new spending can occur under the 
     authorizing legislation, does it have the effect of 
     increasing the federal deficit and/or reducing the federal 
     surplus?
       Answer: No. An authorization of appropriations, by itself, 
     does not increase federal deficits or decrease surpluses. 
     However, any subsequent appropriation to fund the authorized 
     activity would affect the federal budget.
       Question #5: Would CBO's projection of federal debt change 
     as a result of enacting legislation that only authorizes 
     future appropriations? Is it not correct that the agency's 
     projection of future debt would be identical both before and 
     after the enactment of such legislation?
       Answer: Enacting legislation that only authorizes future 
     appropriations would not result in an increase in CBO's 
     projection of federal debt under its baseline assumptions.
       I hope this information is useful to you.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Peter R. Orszag,
     Director.
                                  ____

         Department of Health & Human Services, National 
           Institutes of Health,
                                      Bethesda, MD, July 30, 2008.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Barton: This letter responds to your request to 
     update you on implementation of the NIH Reform Act's 
     provisions requiring trans-NIH research coordination 
     supported by a Common Fund.
       I am pleased to report that trans-NIH research has become a 
     vital component of our research enterprise. The NIH Reform 
     Act has enabled this Agency to adapt to new research 
     opportunities while continuing to pursue the latest and best 
     science. Congress has appropriated $495.6 million to support 
     such coordinated research projects as molecular libraries, 
     metabolomics technology development, the human microbiome, 
     epigenomics, computational biology, clinical research and 
     high risk science. These endeavors reflect the value of 
     research not defined by any single disease, but by gaps in 
     our knowledge of human biological systems that play a role in 
     all diseases.
       As examples, the Microbiome and Epigenome initiatives are 
     the result of technological advances and discoveries 
     emanating from the Human Genome Project. The subsequent 
     innovations in high-throughput sequencing and other 
     techniques have given us tools to search for microorganisms 
     associated with the human body that have not been previously 
     identified. The Microbiome project will decipher this 
     underworld of particles and define their role in health and 
     disease Similarly, epigenetics follows the success of the 
     Genome Project by focusing on the regulation of gene 
     expression, leading to the understanding of how our genes 
     respond to developmental and environmental signals. Such 
     research efforts are accomplished solely through 
     collaborations and the focus on basic biology unrelated to 
     specific organ systems or diseases.
       We also have created multiple-Institute collaborations for 
     the Obesity Research Task Force, the Blueprint for 
     Neuroscience, the NIH Nanotechnology Task Force and the NIH 
     Pain Consortium.
       This trend should continue in the best interests of 
     scientific discovery. As I have repeatedly testified before 
     Congress, the key transformation from yesterday's approach to 
     medical research to the science of today has been the 
     convergence of concepts, opportunities and needs across all 
     conditions and diseases. As we learn more about the molecular 
     causes of diseases, we have found great similarities among 
     the mechanisms that lead to diseases--once thought unrelated. 
     Increasingly, research in one field finds unexpected 
     application in another. The greatest research advances of 
     recent years involve the fields of molecular and cell biology 
     as well as genomics and proteomics. These applications will 
     not be limited to specific diseases or populations. Greater 
     interdisciplinary efforts will be required as the mysteries 
     of human biology are uncovered. The approaches mandated by 
     the NIH Reform Act will require NIH to seek new ways of 
     conceptualizing and addressing scientific questions. The 
     translation from discovery to patient care will be better 
     facilitated.
       The scientific boundaries between NIH's Institutes and 
     Centers have become blurred by the interdisciplinary 
     coordination among them. The functional integration required 
     by the Reform Act has helped this process. As you consider 
     legislation affecting NIH in the future, I caution you that 
     it would be a grave mistake to go backwards in mandating 
     disease-specific research at a time when barriers need to be 
     torn down, not rebuilt.
       Recent discoveries demonstrate common characteristics for 
     many varying diseases. These discoveries have spawned new 
     ideas, methods and technologies leading to a new era of 
     personalized medical treatment that

[[Page 23001]]

     will predict and preempt disease while requiring greater 
     participation of patients in their own care. We are moving 
     from the current paradigm of late, reactive intervention to a 
     future paradigm of early intervention characterized by 
     treatment tailored to the personal makeup of each patient.
       We are discovering the underpinnings of disease at a 
     staggering rate. For example, in the case of type 2 diabetes, 
     one of the greatest health threats facing our Nation, we have 
     progressed from having no knowledge of genetic factors ten 
     years ago to discovering two genes associated with the 
     disease five years ago, to 16 genes today. And in a matter of 
     days, an additional 14 genes will be revealed. These 
     discoveries are fueled by various components of medical 
     research, including basic genomics that are part of our 
     multidisciplinary approach to disease research.
       We are certain that the best approach to research at NIH is 
     the functional integration of research programs at our 
     Institutes and Centers. The flexibility provided in the NIH 
     Reform Act allows us to adapt to changes in science by 
     pursuing the common factors of disease. Of course, NIH will 
     focus on individual diseases, as appropriate and in accord 
     with independent, peer-reviewed science. However, disease-
     specific mandates, while well intended, might undermine the 
     progress we have made.
       Please let me know if you are interested in additional 
     details of NIH's implementation of the Reform Act. I have 
     sent a similar letter to Chairman Dingell.
           Sincerely,
                                                Elias A. Zerhouni,
                                                         Director.

  Mr. HARKIN. So, again, I see my friend from Oklahoma has departed the 
floor briefly.
  Madam President, I put in a unanimous consent request. Has it been 
objected to?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has.
  Mr. HARKIN. I heard there was a reservation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator did object.
  Mr. HARKIN. It has been objected to.
  Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire of the Senator how much more floor time he 
will take?
  Mr. HARKIN. I am about done.
  Well, I am sorry for so many people who suffer from paralysis in this 
country who really have, many of them, traveled to Washington at their 
own expense, at great personal not only expense but inconvenience and 
trouble and effort--can you imagine what it must be like--who had every 
reason to believe this would pass and give them new hope, new 
encouragement that we were now going to be able to bring a new focus, 
coordination, to this.
  Now, again, the Senator says they can do everything that is in this 
bill already. The fact is, they are not. That is why we are here. That 
is why we are Senators. That is why we are public servants. That is why 
the public elected us to come here and do things, to get the Government 
to do things that it is not doing or to stop it from doing something 
that it is doing.
  This is one of the things we ought to be telling the people who are 
involved in this research they ought to be doing. They ought to do 
this. We do it all the time. And if they will not do it, we ought to be 
telling them to do it. I am sorry, again, that this Christopher and 
Dana Reeve Paralysis Act has been stopped by a single Senator. I wish 
we could find some way of getting around it. I ask my friend from 
Oklahoma if he does not mind, the Senator said something about debating 
this bill and opening it for amendment.
  We are going to be here on Wednesday. Now, I have not cleared this 
with our leadership--I have to do that, of course; I do not run the 
Senate. But I would have to clear it with our leadership, and then our 
leadership would have to clear it with the other side. But if we can 
get a couple of hours on Wednesday to debate this bill and amend it in 
a 2-hour period of time, with an up-or-down vote on an amendment or 
two, would that be acceptable to the Senator?
  Mr. COBURN. It would be more than acceptable provided the bill comes 
to the floor and offsets the authorizations. The problem we have is 
that in the last year, in your subcommittee alone on appropriations, we 
had 398 million dollars' worth of earmarks outside of the authorization 
process. None of them were authorized.
  Now you want to spend more money on programs that you want to 
authorize, but you will not take away the $398 million of earmarks that 
were never authorized. That is my whole point. Bring the bill to the 
floor, offset some spending somewhere else, and we will not even have 
to go to the floor. Just offset it; you can have the bill.
  But the fact is, nobody wants to offset it. The intention is to spend 
this money. Even though we play the games, how did we get $9.6 trillion 
in debt? We got it playing this same game, saying: Here is $115 
million; it does not cost anything. But that is really untrue because 
it does. If you authorize it, you are going to spend more money. We 
have grown 61 percent since 2001 in terms of discretionary spending in 
this country, and we are broke. And we have a financial crisis in front 
of us.
  I am trying to stand and say, if you want to do something, get rid of 
some of the 300 billion dollars' worth of waste, which I consider 398 
million dollars' worth of earmarks that were unauthorized waste. So it 
is easy to bring it up. Bring this bill without the authorizing money, 
put it in, you got it.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Oklahoma again, the Senator from 
Oklahoma did not object to a bill passing this week by unanimous 
consent that has an authorization for appropriations in it. Is that not 
correct?
  Mr. COBURN. That is true.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Oklahoma, that is very true, on 
the Emmett Till bill, but not on this one.
  Mr. COBURN. We received assurances that it would be offset at the 
appropriations level.
  Mr. HARKIN. Well, I can assure my friend--I said this when my friend 
from Oklahoma was off the floor--the Senator from Oklahoma seems to say 
that since it was an authorization for appropriations in here, that we 
are going to appropriate new money. That is not always the case. 
Sometimes the Appropriations Committee will take money from other 
things; maybe take a little bit here, take a little bit here and put it 
into something else. That happens a lot, I can tell the Senator, as an 
appropriator.
  So it does not always necessarily follow because we authorize the 
money that we are going to add new money. We could take it from other 
places. We do not know.
  Mr. COBURN. In response to the Senator through the Chair, that is a 
rarity that occurs here. The fact is, the Federal Government is growing 
three times faster than the income of the people in this country. It is 
because we will not put our own financial house in order.
  I want to do the best we can do for people with paralysis. I think we 
ought to get rid of some of the 380 billion dollars' worth of waste and 
double the money in NIH. That is what I think. But we will not, nobody 
can, including my colleague from Iowa. When I have offered amendments 
on the floor to get rid of wasteful spending, rarely, if ever, have you 
joined me to get rid of the wasteful spending. Instead, we have 
continued wasteful spending.
  Just like we are going to talking about Amtrak. Amtrak has a $100 
million subsidy. Nobody in this country, other than us, would allow 
Amtrak to continue losing $100 million a year on food subsidies on the 
train. No airline does that. No bus company does that. But because we 
have a $2.6 billion subsidy, we think it is fine that we should 
subsidize people's food on the train.
  I can give you a thousand examples of things that we should be doing 
that we are not. I am not opposed to the efforts that you want to try 
to accomplish. What I am saying is we need a discipline change in this 
Congress. The American people have had it with us. We are wasting money 
hand over foot. And it is not what you want to do is bad, I am for what 
you want to do, I am saying let's get some discipline and let's make 
some priority choices.
  Every family out there has to choose among priorities. They have to 
make a hard choice on what is important and what is not.
  This is important, yes. We have told your staff the moment this 
passed the committee that we were going to hold it on the Senate floor 
unless it was offset. That is not a new threat. That is not news to 
your staff. They have known that for a long time, and so does

[[Page 23002]]

every Member of this body. In fact, you received a letter from me in 
January of 2007 that said very specifically: If you bring a bill to the 
floor that is not offset, that is going to spend new money, unless we 
are going to get it debated and offer amendments, we are going to 
object. So that is where we stand.
  Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend, he just let a bill go through this 
week that had an authorization for appropriations on it and let it go 
through under unanimous consent, but not this one. So I see it is up to 
the Senator from Oklahoma, as one Senator, to decide what is good and 
what is bad around here.
  Mr. COBURN. Well, we also stopped 10 billion dollars' worth of new 
authorizations this year. We also stopped $10 billion. There is no 
question the Emmett Till bill went through with the assurances. I am 
not 100 percent.
  Mr. HARKIN. What assurances? I am an appropriator. I did not give you 
any assurances. No one asked me about it. So, obviously, now the 
Senator from Oklahoma has set himself up as the arbitrator of what is 
good and bad and right and wrong and everything else around here.
  Now, come on, there are 100 Senators around here.
  I wish to respond to one other thing about Amtrak. The Senator from 
Oklahoma mentioned the airlines. This is something I know a little bit 
about. I fly a lot of airplanes. Every commercial airline in the 
country now uses GPS, global positioning satellites. Do you know how 
much they spent to put all those satellites up there? Zero. The 
taxpayers of this country put up billions of dollars. We maintain them. 
We keep them in orbit. When one decays, we put another one up. We keep 
24 in orbit all the time. Not only do our airlines use it, every 
airline around the world uses it, as do ships and everybody else. That 
is not a subsidy for the airlines? How about all the traffic 
controllers? They don't work for the airlines, they work for the 
Government. How about all the navigation systems we maintain, the 
Approach System, the ILSs, and everything else, paid for by the 
taxpayers? We appropriate money around here all the time for airports, 
runway lights, approach systems that all the airlines use. They don't 
pay for all of those facilities. How about all the airports? Local 
cities provide the land.
  If my friend really wants to see how much we are subsidizing the 
airlines, add it up. It would be a heck of a lot more than what we are 
subsidizing Amtrak. But I am not opposed to that, subsidies for 
transportation, for new technologies, for moving people. I am not 
opposed.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is sort of saying we subsidize Amtrak but 
we don't the airlines. I didn't mean to get into that, but that is the 
point I was trying to make.
  Lastly, on this issue of offsetting authorizations, now we have to 
offset every authorization that comes up here. I want to ask the 
Senator from Oklahoma--we just passed a Defense authorization bill, 
authorizes a lot of new things in there. I ask the Senator from 
Oklahoma, were any of those offset?
  Mr. COBURN. Absolutely not. I voted against it and proudly did so 
because we had $16.8 billion worth of earmarks in there that will be 
forced onto the American taxpayer that will never see the light of day. 
They were in the report language, and we put something in the bill that 
said you couldn't amend it. None of those are competitively bid; $16 
billion worth of earmarks, none of them competitively bid. So what 
happens? Defense authorization, we got $16 billion that we probably 
could have bought for 10, but because we have a system that says we are 
not going to watch out for the taxpayer, we will not do it.
  So what I would say to the Senator is, what you want to do is great. 
I am not against it. How you are doing it I am against. Unless we 
change how we do things here, until we start becoming responsible 
fiscally, there has to be somebody putting on the brakes. I don't want 
to be known as a Senator who blocks research, but in fact, as the 
doctor related, this can all be done, and they are probably doing it.
  The Senator from Iowa voted for the reform of NIH. You proudly voted 
for the reform of NIH. Paralysis is a disease-specific category because 
it is based on a problem in terms of mobility. So it falls into a 
category.
  I don't know whether he wants this specifically, but what I am saying 
to you is, if you will bring a bill with $115 million worth of offsets 
to the floor in terms of authorization, we will say yes tomorrow.
  The point is, until we establish with the American people that we are 
going to be as wise with their money as they are with their money, then 
we have to do some changing.
  I do not apologize at all for standing in the way of this bill on 
principle. Somebody has to say timeout in this country in terms of 
spending. A newborn child born this year faces $400,000 in unfunded 
liability. When you fund the $115 million and if you offset it with 
something else, something else will get offset. The average increase in 
this area has been about 7.5 percent per year. What is the name of all 
those children who aren't going to get to go to college, will not have 
a great opportunity economically for the future, because we won't live 
within our means?
  The last time I knew, when the airlines made money, they paid taxes. 
So, in fact, they are contributing to all those things that were 
mentioned because they are taxed at one of the highest corporate tax 
rates in the world. One of the reasons the airlines can't compete is 
because we have a tax rate that essentially is close to 50 percent by 
the time we add in State income taxes. So they participated in the 
development of all those programs. They are great advancements.
  Let's finish this debate. Let's talk off the floor. I will gladly 
work with Senator Harkin to accomplish whatever he wants, but I will 
not break down on the letter I sent in January of 2007 that says I 
believe we have to change the way we operate. I know there is 
tremendous resistance to that in this body. I understand that. But the 
American people don't understand it. What they understand is they have 
to make hard choices. Either we mean to fund the $115 million or we are 
sending a charade to the people who want this bill passed. It is one or 
the other. The fact is, they have had a chance.
  I will also put in the Record that in the last Labor-HHS-Education 
appropriations bill, there was $105 million that Senator Harkin 
specifically put in for earmarks that he directed. That is real 
spending. That is enough to pay for the whole bill over 10 years.
  The fact is, we have a major disagreement on specifics on how we 
control and how we change this country. I will fight for the taxpayer 
every time. I apologize to the Senator for some of my emotion. It is 
because I am thinking about the kids who are coming, not the political 
realm of today. I understand that we need to do more in NIH. I am on 
public record to take that to $60 billion. I will pay for it, easily 
pay for it. There is $80 billion worth of fraud in Medicare. What have 
we done about that? Nothing. We gutted the very program that cut 
spending for medical devices, durable medical equipment, the last bill 
through here. We had a way to save over $2 billion a year. We gutted 
it. The Senator voted for it. He voted to gut the $2 billion worth of 
savings.
  So there are plenty of things we can do, but what we are not going to 
do anymore with my consent is to pass bills that increase the liability 
for our children in the future, even when we do it for the sake of 
doing something good.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. You can look at society and say there are a lot of 
problems out there. You can look at this Congress and say we spend a 
lot of money that we don't agree on. There is a lot of money spent in 
this Congress I don't like, that I don't agree with. But does that mean 
this one Senator should stand here and stop good things from happening 
just because I don't like the way something is being spent, the way 
something is being done, that I should use the privilege of being a 
Senator, a privilege, a right, a privilege of being a Senator to just 
stop something that is good?

[[Page 23003]]

  There are 435 Members of the House, not one objection; 99 Members of 
the Senate, not one objection. But one Senator, the Senator from 
Oklahoma, is concerned about deficits and about appropriations. OK. I 
agree. There are some problems. We have to face our deficits and debt. 
Does that mean, then, that we stop every good thing from happening 
around here until that is taken care of? That is taking the privilege 
of being a Senator way beyond what we ought to have a right to do, to 
stop something like this just because we are upset about something else 
that is bad about spending.
  Heck, I can share with the Senator from Oklahoma a lot of horror 
stories about how we are wasting money in this Government. He doesn't 
have a corner on that market, I assure him. Some of the things he may 
think are wasteful, I might agree. Maybe some of the things I think are 
wasteful, he may not agree. I don't know. But that is how we work 
things out here, in a collegial manner, working together to try to get 
these things solved.
  It is very hard to explain, when I tell people that one Senator can 
stop something like this. They don't understand how that is possible, 
but it is. One Senator can stop things around here. I wish this weren't 
so in this case because there are too many people with paralysis who 
were counting on us to get this done and move ahead to coordinate the 
research in paralysis and bring all of it together. But we never give 
up. We just keep trying.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Are we in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are postcloture on the motion to concur.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 6 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Economic Bailout

  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, the House of Representatives today 
defeated the proposed financial rescue plan devised by a bipartisan, 
multi-institutional group. This action will precipitate an economic 
catastrophe for the United States of America. While the initial 
response to this ill-advised action has been so far limited to equity 
markets and corporate bond markets, I predict the defeat of this plan 
will soon permeate our entire economy. It will also have serious and 
not completely predictable consequences in all markets throughout the 
world.
  The plan has many features in it that those who oppose had sought. It 
added many new safeguards for the taxpayer. Yet a rigid adherence to an 
ideological purity on both sides that has never existed in our Nation 
led many in the House to reject this plan.
  I do not know right now in what form the consequences of this action 
will hurt the average American. Higher interest rates for houses and 
other things, other long-term purchases, a continued freeze on the tax 
credit markets, loss of jobs and contraction of the economy, loss of 
billions of dollars in pension plans--the consequences will come.
  This action cannot be the last word this Congress has to say. I urge 
everyone involved to begin to work again immediately on adjustments to 
the plan that will at least satisfy a majority in the House.
  This Congress has an approval rating at an alltime low. None of us 
should be surprised as to why. We cannot let the situation lie as it 
now is as a consequence of not passing in the House of Representatives. 
The leadership and those Members who feel compelled to get something 
done for the United States in a moment of great economic peril should 
come together and see to it that we do what is right.
  It is difficult to do what is right because frequently our people do 
not understand. There are those who are obviously concerned that those 
who vote don't understand and indicate that we should not have a big 
bailout. This is not a big bailout bill. We got off on the wrong path 
when we started talking about bailouts.
  There are no bailouts here. What we are going to do is buy assets, 
buy mortgages, buy promissory notes, buy things of value that, as of 
today, are very low in value and are clogging the pathways for money to 
flow. We are going to buy those. We are not going to bail anybody out. 
When we buy those, the channel will be open again. The road will be 
opened. The freeway will be opened. The cars will run. Money will flow. 
The liquid channels will become liquid again. Unless and until we do 
that, they are clogged.
  The clogged items, the things that clog up our money market lines, 
are going to be purchased by this rescue plan. They will be owned by 
this rescue plan. This rescue plan will hold these assets as nobody 
else could hold them. It is too big a quantity and you cannot afford to 
hold them, but we can hold them and then sell them later. There is good 
indication and justification that if we do not wait too long that this 
rescue plan will sell these assets and perhaps we will come out with 
more money than we paid for the rescue plan.
  We need this mechanism because in our democracy our President does 
not have the authority to do it. So somebody must do it, and it means 
Congress must, even though it is complicated, even though it is 
comprehensive, and even though it is hard for the public to understand. 
We must continue to explain this to the public. They will be wondering 
today and tomorrow and the next day, as banking institutions fail, as 
other things around them that have money at the bases will stop working 
right.
  As I said, so far the equity markets--that is the stock markets--they 
can see those falling perhaps by historically large numbers, 
percentages. Corporate bond markets--we have already seen the effect on 
them. But there will be other things happening that will make the 
people understand. But it should not be that we have to let all of 
these terrible things happen in order to get our heads together and 
know it is going to happen and try to fix it and tell our people we 
have to fix something that is broken and that will only cause them and 
their families more grief and more hard times if we do not use a rescue 
plan to buy those assets that are clogging the financial highways and 
freeways so that money will flow.
  I know I have spoken two or three times on the subject. Some will say 
that is enough. But I will speak and I will argue and I will debate and 
I will attend meetings for as long as they go on with Senators and 
Representatives in an effort to make the vote that happened today not 
the last action on this terribly difficult subject for the people of 
the United States--a rescue plan to let the financial markets work in 
America.
  The greatest financial markets in the world are soon to be rubbish, 
are soon to be in terrible shape. The best will turn out to be the 
least. In the meantime, we are all going to suffer. Just remember, 
without the flow of money we can hardly do anything in our country. We 
can hardly buy anything. We can hardly sell anything. Anything you look 
at of value can hardly happen without the flow of money, credit cards, 
checking accounts, bonds. All of those things we have become acquainted 
with that are taken for granted are in jeopardy because of what I have 
just described and what we hope has been described over and over.
  For those who read, I urge they read the speech of Senator Lamar 
Alexander this morning on the subject. He used a metaphor that I have 
given to a group of Senators of a freeway full of automobiles at high 
speed going down the road, and each one of those cars was something 
valuable happening in America. When the six lanes of the road were 
clogged by a six-car accident, the cars loaded with good things for 
America, financial things, were all stopped because of the car wreck.
  Now, if that metaphor makes sense, what our rescue proposal says is, 
go out and buy the salvage and get it out of the road. Let the cars 
flow, and each of those cars that contains things that will make our 
lives different and valuable will be flowing down the road. The salvage 
can be repaired and, believe it or not, sold for more than we bought it 
at in salvage off the highway.

[[Page 23004]]

  That is as best I can do. As somebody said: But we need just one or 
two words to express it. Somebody answered and said: Yes, the American 
people like one or two words, but they also like a story. So I just 
told them the best story I can of what this is all about.
  I hope before too long there will be more support so Members of the 
Congress, the House in particular, will be strengthened by some changes 
in public opinion that will give them confidence to vote for this 
rescue plan.
  Madam President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  Madam President, I withdraw that suggestion and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Well, Madam President, we certainly need to confront 
the challenges we are facing now with this banking situation. I know 
Senator Domenici is so eloquent and speaks with such conviction on it 
and believes strongly that we need to get busy.
  The underlying business, however, at this time does remain the Amtrak 
bill, the reauthorization. That is the legislation the majority leader, 
Senator Reid, has brought up. I would assume that the leadership is 
trying to figure out what to do in light of the House vote. If they 
want to proceed and discuss that legislation, I will certainly be glad 
to yield the floor to them. But I do think we need to talk about this 
reauthorization of Amtrak.
  I have watched this issue for a number of years and have drawn 
increasingly concerned. The legislation provides $9.7 billion for 
Amtrak and passenger rails through 2013 for operating and capital 
grants and debt repayment.
  Operating--that means in simple language they are losing money, so we 
are going to make up their losses. Capital grants means they want more 
money to help them expand the system. Instead of the Amtrak system 
itself paying for this on a normal basis, they want the taxpayer to pay 
for it. Debt repayment--we have seen a lot of people having debt and 
not being able to pay their debt. It appears Amtrak needs a bailout 
because they cannot pay their debts. I wish we were in better shape, 
but the fact is, we're not.
  It also includes an amount of $1.5 billion for the Washington Metro 
Area Transit Authority--this is another $1.5 billion on top of the 
money that has been put in that program for some time. What is it for? 
For capital and preventative maintenance. I guess that means keeping 
the system running.
  I will talk a little bit more about that in a minute. But I would 
note that in 1997, a little over a decade ago, Congress had a big 
discussion about Amtrak and what to do about it, and there was a 
consensus that the system be fundamentally reformed and that there be 
new accountability for Amtrak. It provided, in 1997, that by 2002 there 
would be no more Federal subsidies to Amtrak.
  I tell you, we do not have accountability in this Government of ours. 
It is not functioning sufficiently in my view, and one reason is we 
make assertions, and when things do not work out the people who did not 
succeed at whatever task they were given--we just give them more money, 
and they know that. They expect that to happen, so they do not make the 
tough decisions necessary to be successful.
  Kenneth Mead, the former Department of Transportation inspector 
general who dealt with accountability, succinctly stated it this way:

       The mismatch between the public resources made available to 
     fund inner city passenger rail service, the total cost to 
     maintain the system that Amtrak continues to operate, and the 
     proposals to restructure the system comprise a dysfunction 
     that must be resolved in the reauthorization process of the 
     Nation's inner city rail system.

  Now, the Heritage Foundation, an exceptionally fine think tank, has 
looked at this, and they have concluded that we do not have the reform 
that Inspector General Mead said was necessary. In fact, they say that 
fundamentally this reauthorization makes little reform at all of 
significance, and this request for money may be the biggest Amtrak has 
ever asked for. I say we have a problem.
  Let me share a few thoughts. I know many people have a romantic 
attraction to rail systems and want to see them successful and think we 
could do well if we could have more rails and people would ride the 
rails and it would save energy and we would all be happy and we could 
just, I guess, like the Orient Express, play cards and eat meals on 
white table cloths. Well, let's look at the reality of what we are 
dealing with.
  I do not think Amtrak is going to work in Alabama. Our population is 
too diverse, and the routes it runs do not seem to fit the traffic 
patterns of people. I wish it could. I do not want to be a person to 
say don't send Amtrak through my State. Few people probably benefit 
from it. Few people might have a job depending on it. But sometimes we 
as a nation have to ask ourselves what is the proper utilization of our 
money, and are we making any progress.
  I do not think you can justify many, perhaps most, of the routes 
Amtrak is running, but some of them could be. Some more of them could 
perhaps become viable if the losses they were taking in this system on 
bad routes were put into some of the marginal routes, where they 
upgraded them and they could run the system better, cleaner, and more 
timely, with fewer delays, and that kind of thing. But fundamentally 
the romantic view that we are going to have some sort of major 
international rail system does not seem to be realistic.
  I remember as a child growing up in the country we used to say--I 
grew up on the railroad tracks. It was not but a couple hundred yards 
from my house to the railroad track. My daddy had a country store 
there. There were three country stores in that neighborhood and one 
railroad depot. So we had a passenger train.
  When I was a young kid, a passenger train came through there. But 
there has not been a passenger train through Hybart, AL, in 40, 50 
years. Now there is only one store left in the community and no 
railroad depot. It has been closed for many years.
  Things happen. This country changes. People change. Let me ask this 
question to my colleagues. Would the Nation be better off if somebody 
in Washington, DC, said: Oh, that is such a shame. This little town of 
Hybart might lose their three stores, and they might have the depot 
closed. Maybe we ought to fund the railroad, give them enough money, 
bail them out, so they can continue to operate their passenger train 
through there. Would we be better off if we had done that? I do not 
think so. I hate to see it happen.
  We also had a little post office attached to the house of my 
neighbor, and they closed that a number of years ago. That was 
heartbreaking. Mrs. Hybart from Hybart ran the post office. When she 
retired, they closed it. We hated to see that, but maybe the Postal 
Service was right. Maybe it was such a small operation it couldn't be 
justified to be continued. Somebody has to make decisions somewhere.
  So let me point this out to my colleagues. Using my home State as an 
example, we have a train that goes through Birmingham and on up to 
Washington. Birmingham is our largest city. What are your options if 
you are in Birmingham and want to come to Washington, DC, our Nation's 
Capital? If you want to go on a commercial airline, which most people 
do, frankly, there are several flights every day, direct flights from 
Birmingham to Washington. If you take your personal vehicle you can 
leave anytime that you desire. You can leave early in the morning or 
you can leave midday, whatever. If you take the train, though, there is 
only one train a day leaving, and you have to leave at precisely that 
time or you don't get on the train. So that limits options at the 
beginning.
  When people are deciding when and how to make a trip, they ask 
themselves these questions: What about the time it takes to make a trip 
from Birmingham to Washington, DC? Well, the air time is about 2 hours 
12 minutes. The personal vehicle, if you drive by car, we calculate 11 
hours. It may be 10 or 11 hours. By train, it is 18 hours.
  How many stops would you make? If you take an airline, of course, a 
direct flight, there is only one stop--at Washington. If you take your 
vehicle, maybe

[[Page 23005]]

you make four or five stops, three or four stops. Let's assume you make 
four. But Amtrak, Amtrak makes 18 stops, and it does not take the 
shortest route to the Nation's Capital.
  What about cost? How much does it cost? I was surprised, actually, 
when we looked at these numbers. I questioned my staff. Could it be an 
error? This is what they told me: The primary cost of a round-trip 
airline ticket from Birmingham to Washington is $328. It has gone up 
some. That is what they tell me is the recent fare for this trip. If 
you look at your automobile, and there is only one person in the car--
you may have four--but if one person is driving to Washington, it is 
about $200 for the gasoline at the current high prices; $4 or so a 
gallon. What about the Amtrak train ticket that is going to take 18 
hours instead of 2, what does it cost? Four hundred and forty-five 
dollars.
  So you think this may have something to do with why people are 
choosing to fly or drive, rather than take the train? I kind of wish it 
wasn't so. I wish there was some way we could make this different than 
it is, but those are the facts and that is why many of the Amtrak 
routes are not practical.
  People say: Well, why don't we make more routes, more trips, more 
trains, more often every day, and maybe more people would use it. I 
don't think so. I think the losses would swell even larger. You can't 
make this happen, in my view. I wish we had a different statement I 
could say about it, but that is it.
  One reason we maintain these routes around the country that are 
losing money substantially is because Congress maintains them because 
politics gets into it. Nobody wants to stand, as I am doing right now, 
and suggest it is not going to be the end of the world for the State of 
Alabama if we don't have an Amtrak running through there, if it is 
costing the taxpayers billions of dollars every year to keep it 
running.
  I wish to mention, briefly, the Washington Metro earmark of $1.5 
billion. This includes Northern Virginia and the Maryland suburbs--some 
of the richest, most prosperous areas in the country. But they want us 
to send huge amounts of money here to fund the extension of their 
subway, their train system. I think we have a right--the people outside 
this area need to ask why they should do that.
  Let me share this. My home county that I have been talking about has 
double-digit unemployment. It is reported by the New York Times that in 
my county--Wilcox County, where I grew up and went to school--the 
average citizen spends a larger percentage of their income on gasoline 
than any other county in America. So I guess what we are talking about 
now is we are going to ask people in my county who are struggling to 
get by with high unemployment rates and low wages and long distances to 
work, to subsidize a big, fancy subway system extension and operation 
that goes beyond, what I think is fair. What principle is being 
utilized to decide this is a good allocation of limited wealth in 
America?
  So this is a huge mark. It is a huge item. Let me tell my colleagues 
how huge it is. Our State, as I recall, under the formula for highway 
distribution moneys, with every State in America, is about average. 
Alabama is about an average size State in population and probably in 
size. The tax revenue from gasoline comes to the Federal Government and 
we allocate it out by complex formulas that we have fought over for 
years. Alabama and Mississippi felt as though we weren't being fairly 
treated, but we are doing a little better now under the formula. But 
the amount of money Alabama gets, as I recall, it is not much over $500 
million a year for the entire interstate highway system in Alabama to 
be utilized with the State highway money: $500 million per year. 
Whereas, they who are pushing this Metro system--$1.5 billion payment--
would, in one project alone, be three times the annual funds that my 
State gets for highways. I don't think that is fair. I know it is a 
huge project. But, it is not a project I think can be justified. I wish 
we could do this and that would be good.
  Somebody said: Well, Government employees like it. Many of them live 
out that way. Well, I have to tell my colleagues that Government 
employees are treated pretty well. You may not know this, but one 
reason they take subways is most of the agencies subsidize their 
ticket. If you take the Metro, the Government agency gives you a 
transportation allowance. So they have tried everything they can to 
incentivize riding the subway, but the Metro is still losing money. 
This is an additional subsidy from the Federal Government to the 
Washington Metro.
  So I have to tell my colleagues I believe this is an important 
matter. I do not believe this legislation is sound. I don't think it is 
good for the taxpayers. I believe it is, in many ways, including this 
very large, one appropriation of $1.5 billion, that is clearly unfair 
to the rest of the country. We shouldn't pass it. I am sorry the 
majority leader seems determined to move forward with this bill. But as 
I said, I would not object if he sets it aside temporarily, to discuss 
what we are going to do about the financial crisis.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.


                      Tribute to Senator Domenici

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, it is with mixed feelings of remorse 
and pleasure that I speak on the subject of the retirement from the 
Senate of my colleague and friend from New Mexico, Pete Domenici. He 
and his wife Nancy have been close and dear personal friends. When I 
was elected to serve in the Senate, they reached out to my wife Rose 
and me and made us feel at home and very comfortable in our new Senate 
environment. That was 30 years ago.
  The Domenici family will surely be missed, but I know we will stay in 
touch. I wouldn't be surprised to get a call from Pete if he sees or 
hears about my not doing right on an issue he feels deeply about. He is 
not bashful, nor easily intimidated, and he is going to continue to be 
consulted for advice and counsel from time to time by me and others who 
respect him so highly and realize they would benefit from his good 
judgment and insight.
  From public works to budget and energy, to appropriations, he has 
been a conspicuous and forceful advocate of public policy in the Senate 
committees. His contributions to public policy during the years of his 
service in the Senate are unsurpassed, and the genuineness of the 
respect in which he is held by his colleagues is unequaled. It has been 
a great honor to have served with Pete Domenici. I extend my sincere 
congratulations to him on his outstanding career in the Senate.

                          ____________________