[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12387-12388]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         REPUBLICAN FILIBUSTERS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the remarks my friend, the distinguished 
Republican leader, made regarding the energy crisis facing us are, as 
has been this past week, Orwellian. Everyone listening to what he said 
understands the direct opposite has happened. Everyone knows we are not 
doing legislation because the Republicans will not let us.
  There are 51 Democrats and 49 Republicans, a closely divided Senate. 
The Republicans have decided they are going to let us do nothing, and 
that is what they are doing, letting us do nothing. We want to 
legislate; they want to obstruct.
  Let's take the three bills we dealt with this past week. Global 
warming: No, they would not let us legislate on that bill. We offered 
two amendments, three amendments, five amendments, eight amendments, 
relevant, germane--nothing. They did not want to legislate, and we knew 
that was the case because as we read into the Record several times, 
there was a piece of work that came on e-mail from the Republicans who 
are devising the strategy for the Republicans in the Senate, and they 
said in that memo that there is no legislation going to take place 
here; we are going to play political games. ``Political games'' were 
their words, and that is what they did.
  As we have been here--the Senate opened 20 minutes ago--global 
warming has gotten worse, not better. It is time we decided to take 
some hard decisions and realize we cannot continue to take all this 
carbon out of the Earth and put it into the sky. That is what global 
warming is all about. We have to stop this.
  We wanted to do something about gas prices. Of course gas prices have 
gone up. Since President Bush took office, the price of gas has gone 
from less than $1.50 a gallon now to $4.06 a gallon. As the Republican 
leader said, diesel fuel is approaching $5 a gallon. But during this 
period of time, we have been following the Cheney energy policy. The 
Cheney energy policy was one devised in the White House in secret. The 
press, groups around the country have tried to find out what went on, 
who came, what were the promises made. Obstruct--they would not allow 
us to find out what went on. The American people to this day do not 
know what went on. But we do know the Bush-Cheney administration is the 
most oil-friendly administration in the country. They made their 
fortunes in oil and they have treated the oil companies accordingly 
this past 7\1/2\ years.
  We tried to do something about gas prices. We think it is important 
that we take a look at OPEC. It is not just Democrats talking about it. 
Arlen Specter, the ranking member and former chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, believes that is an extremely important issue. OPEC is 
violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. Why shouldn't they be subject to 
it? That is what we wanted to legislate, and they would not let us.
  We wanted to take away the huge amounts of free money the oil 
companies get. Why should they get all the free money from American 
taxpayers when they made during the past year $250 billion in profit--
not million, billion. We tried to legislate on that issue saying these 
subsidies to big oil should be terminated.
  We thought it was important to do something about these windfall 
profits these companies are making. We were stopped from doing that.
  The Presiding Officer knows about legislating. He understands that 
legislating is the art of compromise. Is any one of the pieces of 
legislation we introduced perfect? Of course not. But it is an 
opportunity for us to try to do something about these gas prices. In 
the short term--these are short-term fixes for the gas prices I talked 
about--they would not allow us to legislate. And yesterday we tried to 
legislate on doing something about alternative energy, renewable 
energy. The Sun shines, the wind blows, steam comes out of the Earth. 
Shouldn't we harness that for our own benefit? Shouldn't we use that so 
we do not have to use 21 million barrels of dirty oil every day that is 
making our lives miserable with global warming, ruining the health of 
people all over the world? Shouldn't we do that? The Republicans say 
no. They would not let us legislate on that issue yesterday.
  We want to give the American entrepreneurs the ability to invest in 
renewables. People are waiting to invest billions of dollars if they 
have the opportunity for these tax credits, but the Republicans say no.
  My friend said that Democrats think this is some kind of a corporate 
plot. We don't think it is a corporate plot. We do think the oil 
companies are making far too much money. And the sad part about it--my 
brother for many years was a service station operator. My brother 
worked for Standard stations. I worked for Standard stations. He became 
a manager for Standard stations. The Chevron oil company had Standard 
stations and Chevron stations. Chevron stations were dealers, 
individuals such as my brother Dale--may my brother Dale rest in peace. 
He died at the age of 47. He was a Chevron oil dealer. He worked very 
hard. He didn't make much money with the gas that was pumped. He made 
money selling water bags, which was a canvas bag people needed to go 
across the desert if their car broke down, batteries, fan belts, tires. 
That is where he made his money; not very much, but that is where he 
made his money, not at the gas pump. And it is still that way. The 
modern Dale Reids with stations around America are not making much 
money. The money is going to these massive oil companies.
  I don't think it is a corporate plot. I think it is a Bush-Cheney 
plot. I think these people have done nothing. These two men have done 
nothing to address the energy crisis facing America. It took 7 years of 
this man's Presidency before he could say the words ``global warming.''
  My friend has used the name of the senior Senator from New York, Mr. 
Schumer. I am going to defend Senator Schumer. Senator Schumer is my 
friend. He does an outstanding job representing the people of New York, 
and he has done an outstanding job representing all Democrats as 
chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. This is a 
difficult job, not one people seek. Senator Schumer took that job when 
he could have been Governor of the State of New York. All the 
editorials said he would be the next Governor of New York. I knew that 
when I became Democratic leader. I asked Senator Schumer, recognizing 
he could be the next Governor of New York: Will you take the Democratic 
Senatorial Campaign Committee? It is important for the country. And he 
gave up literally the governorship of New York, in my opinion, to take 
this job. He has done a tremendous job: nine new Democratic Senators 
last year.
  He said yesterday in his speech before the Senate, among other 
things, that the 75 filibusters the Democrats have had to face with 
this Republican minority, which is so upset that we are in the 
majority, is creating problems for Republican Senators. It is the 
truth. Senator Schumer said:

       It is unconscionable that the American public is being 
     forced to use their stimulus checks just to pay for gas.

  Senator Schumer came and spoke for the American people. He spoke for 
the people of New York, he spoke for the people of America, saying: Why 
not let us legislate? And the fact that the Republicans are not letting 
us legislate on anything is going to work in November to the advantage 
of the Democrats. I think that is clear.
  Look around the country. I am not going to predict what is going to 
happen in November, but the majority is going to be bigger than 51 come 
November. Why? Because the American people see what is going on with 
this Republican minority. It is the same in the House. Republicans have 
the same philosophy: status quo, keep things the way they are, tread 
water a while.
  As a result, when Dennis Hastert--he broke the record for the longest 
Republican Speaker in the history of the country--retired, a heavily 
Republican

[[Page 12388]]

House district in Illinois goes Democratic. That was only a quirk, they 
said.
  Then we have a race in Louisiana, a heavily Republican district, been 
Republican for a long time, and it goes Democratic. Why? Because the 
American people see what is going on.
  Illinois, a Republican district, sees what is going on; a Republican 
district in Louisiana sees what is going on. In Mississippi, they 
appointed Congressman Wicker to be a Senator after Senator Lott 
retired. That district--we don't have to worry much about that, that is 
a Republican district, always has been, always will be, except the 
people of Mississippi see what is going on and they elected a Democrat. 
Now we have a Democratic House Member representing that so-called 
Republican district.
  We want to legislate. We want to legislate for the American people. 
All we want is an opportunity to go forward and not have to face 75 
filibusters and legislate as the Senate has been doing for many 
decades.
  These Orwellian speeches given by my friend when he says ``It's the 
Democrats' fault, they have been in power a year and a half; that is 
why gas prices are so high,'' think about that, everybody, think about 
that, how unreasonable that is.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the speech of my good friend, the 
majority leader, sounds eerily similar to the one he made yesterday 
morning at exactly the same time, so I won't prolong this back and 
forth other than to say it is an interesting campaign speech, but the 
issue before us is, if we do want to legislate, we know how we have to 
legislate in the Senate. We had the same discussion yesterday morning. 
The way you don't legislate in the Senate is refuse to let the minority 
offer amendments.
  I know this is inside baseball to most observers who don't follow 
every nuance of what we do in the Senate, but the way you legislate in 
the Senate is you call up a bill and you have a free amendment process 
and then you pass it. Prematurely filing cloture, filling up the tree, 
preventing the minority from having any serious impact on legislation 
doesn't work. You can call that obstructionism if you want, but another 
way of looking at it would be to say the majority leader would like to 
turn the Senate into the House, and that is not the way we operate 
here. The Republican minority is pretty unified over the notion that 
they do not intend to be irrelevant.
  With regard to the issue that is of most importance to the country--
global warming--in fact, it is still the pending business. My Members 
are anxious to offer amendments on that debate. We have been on that 
measure. We discussed it all day yesterday and have been discussing it 
in previous days. We actually voted to continue the debate and would 
like to have a chance to offer amendments to it.
  But I think my good friend, the majority leader, would like, rather 
than giving us a chance to truly amend the bill, to just simply check 
the box and say: That is another filibuster, and move on.
  It is a fact--it is not any kind of Orwellian spin--that gas prices 
are up $1.70 since the Democratic majority took over. It is also a fact 
that Republicans, as I indicated in my comments earlier, are open to 
any of the conservation measures that have been suggested. But the 
fundamental problem is that our good friends on the other side are not 
willing to do anything whatsoever on the production side.
  Even though I think, for example, that suing OPEC is somewhat 
ludicrous, I would be open to it if someone on the other side would 
say: OK, we will sue OPEC and we will add to that a measure allowing 
the opening of the Outer Continental Shelf, where States want to. I 
mean, why should the Federal Government prevent a State that actually 
wants to open the Outer Continental Shelf from doing so?
  That is the way you go forward around here, with each side getting 
something. But, unfortunately, in these debates, they want it their way 
or not at all, and they do not even want to give us a chance to 
consider or approve these efforts to increase our production.
  So the way to legislate in the Senate is pretty clear. The majority 
leader and I have been around here a while. We remember when we used to 
pass legislation, and we also remember how we did it. As I indicated 
yesterday morning, a good model for big, complicated bills, as the 
Clean Air Act of 1990 was--it was on the Senate floor for 5 weeks with 
180 amendments and everybody participating, everybody offering 
amendments. We worked our way through the process, and we passed a 
major piece of legislation. You can't bring up something like a climate 
bill, fill up the tree and file cloture, and call that a serious effort 
to legislate.
  I am sure it is somewhat confusing to casual observers, all this spin 
back and forth, but the fact is, the Senate is a place full of serious 
legislators on both sides of the aisle, and the only way we will 
actually be able to accomplish anything for the American people is for 
everybody's rights to be respected, for everybody to have a chance to 
participate, and at the end of the day to make some kind of bipartisan 
accommodation that would include some things the other side would like 
to accomplish, which I might not think is a great idea, but would also 
include some things that most of my Members believe would make a 
difference. That is the way to pass major legislation.
  So, Mr. President, I enjoy these morning discussions with the 
majority leader. He is a good friend of mine. I like him a lot, I enjoy 
working with him, and I hope we can get past making a campaign speech 
every morning and actually see if there isn't some way to move forward 
on important legislation for the American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend would like everyone to be 
confused. No one is confused. No one is confused as to what is taking 
place here. All records in the history of this country have been broken 
on the number of filibusters. No one is confused about what is going on 
here.
  We know we have worked with the Republicans to do something about 
production. Of course we have. But we want to do something long term; 
we want to do something short term. The American people are being 
drowned with the smoke in the air, and too much carbon is coming out of 
the ground into the sky. We want to do something with the Sun and the 
wind, the geothermal.
  The OPEC measure is ludicrous? Mr. President, tell my friend, the 
ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, the former chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, who is the biggest proponent in Congress of OPEC 
being subject to antitrust laws, that is ludicrous. I say to the 
Republican leader, tell Arlen Specter it is ludicrous to go after OPEC. 
Those are the words of the Republican leader.
  Finally, Mr. President, here is what they want to do on global 
warming. This Orwellian verbiage we have heard this morning, that they 
want to do something on global warming, well, here is what they want to 
do about global warming. The e-mail on the Republican strategy that we 
obtained says this:

       The focus is more on making political points than in 
     amending the bill.

  That is what they said. And it continues:

       GOP anticipates a struggle over which amendments are 
     debated and eventually fingerpointing over blame for demise 
     of the bill. The bottom line is that the GOP very much wants 
     to engage in it for a prolonged period, and then make it as 
     difficult as possible to move off the bill.
       The focus is much more on making political points than on 
     amending the bill.

  The American people aren't confused, Mr. President.

                          ____________________