Mr. President, we are waiting to proceed on the legislation that has come from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which I chair. We are on the bill, but we are waiting for…
Mr. President, we are waiting to proceed on the legislation that has come from the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which I chair. We are on the bill, but we are waiting for amendments and discussion.
But I want to make a point. We have had people coming to the floor of the Senate yesterday, now this morning, incessantly over a long period of time, talking about health care. Health care is, obviously, very important; no question about that. The relentless increase in the cost of health care hurts families. It hurts business. It hurts government programs that provide for health care. So we need to do something about that.
But it is interesting. What I hear on the floor of the Senate from the critics of these issues is: What is wrong? What is wrong? Well, it does not take a lot of energy or a lot of time to determine what is wrong and be a critic. I understand that.
I have often told the story of Mark Twain, who was asked to debate once, and he said: Of course I will be engaged in that debate, as long as I can take the negative side.
They said: Well, we have not even told you the subject of the debate.
He said: Oh, it doesn't matter. The negative side will take no preparation.
So it is with these discussions on the floor that I have just heard a moment ago and heard all day yesterday as I sat here on the floor, talking about what is wrong. Well, do you know what, we know what is wrong. What is wrong is that we have this relentless rise of health care costs. We spend more on health care than anybody else in the world, by far, and we rank somewhere around 41st in life expectancy. We spend twice as much per person than almost everybody else in the world spends on health care.
I notice that all those critics who come out here talking about what is wrong with this plan or that plan never talk about prescription drugs because most of those who have been out here criticizing the various plans are people who vote against legislation to put downward pressure on prescription drugs. Yet one of the fastest rising areas of health care costs is prescription drugs.
Let me, if I might, ask unanimous consent to show on the floor of the Senate two bottles that would contain prescription drugs.
These two bottles I hold in my hand, which I have shown many times, contain Lipitor. It is medicine produced in Ireland and then shipped all around the world. This Lipitor, as you can see, comes from identical bottles. The same tablet, the same medicine, produced in the same plant by the same company, FDA-approved by our Food and Drug administration in our country, is put in two different bottles. One is shipped to the United States, this one, and the other is shipped to Canada. What is the difference? Well, there is no difference in the medicine. It came from the same place, produced by the same company. The difference is price. The Canadians get to pay half the price the Americans pay.
It is not just Lipitor, the most popular cholesterol-lowering drug that exists out there. It is not just Lipitor. It is prescription drug after prescription drug. The American people get to pay the highest prices in the world. You want to talk about how you cut health care costs? How about taking a whack at this and saying it is not fair that the American people should pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. Why are they required to pay the highest price in the world? Because there is kind of a sweetheart deal in law that says the only entity that can reimport prescription drugs is the drug manufacturer itself.
Much of the ingredients in these drugs come from all around the world--China, just as an example. The manufacturers can produce these drugs in Ireland, using ingredients from all around the world, and then bring them in to sell to the American consumer. But the American consumer cannot access the same FDA-approved drug sold in virtually every other industrial country at a fraction of the price the American consumer is charged.
Why, when we hear these critics come to the floor on health care issues, do we not hear them suggest: Here is an area where we could substantially cut costs and give the American consumer the opportunity everybody else has; that is, to shop for these FDA-approved drugs in areas where you see much lower prices?
The pharmaceutical industry will say: Well, if you allow the American people to do that and if we can't charge the highest prices to the American people for prescription drugs, we will not have the money to do our research to find new drugs. Well, that is not true. The fact is, the pharmaceutical industry spends more money on research in Europe than they do in the United States and in virtually every European country, the European consumers get to pay less money for the same drugs that American consumers are now charged.
A bipartisan group of us has offered legislation to give the American consumer the right to access these lower cost prescription drugs from areas where you can pay a fraction of the price for the identical drug the American consumer pays the highest price in the world for. But we have a staunch bunch of folks in this Chamber who support the pharmaceutical industry and who decide that the American people shouldn't have this right. I would say to those who are the critics of virtually anything anybody talks about in health care: Maybe you ought to decide to support those of us who have introduced bipartisan legislation to deal with the issue of the prescription drug prices in which the American people are charged the highest prices in the world. It is not fair; it has gone on too long; and it needs to be changed.
With respect to health care, generally, this issue is one of those issues that is very important. We are in the middle of a very deep recession. I think job one in this country, by far, is to put the country back on track so people can get back on payrolls, get back to work, and have jobs. That makes almost everything else possible. This is the deepest recession since the Great Depression, and we have a lot of work to do. This President inherited a mess, no question about that. He inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit this year. It is now going to be $1.9 trillion because the President advanced and the Congress passed an economic recovery program to try to stimulate the economy. But we need to get this economy back on track and then we need to begin trimming back these budget deficits. We cannot, for any length of time, continue to provide a level of government the American people are either unable or unwilling to pay for. That is not a path that is sustainable. It is not a path that works. But the President, when he took office, said there are a number of other things we need to do--one of which is to try to get some control over these escalating health care costs.
I don't know exactly how this is going to end up. I don't know what plan might or might not exist at the end of the day, but I think Congress is going to find a way through this. I think it is useful and important and productive for us to be working and working hard to see: What are the solutions? How do we put downward pressure on prices? How do we try to provide broader coverage for those who don't now have health care coverage? I think we can do this. It might well be it has to be done in a couple phases, the first of which is to put downward pressure on the pricing and the second of which is to extend coverage. However we do it, we need to decide that health care costs are rising far more rapidly than is sustainable. They blow a hole in the federal budget deficit because the Federal Government, through Medicare and through Medicaid, is the largest consumer of health care, so we don't have much choice but to find a way to do this.
I understand there is a lot in this health care system that wants to protect what is, one of which is prescription drugs. I mentioned this prescription drug called Lipitor. Most people would know the name of this. Why? Because when they leaf through Newsweek or Time magazine, they will see a full-page ad for Lipitor. When they shave in the morning or brush their teeth in the morning, if they have a television near their bathroom, they will understand about Lipitor. They will understand about the purple pill. They will understand about prescription drugs because relentless advertising is driven toward the consumer to say: Go ask your doctor if you shouldn't be taking this drug. Go check with your doctor. Isn't the purple pill right for you? There is relentless consumer advertising for something you can't buy unless a doctor believes you need it and a doctor prescribes it for you. Is that something we ought to take care of maybe? I think so.
There are a whole range of areas that I think are very important in health care that we need to try to do something about. I think we can. It is horribly complicated, very difficult, a very heavy lift, and we need to do it in a way that first and foremost puts downward pressure on health care pricing. The fact is we cannot and should not be spending twice as much as anybody else in the world per capita on health care only to find out that we rank 41st in life expectancy. That means we are spending much more than anybody else and not getting the outcome or the results.
So I would say to the people--including this morning, the first thing out of the box is the critics of health care, once again, relentlessly on the floor telling us what is wrong. As I have said, Mark Twain knew the negative side requires no preparation. So I am not sure these are well-prepared arguments, but they are certainly relentless. It is nice to hear what is wrong. Maybe as 100 Senators who dress up in suits in the morning, we could come and spend the entire day talking about what is right. This is a great country, one of which we have the privilege to live in freedom, we have the privilege to be engaged in public debate. Maybe let's spend a little more time trying to figure out what is right about this country and find out what kinds of solutions can unite us rather than divide us and find out how we get the best of each rather than the worst of both when we talk about the political parties.
If we can do that, maybe we will advance this country's interests.
The fact is we all stand in the same hole. It is a very deep economic hole, the deepest since the Great Depression, and we will all be well advised, it seems to me, to find ways to begin working together to address these issues.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, let me further ask unanimous consent that following the presentation of this amendment, we have a unanimous consent agreement to set aside this amendment for a Democratic amendment that is about to be offered.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
If the Senator will yield, let me say that I happen to be a cosponsor of the amendment. It is being offered to the Energy and Water appropriations bill. There may well be a rule XVI against it. It appears to be legislating on an appropriations bill.
Before the Senator expands on his remarks, I think he and Senator Warner have offered a constructive idea, one that I support and have cosponsored prior to it being on the floor. I think it is useful for Senators to hear a complete description of the proposal. If it is not resolved on this bill--and it probably will not be--my hope is it will be resolved on another piece of legislation.
Mr. President, let me make a point because we have heard a lot of discussion about health care. My colleague from Oregon and my colleague from Utah talked about this yesterday and today and I think it is important to point out.
When people talk about the choices Members of Congress have, I think it is giving the impression that somehow Members of Congress have some gold-plated health care system that other Federal employees do not have. In fact, I believe the choices available to Members of Congress are the choices available in the Federal Employees Health Benefit system for millions of other Federal employees.
The reason I make that point is we have had a lot of people talk about the choices Members of Congress have with their health plan. This Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan is available to all Federal employees. All Federal employees have the same choices, by and large, and those are the choices Members of Congress have.
Last weekend, I had several people talk to me about the extraordinary health insurance Members of Congress have, and I think part of that comes from this discussion about Members of Congress have all these choices. It is very important for people to understand that we have the same health care plan other Federal employees have--millions of them-- and the same choices they have. I just wanted to make sure the Record shows that because I think it is important.
Mr. President, we are ready to clear several cleared amendments, so I ask unanimous consent to immediately consider amendment No. 1846, which is already pending.
My understanding is the amendment is cleared on both sides. I believe there is no further debate, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up amendments Nos. 1844 and 1845, en bloc; further, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendments.
I believe there is no further debate. These are technical amendments that have been cleared by both sides, and I ask for their immediate consideration.
Mr. President, I believe we will have an amendment by the Senator from Nebraska in a few minutes. But let me say, with the Senator from Utah, we need to have Senators come over and offer amendments. If you have amendments you want to add to this bill, offer, and debate, we expect you to be here. Ultimately, those who have amendments and don't come to offer them are probably going to be precluded at some point because we will move to complete this bill.
We have sat here the day before yesterday, yesterday, and now today. This is a very important piece of legislation that deals with the energy and water projects across the country, and we want to complete this bill, preferably this evening, if we can. In order to do that, we need to at least have some semblance of cooperation, which has been little evident, at least in the past couple days.
I would say to the Senator from Utah there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline today. But the fact is we already have amendments filed but aren't offered. So I expect we will get additional amendments filed. The key is to get people down here to offer their amendments, but there is a 1 p.m. filing deadline.
The cloture motion was filed last evening, and I understand why the Senator from Nevada, the majority leader, filed it. I don't think he had much choice. We bring an appropriations bill to the floor that has very widespread support and then it largely comes to a standstill. It would not make much sense for us to be here in this position all week.
I think Senator Reid had very little choice but to file a cloture motion. My hope is we would not need it. If people will come and offer their amendments, we will work with them. Senator Bennett and I will work to accept the amendments we can and get the votes and perhaps this evening get this bill completed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, we are awaiting some word from Senator Alexander. He was here earlier this morning to offer an amendment. We indicated we would very much like to have a vote at 11:30 this morning. We are trying to contact Senator Alexander and his staff. There will be a budget point of order against the amendment offered by Senator Alexander, so the vote would be on the point of order that will be made with respect to the budget.
Senator Bennett and I hope we can get this vote so we can get people to the floor and determine which amendments are going to be offered and when. The majority leader has been extraordinarily patient. He is trying to schedule bills to the floor of the Senate. We bring an Energy and Water appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate, people say they have amendments but they do not come to the floor to offer them, so the majority leader filed cloture last evening, a cloture motion that will ripen tomorrow.
He did not have much choice but to do that, and I think what is happening today demonstrates the requirement that the majority leader had to file a cloture motion. It would be far better for everybody if we can dispose of the amendments.
I think we have three amendments dealing with TARP funds. I think we can dispose of the three of them. If we can have Senator Alexander come and reach an agreement on time and have a vote at 11:30, at least we would at that point get Senators to the floor, dispose of that amendment on a budget point of order. There will be points of order against the other two TARP amendments as well--different points of order, I might add.
Mr. President, we appreciate the cooperation of Senator Alexander. I know he cares a lot about his amendment. As I indicated, there will be a budget point of order that lies against the amendment. I will make that point of order, but then we will have a recorded vote on that point of order. My hope would be that we can do that at 11:30 this morning, for the information of other Senators and their staffs, and we will determine that when Senator Alexander arrives on the floor momentarily.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume consideration of the Alexander amendment No. 1862 and that Senator Dorgan be recognized to raise a Budget Act 302(f) point of order against the amendment; that once Senator Alexander has moved to waive the relevant point of order, debate on the waiver extend to 11:25 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between Senators Dorgan and Alexander or their designees; that at 11:25 a.m., the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive, with no amendments in order to the amendment during its pendency.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
How much time remains?
I understand what Senator Alexander wants to do. I have some of the same instincts. The President does as well. I don't want the Federal Government running America's corporations. We want to divest as quickly as we can. We want the companies to recover. But whatever we do here, we need to do it in a way that protects the interests of the taxpayers. Theirs are the interests that are at risk. To set a date within 1 year does not protect the interests of the taxpayers.
I happen to support a Corker amendment. I was a cosponsor of the Corker amendment that talks about the establishment of trustees, three trustees to actually be engaged in running these companies so the government is not running them. It talks about liquidating that trust by December 2011. But they would submit a report to Congress. That liquidation would not happen unless it maximizes the profitability of the company and the return to the shareholder. That is one thing missing in the Alexander amendment, the question of what maximizes the return to the American taxpayer. They are the ones who are at risk. What do we do to maximize the return, or are we going to leave tens of billions of dollars on the table because somebody simply wants to pass a piece of legislation with an artificial end date?
I don't disagree with the intent of wanting to get out from under this issue of the Federal Government being engaged in these corporations. That is why I cosponsored the Corker amendment.
Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, what is the pending business?
Mr. President, pursuant to the Lott precedent, I make a point of order that the amendment is not germane.
I make a point of order that the amendment is legislation on appropriations.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending business and call up amendment No. 1855.
I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Madam President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I believe there is no further debate. I ask for its immediate consideration.
I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
While Senator Bennett and I await our colleagues to offer amendments on the underlying appropriations bill, I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business for 10 minutes.
Madam President, our country is in a very deep economic hole, the most significant economic decline since the Great Depression. Much of it is attributable to the fact that we have created an economy in recent years, especially the last two decades, in which we have responsible business men and women engaged in casino-like gambling. They do it under the rubric of business.
In 1994, I wrote a cover story for the Washington Monthly magazine titled ``Very Risky Business.'' The subtitle of that article was about the banks trading very risky derivatives, which I said I believed could lead to taxpayers being on the hook for a bailout. That was 15 years ago. At that point, there was $16 trillion of notional value in derivatives. And banks, even then, which prompted me to write the article, were trading very risky derivatives on their own proprietary accounts, which I believed was unbelievably ignorant of the risk involved.
The $16 trillion in notional value of derivatives exploded way beyond anyone's expectation. Then at the same time that the trading of derivatives was exploding, new instruments were being developed, credit default swaps and CDOs and all kinds of exotic instruments to be traded back and forth, creating a dramatic amount of additional risk.
Even as that was occurring, we saw the development of a subprime loan scandal in which we were watching brokers and mortgage banks provide entreaties to those who had homes or those who wished to buy homes: Come and get a mortgage from us. You have bad credit, slow pay, no pay, you have been bankrupt, come to us. We would like to give you a loan. Subprime home loans--some called liars loans--you don't even have to tell the person giving you the loan what your income is. By the way, you don't have to pay any principle. We will wrap that around the backside, just pay interest. Can't pay interest, then name your own payment. Don't want to do that, then don't pay any principle and don't pay all your interest. We will wrap it around the backside, and you don't even have to describe what your income is. By the way, when you get a mortgage from us, we will not tell you it is going to reset in 2- 3 years because we are giving you a 2-percent teaser rate right now, which means your home loan payment will be way down here, and it is going to look good. But the reset that will happen in 24 or 36 months, you will never be able to make the payments.
Everybody was fat and happy, making a lot of money putting out bad loans and then slicing them up into mortgage-backed securities and then trading them up to the hedge funds and investment banks, and everybody was making a lot of money, not asking any questions. Then the whole thing collapsed. And it is derivatives, it is swaps, it is mortgage- backed securities. It all collapsed in a sea of greed with unbelievable risk, and it brought down with it some of America's largest financial institutions.
I describe all of that gambling and all of that risk because something else happened last year that has the American people concerned and worried--and they should be wondering: What was the cause of it?
Here is what happened last year. I have this chart in the Chamber that shows the price of crude oil. It actually went from $60 a barrel, in October of 2006, up to $147 a barrel in July of 2008. It went up like a Roman candle, and then came right back down. By the way, the same folks who made the money on the upside made the money going back the other way, starting last July. It was unbelievable speculation in a market called the oil futures market.
This is not an abstract graph. This means right up here someplace, as shown on the chart, every American who went to the gas pump to fill up their vehicle with gasoline was paying through the nose--$4, $4.50 a gallon.
So the question for them, and the question for other users--airlines, for example, were hemorrhaging in red ink, unable to pay the cost of this kind of oil price--the question was: What has caused all of this? What has resulted in this unbelievable spike in oil prices?
The answer? An orgy of speculation in the oil futures market by interests that were never before--at that point--manipulating that marketplace. Investment banks, for the first time, were actually buying oil storage and holding it off the marketplace until the price rose, as an example.
The oil futures market, it is estimated, was populated in terms of the trades by somewhere between two-thirds to three-fourths of the trades coming from speculators--not people who were moving the physical commodity back and forth, at least people who would want to sell the physical commodity to somebody who wanted to buy the physical commodity because they want oil. Instead, it was speculators who were simply betting on this. They could have gone to Las Vegas. They did not need to. They were able to go to the oil futures market and make a lot of money going up and a lot of money going down; and, meanwhile, the victims were the American drivers who had to fill their gas tanks with gasoline.
I am describing this because yesterday there was a hearing in this town by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a commission that has largely been dead from the neck up for some while, uninterested in regulating--despite the fact that is their charge--sitting on their hands, doing nothing. And all of last year while this was going on, while the price of oil was going up, up, up, the CFTC largely explained it away as saying: Well, this is supply and demand. That is what is going on.
There is another agency other than the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that did not do its job. This is an agency we are actually funding. Senator Bennett and I are actually funding it in this bill. It is called EIA, the Energy Information Administration. It has several hundred people working there. It is a very important agency. It provides substantial amounts of information to our country, to policymakers, about what is happening with energy.
I want to show you what has happened with the EIA. We spend about $110 million a year on this agency with several hundred people. They are good people, smart people, the best in the business, we assume. Here is what happened. In May of 2007, they had to make an estimate. That is what they do. They make an estimate: What is the price of oil going to be? Well, they started here, as shown on the graph, and they said: Here is where we think the price of oil is going, right that way. So in May of 2007--I do not know what they had to eat back then, but something was affecting the brain. Here is what happened to the price of oil. Here is where they estimated the price of oil would be.
These are smart people. These are the best. We are spending a lot of money getting their advice. So let's pick January of 2008. They made a new estimate: Here is where we think the price of oil is going to go. Well, the price of oil did not do this. The price of oil went like this--almost straight up. So what did they get wrong? In April of 2008: Here is what we think the price of oil will be. Here is what it was.
My point is, this agency, along with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, would come to our committee at a hearing, and I would say: What is it that you get it so unbelievably wrong? They said: Well, it is supply and demand.
That is total rubbish. The fact is, even while this was happening, the supply was going up and demand was going down, which meant that the price of oil would not be going up like a Roman candle. In fact, the price would be moderating. Instead, speculators captured that market. That is why EIA got it so wrong. They did not have the foggiest idea what they were doing. Supply and demand--total nonsense. But we know what happened to these prices.
The reason I want to discuss this for a moment is because yesterday the Wall Street Journal had a story. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission--this is the commission that last year spent all of their time telling us this was just supply and demand. We knew better. But either they knew better as well and would not admit it or they did not know better. That agency was insisting it was supply and demand. Well, the very same agency now, with a new head, is going to issue a report next month, according to the Wall Street Journal, ``suggesting speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices.''
Three people in my hometown cafe--I come from a small town of 300 people--3 people, over a strong cup of coffee, knew that last year. Wild swings in oil prices as a result of speculators.
Last year, the same U.S. futures market agency pinned oil price swings primarily on supply and demand. But the new report will say that analysis was based on ``deeply flawed data.''
So the question is, What does all this mean? It means if we are going to have some impact on an economy where we put it back on some solid foundation, we have to have markets that work, and we have to have regulators who are not blind.
I happen to think the free market system is the best system of allocating goods and services that I know of. I taught economics ever so briefly in college, and I always say I was able to overcome that, nonetheless, and lead a productive life. But the field of economics is something that is so important in terms of understanding how markets work. I believe the free market system is an incredibly good system-- not perfect. The free market system needs effective oversight and regulation from time to time. That means we have regulators who are supposed to be wearing the striped shirts, blowing the whistle, and calling the fouls because, yes, there are fouls in the free market system.
Go back and ask Teddy Roosevelt, when he was a big trust buster. What was he doing? He was busting those interests that were trying to subvert the free market system. The same thing happens today. We have interests--and I described it earlier--that want to subvert the system by getting engaged in substantial risk and establishing mechanisms by which they can control a market at the expense of the rest of the American people.
That is what I believe has happened in the oil futures market. The oil futures market is very important, and we need to make it work the right way. It ought to work responding to the urges of supply and demand. But, regrettably, that has not been the case. My hope is now the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will be able to take the kind of action necessary to straighten this market out.
Every market needs liquidity. That means some speculators will play a role in the market. But when speculators capture the market, and begin to play the kind of games that were played last year, that has a profound impact on this country's economy. We should expect the agencies that are hired to do the regulatory oversight do their jobs, and do it properly. That has not been the case for some while.
So my hope will be--with the new report coming out that will finally assign the responsibility of excess speculation in this perversion of the marketplace--my hope will be we will have effective regulators who will take action. What should that action be? My own view is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission should designate a distinction between the traders in this marketplace: those who are truly trading a physical commodity because they are engaged in the marketplace because that is the business they are in and those who are just speculators. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission could at that point determine what kind of margin requirements, what kind of speculative limits should exist so that activity does not subvert the marketplace.
Let me be quick to say there are people who will listen to me, and who hear what I say, and they will say: Do you know what. You don't have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. All of this system works. None of that which you describe existed. All of that risk by the smartest people in the room, the top investment banks that took on this massive amount of risk, the investment banks that were buying oil storage, to buy oil and take it off the market until it goes up in price--all of that is just business.
It is not just business. Just business is running a business the right way. Does anybody believe it was just business to have the biggest financial enterprises in the country run into the ditch because of bad behavior by those who were running the companies--by the way, some of whom are still running the same companies?
By the way, with respect to solutions, does anybody think it is just business to decide we had institutions in this country that were too big to fail--that loaded up with risk and then failed--and the taxpayer is told they cannot be allowed to fail, they are too big, and you have to bail them out? And now we say to those same businesses: We are not going to get rid of ``too big to fail.'' In fact, we are going to allow you to merge with other firms, which makes you much too big to fail-- too much bigger to fail.
We have a lot of work to do this year to address these issues and address some of the causes that caused the economic collapse last year. I want us to put this economy back on track. First and foremost, it starts with jobs and restoring confidence. Confidence is everything about this economy. When people have confidence, they will do the things that are expansive to this economy: buy clothes, buy a car, take a trip, buy a house. That expands the economy. When they are not confident, they do exactly the opposite.
I want the American people to have confidence. I want them to have confidence in believing that Federal agencies that hire regulators are going to look over the shoulder and provide the oversight to make sure this is not going to happen again, to make sure someone is not going tp subvert a marketplace that makes the rest of the American people victims.
All of this, in my judgment, with good government, can be done. But it will not be done if we have regulators who boast about being willfully blind. It will be done if we understand our responsibility to make sure the free market system is indeed free.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Madam President, it is nearly 2 o'clock on Wednesday. We have been on this bill since Monday. Senator Bennett and I have spent a lot of time on the floor waiting for amendments to be offered. We have had several and we appreciate that, but we have many filed but not offered.
I know the majority leader has filed a cloture motion which would ripen tomorrow, so we would have a cloture vote tomorrow. Our hope has been we would not get to that point.
Inasmuch as we have waited and waited very patiently for Senators who do have amendments that they wish to offer but have not come to offer them, Senator Bennett and I have talked about perhaps going to third reading this afternoon at 5 o'clock. So I ask, if there are those Senators and/or staff who have amendments they wish to have considered on this legislation they would keep that in mind.
We have a couple of hours here. Senator Bennett and I have talked about going to third reading by 5 o'clock. I would ask people to come and offer
amendments, let's have debates on the amendments and have votes and see if we can resolve this legislation this afternoon.
I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. President, I would have no objection. We are limiting morning statement business up to 10 minutes. We are on the business of the energy and water appropriations bill, waiting for amendments to be filed. So we have a general order on this bill that morning business speeches will be 10 minutes.
I have no objection if the Senator wishes to take a few minutes extra, but I did want both Senators to understand that we are on the energy and water appropriations bill, and morning business is done under the consideration of that legislation. So I have no objection.
Mr. President, the 1 o'clock time has passed for the filing of amendments as a result of the cloture motion being filed last evening. I believe we now have about 90 amendments filed to this bill. Not all of them will be offered, certainly, but 90 amendments represent the determination of people who wish to alter this bill, who wish, presumably, to come and offer amendments, have a debate on amendments, and perhaps have a vote on their amendments. Yet no one arrives.
I indicated earlier that Senator Bennett and I have talked about a third reading on this legislation to move it through the Senate. The fact is, the majority leader will not have the patience to allow us to sit here with nothing to do and people saying they want to offer amendments but not being willing to show up to offer amendments. We have been here since Monday afternoon, and very little has been done.
I again say to the staff that may be watching or Senators who are watching, I think we ought to conclude this bill. If people are not interested in offering amendments--filing amendments is not offering them. If they do not have the interest in coming to the floor of the Senate to offer them, I am going to push very hard with the majority leader to go to third reading and finish this legislation this afternoon.
Mr. President, I am prepared to accept the amendment. My colleague, Senator Bennett, is as well. The amendment has been cleared. We have reviewed it. We think it has merit, and we have approved it on both sides. I suggest we ask for consideration and have a vote on the amendment at this point.
I thank the Senator from Vermont. I know he cares passionately about this issue. The description he has given demonstrates the merit of this proposal. Frankly, I am happy to be supportive.
Might I ask the Senator to yield for a question?
Senator Coburn and I and Senator Bennett talked about the order of his amendments. I believe he has three amendments. We intend to accept one. I had indicated to him on the contracting amendment he intends to offer, I will offer an amendment as well, and we will have side-by-side votes. I wonder if I might offer my amendment to have it pending. The Senator would then offer his amendment and discuss it and I would offer my amendment on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett. If that is acceptable to the Senator from Oklahoma, I believe my amendment is filed. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be called up. It is amendment No. 1895. I ask that on behalf of myself and Senator Bennett.
Mr. President, I will respond, of course, to the comments of the Senator from Oklahoma. If he would wish, it might be sensible for him to proceed to offer his other amendments, calling them up, setting aside this amendment, and we will have them all in front of us. Then we can discuss them and develop an order by which we might vote.
Amendment No. 1878 as Modified to Amendment No. 1813
Mr. President, Senator Bennett and I have reviewed this amendment and think it has merit and support it and hope we could vote on this by voice vote and that we might do so immediately. So, Mr. President, if the Senator from Oklahoma is ready, I will suggest that we dispose of this amendment by consent.
It has been cleared by both the Republican side and Democratic side.
Mr. President, as always, the Senator from Oklahoma is thoughtful and courteous, and we appreciate--Senator Bennett and I appreciate--him coming to the floor and offering his amendments.
Let me say to the Senator from Oklahoma, we cut the administration budget in the Department of Energy by $8 million as we brought it to the floor. But even more important than that, we have cut $643 million from the Department of Energy from the President's budget. So as CBO recalculates the President's request to the Congress, we have cut $643 million. And we have cut $8 million in the administration budget in the Department of Energy.
So I sympathize with his notion. I certainly strongly support what he is suggesting to the Department of Energy they should do. I just say to him, we have already made those cuts and far, far more in terms of what the President wanted for the Department of Energy. We are $643 million below the President's request and $8 million below in the administration accounts in the Department of Energy.
Mr. President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
That is correct.
Mr. President, again, I agree that what we ought to be doing is encouraging the Department of Energy--all Departments--to be engaged in energy savings and efficiencies and so on. I will be glad to visit the Senator about cuts. But, as I said, we already made substantial cuts. I think the Senator from Oklahoma knows that the President's request, in the context of the broad range of budget requests for a broad group of Federal agencies, was what he felt he wanted and needed in order to have some sort of transformational energy future.
We are working on a wide range of new and innovative energy approaches: decarbonizing coal, additional production in wind and solar and biomass, additional production offshore in the gulf. We are working on a lot of issues, and some of that requires substantial research and development. So the President had a pretty good appetite for what he felt was needed. We cut that by $643 million.
The reason I am emphasizing that to the Senator is Senator Bennett and I did not just saddle up and say: Well, whatever you want, here it is. We cut it, and we cut it because we felt those cuts were deserved.
I certainly appreciate the Senator from Oklahoma coming to the floor wanting additional cuts. But $643 million is a pretty substantial walk away from what the President had originally requested for that agency.
My hope is that we can include--we will include--certainly I will be the chairman of the conference--we will include very strong and assertive language of the type the Senator is requiring of the Department of Energy. I would insist, as well, that the Department of Energy--all agencies--demonstrate efficiencies and conservation and the kinds of things that can and should be done to address the overusage of energy.
Mr. President, let me just make a comment.
I know the Senator feels strongly about contract reform, and on the two amendments in front of us, the Senator from Oklahoma talked a lot about earmarks. But, of course, he is well aware that his amendment deals with far more than just earmarks. The issue of formula awards to State and local governments which are carried in this legislation, the issue of competitive grants, the contract competition model that the Senator seems to suggest the Senator believes is appropriate for the competition and research and development, many of which are very exotic and interesting and cutting-edge, world-class research projects in the Department of Energy--I do not know that--I guess the people who do know suggest that the contract competition model for some of those kinds of things does not work very well because you are looking at things that go well beyond just who is going to bid the lowest on the kind of research and very high-tech, exotic research we are doing in a wide range of energy fields.
I generally have always supported contract competition. There is nobody who has been tougher on the Department of Defense, for example, on some of these contracts, particularly no-bid contracts to those who are contracting in Iraq. Next Monday will be my 20th hearing on issues like that. I strongly support competition in contracting.
I think this amendment that has been offered is not an amendment that very well fits this bill and addresses, in a very broad-stroke way, some things that should not be addressed that way. So that is the reason I have offered an alternative to it. My hope is that the Senate will agree with the alternative.
I might say, I believe this exact debate was held 2 weeks ago on the Homeland Security bill and has already been resolved by the Senate.
Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is not going to win a debate we are not having.
I agree with most of what the Senator from Oklahoma said. I support contract--but the Senator from Oklahoma himself suggested maybe we should have a different model for the highly exotic research contracts. By the way, they are not just a few. You go to the labs and take a look at the contracts that are going on around the country in very exotic, high-tech research; cutting-edge, world-class research. If, in fact, there should be perhaps a different model for that, it is not in this amendment. That is my point.
I would be happy to sit down with the Senator from Oklahoma to bring an amendment to the floor that does address things in the right way, but to bring an amendment to the floor that has a very broad brush that covers everything when the Senator himself acknowledges that probably something other than that should be done with respect to these kinds of exotic research programs--he didn't respond to the issue of State formula grants and so on--but again, we are not having a debate about the merits of what you aspire to achieve.
I want us to have contracting rules that give the American people the best value for their dollar, that advance this country in the most significant, capable way. We want the same things. But my point is, when one offers an amendment such as this that says, All right, do it all this way, and even--I would say to the Senator from Oklahoma, even the Senator acknowledges there are areas that perhaps shouldn't be handled that way. So let's do it in a way that resolves it in the right way.
I know he is frustrated that we likely won't pass this amendment, but if he is going to bring it up time and time again, the next time or the time after, let's do it in a way that gets closer to that which we believe will address all of these issues the right way for the American taxpayer, and I will be on his side.
Mr. President, without prolonging this debate, let me say to the Senator from Oklahoma there are other ways to get things done as well. I mean, look, some of the most significant contracts that have gone out of this town recently in the last 10 years or so--the LOGCAP contract which provides services by contractors in Iraq--sole-source contract, billions and billions and billions of dollars--most of it went to Halliburton and KBR, by the way; not all of it but the fact is massive amounts of money.
I have held 20 hearings as of Monday on these issues. You know what. Finally, they are bidding all of those contracts. Finally, they are bidding them. When you hold up some of the abuses, you can actually require change, in my judgment. Yesterday the inspector general said those who were providing electrical services to the military bases in Iraq were responsible for the electrocution of soldiers because they were hiring third-country nationals who didn't know how to ground electrical wires, didn't know how to speak English. You know what. Those contracts are now going in other directions. There was a contract to provide water to military bases and the nonpotable water was more contaminated than raw water from the Euphrates River, paid for by our taxpayers to contractors who didn't have the foggiest idea what they were doing and got billions of dollars of contracts they didn't have to bid on.
The fact is this sort of thing is despicable and needs to change. I take no backseat to any Member of the Senate about trying to change these things. I have held 20 hearings on these contract issues in recent years. The Senator from Oklahoma comes and raises important questions, always. I understand that. My point to him was simple: This amendment, in my judgment, doesn't respond to all of the issues the Senator needs to respond to if the Senator is going to do an amendment that does reform contracting. I am very interested in working with him. He is on the right subject, in my judgment, just the wrong amendment.
I wanted to say, there are a lot of ways to change things. Yes, with an amendment here on the floor of the Senate; in committees; and I am sure the Senator from Oklahoma does that as well; pressing Federal agencies. You can get change by putting all of the spotlights on the same spot in a Federal agency to say, How do you justify this? We demand you change.
So there is a lot of good work that goes on by people who care about forcing change, and many of us have done it.
I wanted to say there are a lot of ways to do this and I encourage the Senator from Oklahoma to continue. I want to be a part of constructive change on contracting. I have been in the past and will be in the future.
Mr. President, let me ask if the Senator would agree, if he would withhold--I believe the Senator from Missouri wishes to make a very brief statement and she may be offering an amendment--I don't know that she is going to require a vote on it--and then we could line up--I believe we will have three recorded votes.
If we could turn to the Senator from Missouri at this point and then we could line up three successive votes on the Coburn amendments, two by Senator Coburn and one by myself and Senator Bennett.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
The Senator is not describing my position. I did not suggest carving out earmarks. The Senator has not heard that this afternoon.
You didn't hear that during the debate.
Will the Senator yield again?
The discussion wasn't just about earmarks. Perhaps it included them, but if the Senator is describing an amendment that only requires competition, or competitive bidding on earmarks, that is not the amendment.
Mr. President, the Senator from Missouri is an active, avid, and aggressive fighter for the interests of her State. I understand and recognize that. I would not expect anything else. But I will tell you a story about water and about the Missouri River. The Missouri River was a big old wild tangled river for a long time. It used to flood; it flooded a lot. In the spring, when the floods came from the river, it would devastate parts of my State, and South Dakota, and other States down South, and it would ruin the parks and flood them in St. Louis, MO, and so on. So some people came to North Dakota from the Federal Government and said: We would like to harness that Missouri River. They cannot play softball in the parks in St. Louis because of the flooding, and we would like to get the benefits of flood control. Our deal is this: If you will allow us, in the middle of North Dakota, to put in a flood that will come and stay forever--a big old flood, half a million acres of permanent flood, if you allow us to do that, we will allow you to have some benefits. We understand we are asking to flood your State in order to protect the downstream States. But if you allow us to do that, and if Montana and South Dakota will allow us to do that, we can put in these big old floods in the upstream States; and we understand there is a cost to you to have this flood, so we will let you move water around to benefit your State, and it will be good and you will appreciate it. The folks in my State, believing this was on the level, signed contracts and said that would be OK. They moved the Indians off the bottomland from reservations of the three affiliated tribes, and built the big old dam, and President Dwight Eisenhower came out to dedicate the dam. They backed up the water, and we have the half million acre flood. The Elbow Woods Indian Hospital is now under water, and has been for 50 years. So we have the flood that comes and stays.
The problem with the way the river is managed, after they built six mainstream dams, in order to harness the Missouri River, the way they manage it today is the way they planned to do it 60 years ago. They said we have a vision. We will be able to navigate the river down South with barges, and we will haul material on barges. What a great thing. Think of the value of having barge navigation on the downstream reaches of the Missouri River. Do you know what. There are days when--and I can get you reports--there is only one miserable boat floating in the downstream reaches of the Missouri. Yet we are furiously releasing water from the upstream dams to support one little old barge. By the way, that barge is hauling mostly sand and gravel, which is something of relatively low value. So we have this big fight about how the river should be managed.
In the old days, they predicted a lot of commercial value of barge traffic. But, in fact, that is not the case. The upstream value of recreation, tourism, and fishing is now almost 10 times the value of the downstream value of barge traffic. Yet the river is still managed for the minnow and not the whale, which is typical of the Corps of Engineers: Never change. Resist change. Never change, no matter what.
So they did an evaluation of the river, and all of the States, except Missouri--which was an outlier, and they wouldn't agree to anything-- they did an evaluation, and finally a study was developed. That study had a lot more to do with the Endangered Species Act and managing those issues than for determining whether we are making the best use of the river system in our current management scheme.
The answer is that the current management scheme makes no sense at all. We are releasing the water in the middle of a drought, which we did, by the way. It is a river system that has a capacity of around a 55 million to 58 million acre-feet of water. It was down to, I think, 35 million acre-feet of water, and we were releasing water to float one boat. That is unbelievable to me.
Last year, I included funding for a study that will study the management of this river, what is appropriate and should be done, with some semblance of common sense here. I know people objected to doing that because the answer may well be an answer that moves away from what I have called a ``one State hog rule,'' meaning give us all you have when we need it, and keep it all when we don't want it. It is an interesting way to manage the river, but that is the way some States on the Missouri have suggested it be managed.
It is not fair to us. We are waiting, 60 years later, for all of the benefits promised us if we would allow a permanent flood to stay forever in the middle of our State. Our ancestors did that. They said we will sign up for that, but we got all of the costs and have not yet received the benefits.
With respect to the management of the Missouri River system, it is long past time that the river be managed with the recognition of its current use. When we are still releasing water for one little barge, on 1 day, on the lower reaches of the Missouri, somebody ought to have their head examined. We cannot examine their head, but we can examine the master manual. That is what we are going to do with this study.
I have so much more to say, but let me resist and defer.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m.
today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the following amendments in the following order, with no amendments in order to any of the amendments covered in this agreement, with the time until then equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that after the first vote, the succeeding votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each: Coburn amendment No. 1879, Dorgan amendment No. 1895--that is Dorgan-Bennett--and Coburn amendment No. 1884. Those three amendments are again No. 1879, No. 1895, and No. 1884.
Mr. President, Senator Bennett and I have discussed--and I have also visited with the majority leader within the last hour--my hope that we will be able to go to third reading, with the consent of Senator Bennett and the majority leader, following these votes and following a period in which we would gather together whatever remains. There are a few amendments that remain that we can clear. We have waited all day, and we waited all day yesterday. Senators have had plenty of opportunity, plenty of time, and their staffs have had plenty of notice, to come and offer amendments.
For the next hour, we will be here. We will have the vote at 5:15 p.m., and following that vote, it is my intention that we finish this bill very shortly following that vote by going to third reading. We don't want to preclude opportunities for people to offer amendments, but no one can hardly come to the Senate floor with a straight face and suggest they have been precluded from anything, given the fact that Senator Bennett and I have been sitting here patiently for well over the past 2 days.
Again, with the cooperation of our colleagues and with the hard work of our staff and our colleagues, I think we can finish this bill this evening.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask that the time during which we are in the quorum call be equally divided between both sides.
I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. President, my understanding is, under the unanimous
consent agreement, the next vote is on amendment No. 1895.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, under the previous unanimous consent agreement, amendment No. 1884 is next to be voted on.
I ask for the yeas and nays.
