Floor Statements

Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the motion to proceed to the energy renewables package.

What is the status of the floor?

For how long?

I am going to use leader time now, and I ask unanimous consent that the Democrats' 4 minutes be preserved.

Mr. President, we over here, the mighty band of Democrats, with the majority of 1--there are 51 of us and 49 of them--trying so hard to do something on energy. We have been trying for months now. I think we have done some things that would be good for the American people but for the fact that the Republicans have basically objected to everything we have tried to do.

What have we tried to do? We introduced S. 3044, called the Consumer- First Energy Act. It has some tremendously powerful things in it that relate to what the American people's problem is today: high gas prices.

In that legislation, we talk about price gouging. Do we have any reason to have in a provision of law an element that we can go after companies that price gouge? Of course. The oil companies, during the Bush years, have had net profits of $609 billion. So our price-gouging provision was, we thought, very key in doing something about energy.

In S. 3044, we had something dealing with the oil subsidies the oil companies have received, that perhaps they should be cut back. They are making these huge profits. In this bill, we had a provision that was bipartisan and has been pushed by Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and Senator Specter of Pennsylvania--NOPEC is what it was called. It was a proposal to have the OPEC cartel be subject to the Sherman Antitrust Act. That seems reasonable, since these countries have the absolute ability to so easily lock in prices and determine what prices are going to be charged around the world. Senators Kohl and Specter thought this was good legislation, and so did we. That is why we put it in our legislation.

We also had a provision in our legislation dealing with speculation. I will talk about that later. We not only had it in S. 3044, we had freestanding legislation dealing with speculation.

We also had in S. 3044 something dealing with a windfall profits tax, which should be part of the law of our country today. The American consumer agrees with that.

Mr. President, Senator Bingaman also prepared legislation, which has now been filed at the desk. It is very good legislation. We were asking for help from the Republicans and got none. Senator Bingaman is one of the most astute, hard-working, creative, and smartest Senators we have ever had in this body. In that legislation, S. 5135, we had some really good things. It wasn't ``take it or leave it'' legislation. With the 68 million acres the oil companies have, it called for due diligence. It said: With the 68 million acres you have, let's find out what you are doing with it, why you are not drilling in some parts of it, and report to the Interior Department and find out what is going on with that land. It is typical of Senator Bingaman because it was well thought out. Rather than the provision that some were talking about--use it or lose it--Senator Bingaman believed that was appropriate, and that is why he went through the trouble of coming up with this legislation.

He also had something in the bill that would be important which deals with building codes, making it so that in the future, when things are built, when construction takes place, it deals with the environment. There is so much that can be done to save huge amounts of electricity if we had buildings built properly.

We also had a provision on which the Senator from Minnesota spoke so eloquently which said that we want you to take the great resource we have--the more than 700 million barrels of oil we have in our Strategic Petroleum Reserve--and we want you to announce to the world that we are going to start using some of that. We are going to start using that to bring down the price of oil. We know it works. We know it works because the President's father did it, and it brought down the price of oil. We have asked that this be done on other occasions, but we put it in this legislation Senator Bingaman came up with.

The airlines tell us it is important to bring down the prices. The airline companies need to have oil, for these companies to be able to succeed, at about $100 a barrel. That is high, but they could succeed with that. Anything over that is a tremendous losing proposition for them. This would bring the price of oil down to at or near that price. But we got no suggestions from the Republicans that they cared about this.

Also, I thought what Senator Bingaman did was very important. He said there is about 25 million acres of land that is available now to be leased for oil exploration. All the administration has to do is tell the Interior Department to issue leases on it. It has already been determined that it has tremendous oil potential. Much of it is on- and offshore in Alaska. It would add another 25 million acres to the 68 million acres the oil companies already have.

There were other provisions in the Bingaman bill--good pieces of legislation. Again, we had no takers on that from the Republicans.

Today, we voted on H.R. 6049, and, of course, that was defeated because of another cloture motion that was necessary to be filed because of a Republican filibuster. The same with the Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act, S. 3186, LIHEAP. It was filibustered, and we weren't able to proceed to that. That is really unusually harsh. I have heard the Senator from Vermont talk about that on numerous occasions. I told him that more people die from exposure in the summer than in the winter because they become dehydrated. We need to have the ability for the old, disabled, and poor to have air-conditioning. In the winter, of course, they need heat. But this was rejected by the Republicans.

We asked--because it was certainly bipartisan every step of the way, the NOPEC bill, the Specter-Kohl bill--that we move to that alone. That was S. 879. It was rejected. Again, the Republicans refused to let us do that.

We had the Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act, which we have dealt with for several weeks now. I spoke the night before last to the President of United Airlines. He said he has no question in his mind that one reason the oil prices have gone down by the barrel in recent days is because we are debating and talking about speculation. This would work. The Republicans have been listening to the monied interests of this country and have refused to allow us to do this.

Then, of course, today, we had the issue of the so-called extenders bill on which Senator Baucus worked so hard. It was rejected. It had many good provisions in it. He worked hard to try to get bipartisan support. There was disaster relief in it. There was finally something in there that we could pass to do the mental health parity, which is so long overdue. We had a provision to reestablish money that has been taken out of the highway trust fund, which is so important--to reestablish that. People are losing their jobs.

The most significant thing, from my perspective, in that legislation--even though there was much more--was that it would do something now, today, about taking care of the energy crisis in this country. It is not Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, talking; it is T. Boone Pickens--from a different political party and persuasion than Al Gore--saying we have to move to renewables. That is what this legislation is all about, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs,

construction jobs and other jobs, that lessen our dependence on foreign oil. As T. Boone Pickens said, ``You can't drill your way out of this crisis.'' We were blocked on that.

Mr. President, in the newspapers all over America and in other parts of the world, Thomas Friedman's column is running today. He is a person who has won all kinds of prizes around the world for his writing. He has had three bestselling books. For weeks, his books have been No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list. He writes with great preciseness, and he is right to the point. Here is what he said today:

Republicans have become so obsessed with the notion that we

can drill our way out of our current energy crisis that

reopening our coastal waters to offshore drilling has become

their answer for every energy question.

Anyone who looks at the growth of middle classes around the

world and their rising demands for natural resources, plus

the dangers of climate change driven by our addiction to

fossil fuels, can see the clean renewable energy--wind,

solar, nuclear and stuff we haven't yet invented--is going to

be the next great global industry. It has to be if we are

going to grow in a stable way.

Therefore, the country that most owns the clean power

industry is going to most own the next great technology

breakthrough--the E.T. revolution, the energy technology

revolution--and create millions of jobs and thousands of new

businesses, just like the I.T. revolution did.

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th-century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing we should be putting all our

money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

Mr. President, earlier this week, on Monday, I offered the Republicans, on the speculation bill, four amendments, and we would have a like number. That was rejected out of hand--offer made and they rejected it.

Yesterday, right after the Senate opened, Senator McConnell said to me: How about six amendments?

I said: I am happy to discuss amendments, but I am through discussing amendments unless we pass the extenders bill.

That was clear language. I said it directly, and I meant it. I am speaking for 50 other Democratic Senators. I am speaking for my caucus.

So Senator McConnell said: Well, fine, we will have Senator Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Grassley, the ranking member, work on this.

I said that Senator Baucus said Senator Grassley has no authority to do anything.

He said: Yes, he does. I will instruct him that he has all the authority in the world.

They met for 2 hours last night. The only thing Senator Grassley wanted to discuss was having all of these extenders not paid for. So we are right back where we started. So that is gone. That was turned down overwhelmingly. The Republicans didn't support the extenders. So that is where we are.

My caucus demands that we focus on something to really make a difference: renewables, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs-- Friedman said millions; I am saying hundreds of thousands within the next few months. It will make a cleaner environment, and it will be good for the economy.

Mr. President, that is where it is. That is where it is.

Again, as Thomas Friedman wrote:

Republicans, by mindlessly repeating their offshore-

drilling mantra, focusing on a 19th century fuel, remind me

of someone back in 1980 arguing that we should be putting all

our money into making more and cheaper IBM Selectric

typewriters--and forget about these things called the ``PC''

and ``the Internet.'' It is a strategy for making America a

second-rate power and economy.

Yes.

All Democrats supported it, a handful of Republicans, mostly those who are in very difficult Senate races, I might add, for reelection.

The Senator is absolutely right, absolutely right. I can't express how the Republican Party, as I have always known it--when I went into politics, I had the idea that the Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility. That has long since gone. We are going to have a deficit this year of about a half trillion dollars, and that isn't a fair view of it because they are using the Social Security trust fund to offset and make the deficit look even smaller.

But I also will say this: Big oil during the Bush years has made a $609 billion profit--$609 billion. The Republicans side with big oil every step of the way. They have done it in all this energy legislation. They are beholden to big oil. Everyone knows that. I think it is time we start talking about something that will help; that is, we need to move to have energy created by the Sun, wind, geothermal, and we need to do it as quickly as possible.

That is where we are. I have said on a number of occasions--I said it earlier today--there was a lot of activity on the Senate floor-- understand, Mr. President, where we are. Because the Republicans have blocked everything--they have blocked energy for old people, sick people, disabled people; they have blocked everything we have tried to do here--we have a decision. They can make the decision. We have been fortunate enough to finish the Higher Education Act. We have been fortunate to finish consumer product safety. Both conference reports are finished. We can do those in the next couple of days. We can move to the Defense authorization bill. It is up to the Republicans what they want to do. But if they want to be here during August, more power to them because we will be here with them. We all have things to do, longstanding obligations during August, but those can be changed. If people want to debate during August the Defense Authorization Act, that is fine. They can go out and hold their press conferences that they would rather be doing something on drilling, drilling, drilling. They can continue to do that, or we can come back in September--there is going to be a bipartisan summit on energy prices, and maybe by the August recess, maybe some of my friends will be more willing to do some actual compromise.

Legislation is the art of compromise. If the art of compromise is not present, we cannot get the business done. There simply has been no compromise from my friends. That is why we have faced almost 90 filibusters.

Madam President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 2035.

Madam President, I made this unanimous consent before and it was objected to.

I move to proceed to Calendar No. 732. S. 3001, the DOD authorization bill--that is the Defense Department authorization bill--and I send a cloture motion to the desk.

cloture motion

Madam President, I ask that the mandatory quorum be waived.

Madam President, I appreciate my friend from Iowa allowing me to do this. He has been waiting for some time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 12 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Planning for Post-Catastrophe Housing Needs: Has FEMA Developed an Effective Strategy for Housing Large Numbers of Citizens Displaced by Disaster?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 3:15 p.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to hold a hearing entitled ``Hearing on the Nomination of Thomas J. Madison, Jr. to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration for the Department of Transportation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, conduct a hearing entitled ``Politicizing Hiring at the Department of Justice'' on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10, in room SD- 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``S.1. Res. 45, A Resolution Consenting To and Approving the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact'' on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 1 p.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, beginning at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on July 30, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on National Parks be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Byron Hurlbut, Matt Padilla, and Michele Mazzocco of Senator Bingaman's office be granted privileges of the floor for today.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 2035, which is the media shield bill.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, there will be an hour for debate equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or their designees. Senators should be prepared for two rollcall votes to begin around 4 p.m. The first vote will be a live quorum and the second vote will be on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 3297, a bill to advance America's priorities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate considers S. 3268, the bill be considered in the following manner: there be 3 hours of general debate on the bill, equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that the only first- degree amendments in order be those listed in this agreement and that second-degree amendments which are relevant to the first degree to which offered be in order; provided further that if the managers and leaders acting jointly determine that a side-by-side amendment strategy is the appropriate manner to address the amendments in order, then in lieu of a second degree a side-by-side amendment would be in order, with the majority side getting the first vote if that were the case; that debate time on any amendment, first or second degree, in this agreement be limited to 2 hours equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that each amendment, first and second-degree, be subject to an affirmative 60-vote threshold; that if it achieves that threshold, then it be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, but if it does not achieve the affirmative 60 votes, then the amendment be withdrawn; the Republican amendments would be offshore drilling, an oil shale amendment, nuclear energy, and then there is a package of--I think there are 42 cosponsors in a package they have relating to energy; the Democratic amendments: We would have four amendments on the subject of energy; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, before the distinguished Republican leader decides what to do on this, basically this is on the energy package to set this up where there would be, as indicated here, four amendments on each side. Ours could either be second degrees or, if we wanted a side by side, we could do that. There would be, as has been the standard around here on issues such as this, a 60-vote threshold. This would take care of issues that we understand are important to the minority: offshore drilling, oil shale exploration, nuclear energy, and the omnibus package that they put together.

Mr. President, I withdraw the consent request and will renew it at a later time.

Mr. President, the other consent I was going to ask is consent that S. 3268--that is the Energy bill that is before us now, the speculation bill--remain the pending business, notwithstanding the adoption of a motion to proceed to a nonprivileged item; namely, it would be the Coburn package. The reason that is important is, if we do that now--we have a vote at 4 o'clock or 4:20, whatever the case might be--I wanted to make sure that one of the arguments used against that going forward, which is that energy would not remain as the pending business, that this agreement would take care of that. So if people want to object to proceeding on the matter we now have before us, that we are going to be voting on in a short period of time, if they want to use the excuse it is going to take us off energy, this consent agreement would not do that.

I say to my friend, this does not take us off energy. But anyway, the objection has been heard. So I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, there is a woman who lives in Sparks, NV. Her name is Kathie Barrett. She is married and has two children. Sparks is a suburb of Reno, NV. When you are there, you cannot tell whether you are in Sparks or Reno. The demarcation between the two over the years has become insignificant. You cannot tell most of the time whether you are in Reno or Sparks.

Kathie, after taking several years off to raise her children, went back to work as a librarian's assistant. Six years ago, Kathie was diagnosed with ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. Of course, she was declared unable to continue to work.

Her breathing capacity is extremely limited and getting worse every day, but in spite of tremendous muscle loss and coordination in her neck and back, she and her husband Martin traveled to Washington, DC, from Sparks to ask Congress to pass the ALS Registry Act.

She is one of 5,600 Americans who are newly diagnosed every year with this fatal disease, Lou Gehrig's disease. There is no cure for the disease, and the one FDA-approved drug works for only 20 percent of the patients, and even then it merely extends life for a few months.

Lou Gehrig's disease has proven particularly hard for scientists and doctors to research, much less cure. One reason is that there is a problem: There is no centralized place where the data on this disease is collected. Researchers have only a patchwork of information to work with.

I introduced the ALS Registry Act last year to create a database at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to centralize research and information on Lou Gehrig's disease. This legislation would not guarantee a cure for Kathie and thousands of other Americans who suffer, but for the first time it would give them hope for new treatment and the prospect of a cure.

I was happy to see the House of Representatives embrace my legislation by an overwhelming vote of 411 to 3--411 to 3. When the ALS Registry Act reached the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee here in the Senate, it passed unanimously. It seemed at the time this worthy initiative was headed toward swift passage. Yet one Republican Senator prevented it from passing. Kathie Barrett continues to wait for Congress to act. Tens of thousands of others continue to suffer, as doctors and scientists are unable to gather and access the information that could help them.

The same Republican Senator who continued to hold up passage of the ALS Registry Act has, unfortunately, done the same for dozens of other worthy and overwhelmingly bipartisan bills. A few of these bills include, in this package alone, the Emmitt Till Unsolved Crimes bill. Emmitt Till's brother was here testifying about the importance of this legislation within the past week or so. This bill would help heal old wounds and provide the Department of Justice and the FBI tools needed to effectively investigate and prosecute unsolved civil rights era murders, and there are lots of them.

Another one of the bills is the runaway and homeless youth bill, which would provide grants for health care, education, and workforce programs, and housing programs for runaways and homeless youth, which is essential. We need that passed.

Another one of the bills is the combating child exploitation bill, which would provide grants to train law enforcement to use technology to track individuals who trade in child pornography and establish an Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force.

Another one of the bills is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which would enhance cooperation in research, rehabilitation, and quality of life for people who suffer from paralysis.

We tried to pass each of these bills separately, but we have had to face approximately 90 filibusters in the last 18 months. Each one of these filibusters takes about--if you put them together, it takes over a week. So we have been unable to do these one at a time.

Our efforts to pass these bills separately have been stalled by the objection of one Senator. All Senators should refuse to let that senseless objection be the last word on these important measures.

We have packaged these and other bills in the Advancing America's Priorities Act, to give the Senate the chance to overcome this senseless obstructing of our Nation's business.

Not a single one of the 35 bills in this package that has been packaged into one are partisan, nor are they controversial.

These bills have been passed by the House of Representatives overwhelmingly and their respective Senate committees with overwhelming support from Democrats and from Republicans.

The prime Republican obstructor to these bills asserts that he opposes them because they cost too much. That argument reflects an intentional mischaracterization of the legislative process. This is an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. For those uninitiated in the ways of Congress, an authorization bill does not create 1 penny of spending. The Senator preventing this legislation from passing knows this, but he continues this facade. Spending decisions are made through an entirely separate budget and appropriations process. The appropriations process is when our limited Federal resources are divided. If Republicans or this Senator want to argue against any of these programs during the appropriations process, they have every right to do that.

In fact, the appropriations process affords them three separate opportunities: in the subcommittee, the full committee, and the Senate floor.

All these authorization bills do is move these initiatives forward in the legislative process. It allows them to be considered for the appropriations process. If we do not authorize them now, they will not be eligible for consideration during the appropriations process. Voting against them now would deny Congress the opportunity to fund any of them.

So do I hope that most, if not all, of these initiatives will be funded during the appropriations process? Absolutely.

I no longer am a member of the Appropriations Committee. I had been for 25 years or so, but I am not now because of my other responsibilities. So I hope they are all funded, but that is a different arm. I don't make that decision.

Congress must always be watchful and prudent with the taxpayers' dollars, and the person objecting to these is no more prudent than any of the other 99 Senators regarding the taxpayers' dollar.

I am as alarmed as anyone that President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress have allowed the national debt to increase by over $3 trillion over the last 7\1/2\ years. I am as alarmed as anyone that we continue to spend $5,000 a second in Iraq, funding a $12 billion war every month with borrowed money, putting it on credit--a big credit card--and sending the bill to our children and our grandchildren. I am as alarmed as anyone to hear this morning that there will be a record budget deficit in 2009 of about half a trillion dollars. The fiscal irresponsibility of this administration will be President Bush's legacy.

However, this package of bills, including the ALS registry I have talked about, helping runaways and homeless children, providing the Justice Department with tools to fight unresolved crimes, and cracking down on child pornography--these are all priorities, and priorities of all of us, Democrats and Republicans. We should all embrace these priorities. They will not add a single penny to the Bush budget deficit.

You don't have to take my word for it. The independent Congressional Budget Office, which is not partisan, has reviewed the Advancing America's Priorities Act and reports this:

Those authorizations do not cause changes in Federal

spending or revenues.

I ask unanimous consent that the statement--in fact, it is a letter from the Congressional Budget Office, signed by Peter Orszag, who is the Director, copies of which were sent to two members of the committee, one to Chairman Conrad and one to Judd Gregg. I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this is an indisputable fact. Any efforts to portray this legislation as a spending bill--much less a reckless spending bill--are indisputably false.

We have been down this road before. Earlier this year, the same Republican Senator who is the leading obstructor of these bills did the same thing for a package of lands bills. We acted in good faith and negotiated a set of amendments with him so that his concerns would receive full and fair consideration on the Senate floor. Those familiar with our negotiations would surely agree that we offered him a far more generous arrangement for amendments than many Democrats or Republicans would have thought his objections merited. But after spending considerable time negotiating in good faith, it became clear this Senator was not serious about reaching an agreement. Then, like now, we tried to pass the more than 60 initiatives in the lands package as stand-alone legislation. Those efforts were obstructed by the Republican side. After months of delay, we finally voted on the lands package. This package passed the Senate by a vote of 91 to 4. Every one of them is now law. The American people are benefiting from each one of them.

Some Republican Senators take another approach to explain their obstruction to this legislation. They say it is an effort to preserve minority rights.

Democrats have been more than willing to open debate on amendments, even on legislation such as this where we are baffled by Republican opposition. If the Republican Senator or Senators who are blocking this legislation are serious about having concerns heard on the floor, they should offer an opportunity to do that--they are certainly entitled to it--but it is clear that the ultimate goal is to make political points at the expense of millions of Americans who would be assisted by these very important pieces of legislation. Republican Senators have acted within their rights to block and delay action, but simply being within their rights does not make it right.

Some Republicans make one final spurious argument for opposing this legislation: that it takes us off the energy legislation.

As we learned a few minutes ago, I offered unanimous consent that we would stay on the Energy bill and that this would not set it aside. If we worked on this, we would be right back on Energy. Democrats have tried again and again to legislate on energy prices. We have introduced proposals that would lower gas prices in the short term while addressing the root cause of the problem in the long term. We have even offered Republicans exactly what they claim to want: votes on drilling, oil shale, nuclear energy, and their entire package.

In Congressional Daily today, this appeared on the back page. It says:

Cheaper, faster, safer options exist to solve the oil

crisis. Don't buy Big Oil's lie.

Then it has a picture of a big oil rig out in the middle of the ocean. It says:

Drilling for oil in America's precious natural areas will

NOT lower gas prices. But Big Oil's profits will skyrocket

even higher.

The U.S. Department of Energy's truth: The Energy

Information Administration says offshore or Arctic Refuge oil

won't flow for ten years and prices won't be affected until

at least 2027.

This is from President's Bush's Department of Energy.

The impact on price? ``Insignificant.''

The U.S. Department of the Interior's truth: The number of

drilling permits on federal lands doubled in the last five

years while the price of gas almost tripled. More drilling

does not lower prices.

The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources's truth: Oil

and gas companies hold leases to millions of acres of Federal

land and waters. These leases are producing no oil.

Legendary oil man T. Boone Pickens's truth--

And this is a direct quote--

I've been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency

we can't drill our way out of.

He said that about a month ago.

The plain truth: While the American public struggles to pay

record-breaking gas prices, big oil companies rake in record-

breaking profits.

The U.S. holds 2 percent of all the oil reserves, but

consumes 25 percent of the world's oil. We can't drill our

way to energy independence. Energy efficiency, renewables,

and technological advances are the cheaper, faster, safer way

to meet America's energy needs, while reducing the threat of

global warming.

Tell them you don't buy Big Oil's lie and they shouldn't

either.

This has been paid for by a number of organizations. Some are strictly environmental. Some of them are concerned about other things. Ocean Conservancy helped pay for this. League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Pacific

Environment, Waterkeeper Alliance, Gulf Coast Environmental Defense, Ocean Protection Coalition.

So we have even offered the Republicans exactly what they claim to want--votes on drilling, oil shale, and nuclear power--and they have said no to this point. Hopefully, they will say yes. They have said no. So if the American people are wondering why Congress has not passed legislation on gas prices, it is because Republicans refuse to take yes for an answer.

Democrats will continue to propose ideas to address the energy crisis. Unlike our Republican colleagues, we are offering solutions. Democrats await the day that Republicans tire of endlessly talking about the energy crisis and decide it is time to join us in actually getting something done. Any Republican effort to confuse the debate on this package of bills with the debate over energy is disingenuous.

So I hope we will see this unfortunate obstruction end the way the lands package ended in April: After a delay and Republican political gamesmanship and unnecessary headaches, the legislation passed 91 to 4.

Everyone should understand our legislative days are very limited. Last week, the Republicans killed for the year LIHEAP legislation. I don't know what we are going to do to help those senior citizens, disabled, and low-income people come these cold winter months. We also have these 34 bills packaged together today that we will not be able to pass. We will have to wait until we get a new Congress and a new President. It would be wrong and unconscionable to defer the hope of many people--the hope of Kathie Barrett from Sparks, NV, and all of those who suffer from Lou Gehrig's disease--any longer. For them--for the victims of unresolved civil rights-era crimes, for homeless children, for victims of child pornography, and for the 30 other meritorious bills sponsored by Democrats and Republicans--it is time to put aside the delay, put aside the politics, put aside the obstruction, and pass the Advancing America's Priorities Act into law.

I say again, those Senators who walk down here and vote no on these proposals, they are going to have to answer to their constituents, to voters. How do you justify voting against these measures?

Mr. President, when the bill is laid down, would the Chair announce how much time there is for Senator McConnell and me to divide?

So we each have approximately 15 minutes?

I designate that Senator Durbin take 7\1/2\ minutes and Senator Boxer take 7\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Boxer, we go to Senator Coburn and then to Senator Durbin.

I don't understand that. We don't have that much time.

That is fine with me, Mr. President.

Mr. President, I have offered a consent request to keep the Energy bill pending regardless if the Senate adopted a motion to proceed to S. 3297, the so-called Coburn package. I made this request so the speculation bill would not be displaced by the Senate acting on S. 3297, the Energy bill.

To clarify for those listening, an objection was raised to my request to keep the Energy bill as the pending business. Anyone voting against this because of not being able to stay on Energy is mistaken or--well, I won't use the word. That is good enough.

cloture motion

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent if my friends on the other side would waive the live quorum so we could save the Senate 20 minutes of time.

You mean you don't want to. So let's go at it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move that the Sergeant at Arms be directed to request the attendance of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I will use leader time.

The next matter is the Coburn package. It does not cost a penny. It is all authorization, dealing with some of the most sensitive issues in this country; for example, the Lou Gehrig's disease. It establishes a registry. Scientists say we cannot make any progress on that dread disease until a registry is established so scientists can take a look at what is going on in Oregon, Florida, Connecticut, and have a registry to go to work on this. That is only one.

It deals with child pornography. It deals with paralysis. It deals with strokes. This is an important piece of legislation. I say to all my friends on the other side of the aisle, I have offered a consent agreement that this will not take us off oil, off energy. That was objected to this morning.

You cannot vote against this legislation because it would take us off energy. You cannot vote against it because it will run up the debt because that is simply untrue.

I hope people will vote for this package. I say to everyone over here, this is it. Everyone knows how little time we have left to accomplish everything we need to do. You can all go home and explain to your constituents, if you vote against this legislation, how you refused to move forward on some of the most sensitive issues that are in our legislative portfolio in Congress today. We will not be able to take these matters up at a later time, and we will have to wait until a new Congress. In the meantime there will be much suffering and mental distress as a result of not moving forward on these matters.

Mr. President, as I said earlier, folks, there will not be another time. This is it.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3268

I ask unanimous consent that S. 3268, the speculation energy bill, that they all want to stay on, remain the pending business notwithstanding the adoption of the motion to proceed to a nonprivileged item, namely the Coburn package.

How much more clear could we be?

We would be off this as long as it would take to adopt the motion to proceed, which would take 15 minutes for the vote. Then we could move immediately to the bill. We could do that immediately. We could finish it quickly. The only effort that my friend, the distinguished junior Senator from Oklahoma, wants is to throw a monkey wrench into proceedings around here. That is what this is all about.

I do not know why people on the other side of the aisle would join in this. You go home and explain to your constituents about Lou Gehrig's disease. You go home and explain about the stroke legislation. You go home and explain to your folks about the Emmitt Till legislation. You go home and explain to everyone there about the paralysis bill.

Next time you see someone in a wheelchair at home, explain to them how you voted against moving forward on something that may get them out of that wheelchair.

With all due respect to my doctor friend from Oklahoma, his math is not very good. The 30 hours, if he would want to take the 30 hours, which appears to be a little outlandish--but that would not be the first go-round we have had with outlandish stuff around here--that would run out sometime tomorrow. The cloture vote would be sometime on Thursday.

No one says we have to leave on Friday. No one says we have to leave until we complete our work. So I would say to my friends, do not take the bait.

First of all, we would be on energy. The Senator from Oklahoma can stall this out, and we know he is entitled to 30 hours after today and 30 hours when we invoke cloture on the bill itself because cloture would be invoked on it if people had a right to vote on that.

But do not take that bait. I say to everyone here, you go home and explain to someone, like I did, like I am going to have to do--Cathy Barrett from Sparks, NV, has Lou Gehrig's disease. She is going to die. The average time from finding out you have the disease until you die is 18 months. Go home and explain to her and her family. And there are 6,000 new cases every year. Lou Gehrig's disease, that is what it is all about.

As I said before, you go and see someone in a wheelchair, and you tell them: I had the chance to do something about that, but I decided we would wait until next year. A year is not so important. You are only in a wheelchair for a limited period of time--perhaps your life.

I think you should also go home and explain to every parent who is concerned about Internet pornography--people who thrive on doing things on the Internet to be in the position to abuse children, that is in this bill too.

I think we should be concerned about an issue that every time you go home--and most everyplace in America has an African-American community. You see someone in that African-American community, you tell them: I did not vote for the Emmitt Till legislation. It was not important enough because I had other things I wanted to do.

So every time you go back to your constituents, African-American constituents, wherever it may be in this country, you tell them: I wanted to get out of Washington; I did not have time to do that.

Mr. President, I hope the Record does not show a grin on my face because there is not one. But I think the statement just made by the Republican leader: I could have gone to this earlier had I wanted to--we have had 90 filibusters, breaking all previous records, breaking all previous records of a Congress from the time we were a country until today. I could have moved to it earlier?

For the last 18 months since we have been in the majority, which I know has caused the Republicans to be in a snit, we have had to file cloture on virtually everything to work around procedural hurdles. So this is all part of the game. And I am disappointed that my Republican colleagues are buying the line of big oil.

We have offered, on many occasions, a vote on their drilling amendment. We did it again earlier today. I hope we can work something out on it. But please do not use that as an excuse to vote against these packages.

I say, and I repeat again, for the 34 different reasons--the 34 different bills in this package being held up for no good reason--it does not affect the debt at all. We have in the Record a letter from the head of the Congressional Budget Office that says it has no bearing on the deficit.

I would hope that because of our African-American communities, people who have Lou Gehrig's disease, people who are paralyzed, people who are concerned about pornography, you will vote for this.

Now, my friend casually says: Well, the Democratic leader will move to this some other time.

There are very few other times left in this Congress. We are going to get out of here in the next week or 10 days, I hope. We then come back in September where we have a few--literally, a few days. There is very little time. So as it happened with LIHEAP, you folks walked right off the cliff last week. You are going to have to go home and explain to the poor, the disabled, and the old people why you voted against LIHEAP because I do not know when we are going to be able to move to it again. I would like to, but I do not know when we can do that again.

I ask for a vote now.

Every Senator, all 100 of us, are experienced politicians. And for the Republican leader to say there is no price to be paid for what they have been doing: not allowing LIHEAP to go forward, and now, in effect, killing 34 different bills that should have passed like that you do not think there is a price to be paid for it come November 4? The American people will decide that.

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 apologize to everyone for the quorum lasting for so long, but there are certain things I have trouble getting to. Sometimes I need a little downtime to meet with staff, and there are a number of times I don't have an opportunity to do that, and meet with a number of Senators. So I apologize to everyone for not allowing the quorum to be called off. I do that very rarely, but I thought it was appropriate today.

I have a number of things I want to do and I will do that now.

Mr. President, I withdraw the motion to proceed to S. 3297.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 434, S. 2035, the Free Flow of Information Act--this is the media shield bill-- and I send a cloture motion to the desk. In fact, it is at the desk.

cloture motion

Mr. President, I now withdraw the motion to proceed.

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

cloture motion

Mr. President, the junior Senator from Oklahoma has a matter he wishes to bring before the Senate.

Mr. President, what we have here is one of the most blatant attempts to get a cover for a vote the Republicans can't justify. The Republicans just voted against the bill that had these child pornography and child exploitation provisions in it. A few minutes ago, we had a cloture vote on the motion to begin debate on that bill. The Republicans overwhelmingly voted against it. We got three Republicans to vote for it, each of those running for reelection.

Because they feel bad about siding with big oil over important American priorities, they now want to have it both ways. Here is who they voted against: They voted against Americans with Lou Gehrig disease, they voted against American mothers who suffer from postpartum depression, they voted against justice for people murdered during the civil rights struggle, they voted against expanding programs to keep kids off drugs, they voted against Americans who want to be sure kids are safe when they visit America's beaches and swim in the oceans, and a bill including numerous other important provisions--dealing with strokes, with paralysis. If a Member of my party, a Member of my caucus forced me to vote against so many important priorities based on specious and misleading arguments, I would want a way out too.

So what we have here is a consent agreement, a consent request, I should say, that is about providing cover, not about trying to enact this legislation. To bring up Senator Biden's name is, at the very least, unfair, disingenuous. Senator Coburn didn't even bother to talk to the offices whose bills are cobbled together in his unanimous consent request. And in fact he didn't even bother to attend a hearing on this issue the Judiciary Committee held in April.

And because this is about cover and not trying to enact legislation, the bills in this unanimous consent request are not identical to the provisions in the bill they voted against.

So keep in mind what my friend from Oklahoma has tried to do. First, he got his Republican Senators to walk over the cliff, and they are already down there fumbling around trying to find some way to breathe, because it is the water down there, and deep. Now he is saying this package of 34 bills we have--he is taking parts of that out and changing those, not accepting what is in the bill.

Yes, I object, Mr. President.

When we complied with the provisions in S. 3297, we cleared the language with the House. We wanted to be sure that once we passed that bill, the Coburn package, the House would pass a bill instantaneously. But this unanimous consent uses different language, as I have explained to the Chair and those within the sound of my voice.

It is ironic. Last week, my friend from Oklahoma held a press conference railing against passing bills that no one has seen or had a chance to vet. This is what he is trying to do now--what he held a press conference against last week. So I must object, as I have done, to this consent request.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3297

I do, however, offer a unanimous consent request that, if accepted, I know would lead to enactment of this important legislation. Not only that, it would deal with child pornography, and it would deal with 33 other issues, all of which are extremely vital and important.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to S. 3297, the Advancing America's Priorities Act; that the bill be considered read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I again say that Republicans should be grateful, because we certainly agree, but they should all be very grateful that Senator Kennedy got out of his sickbed, flew down here against doctors' instructions, came onto the Senate floor against doctors' instructions--because his immune system is very low and he shouldn't have been here--to save Medicare, and a number of Republicans, because they were at the cliff on that one also. But for Senator Kennedy, they would have voted against that and destroyed Medicare.

So Republicans refused to allow us to debate and vote on speculation, on----

Mr. President, the Senator was recognized to offer a unanimous consent request. I objected to that and I have the floor.

I apologize to the Chair and to Senator Coburn.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we are at the same place we were just a few minutes ago. This, of course, is not a genuine effort to resolve the issues. This is a genuine effort to obfuscate what we are trying to do here on the floor.

The Emmett Till bill here--in fact, one of the people who were with him the night he was murdered was up in the gallery today. We worked very hard to get this legislation passed. Now my friend from Oklahoma wants to change what the agreement was, that was reported--what passed the House almost unanimously and was reported out of the committee almost unanimously.

This again is a blatant attempt to get a cover vote for a vote the Republicans cannot justify. They just voted against a bill that had the Emmett Till language in it. It had the child pornography language in it. I repeat, because they feel bad about siding with big oil over important American priorities, they now want to have it both ways.

As I said a little while ago, they voted against Americans with Lou Gehrig's disease, they voted against American mothers who suffer postpartum depression. My friend from the State of Illinois--

Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.

Yes, I object.

Is there a question the Senator has for the Senator from Oklahoma?

Is there a question the Senator from Pennsylvania has?

Mr. President, I am going to be very patient and try to run through the accusations and statements made by my friend from Oklahoma and my friend from Pennsylvania.

The Emmett Till bill was introduced in February of 2007. It is now July of

2008. How much more patient can Senator Biden, members of that committee and, frankly, how much more patient can I be?

I revere the work done by John Lewis and others; civil rights leaders in those early days. I have listened to him talk at great length in a private, personal basis about what he went through. We had here at a DPC luncheon within the last few months a woman who proceeded to go down there with John Lewis and others, a White woman from here, in Virginia.

She believed what she had heard, that this was a country that was open to everyone. She, too, was beaten, thrown into prison, as were hundreds of other people. But, sadly, Emmett Till was murdered, as were lots of others. Most of those civil rights murders have been unsolved. That is what this is all about. Let's get to the bottom of it.

Make all the excuses you want, but we have had lots of time to deal with the legislation. No matter how many times my friend from Oklahoma talks about the huge cost of this package of bills, he can say it once, he can say it 1,000 times, it does not matter. The bill costs nothing. It is in the Congressional Record. I introduced it today. The head of the Congressional Budget Office said it costs nothing.

So any talk about saving huge amounts of money is nothing but wasteful talk because it does not. To have other Senators come here and say: Well, what we want to do with this Emmett Till bill you could do it for one-third of the amount.

That is what the legislative process is all about. There are three other opportunities for us to do that. All we are doing is authorizing that so the legislation can move forward. You can do it at the subcommittee level in appropriations, the full committee level of appropriations, and then when the bill gets to the Senate floor.

For Republicans to come and cry crocodile tears about my tyranny on the Senate floor is laughable. I have had to file almost 90 cloture motions to try to stop the filibusters they filed. We have had to file cloture on things they agree with because they are stalling for time. They want to maintain the status quo.

I would say to anyone, including my friend from Pennsylvania who comes to the floor and says we are going to do this no matter what because we want to stay on the Energy bill, I offered a unanimous consent not once but twice, saying we would stay on the Energy bill. We could finish this package of bills just like that and move to energy. We would never get off that. That was the consent I offered. So these are all excuses, real excuses.

The question is, The Republicans have decided to stick with big oil, the oil companies that last year made $250 billion. That is what they have decided to do. It is a decision they made. It was calculated. They decided to do that.

There is not a Democrat over here who does not say we should do more with the domestic production. We have said that time and time again. Now, I can be threatened with a lot of things, but do not ever consider that anyone here is going to outwork me. I do not care if we are here during the August recess. If you want to talk politics, we do not have a single Democratic Senator who has an election contest that is at all troubling. There are 11 of them over there.

If they want to stay here during the August recess, that is fine with me. The only thing I have planned would take me about 20 minutes to get out of. I have a trip to Afghanistan. It is something I feel I need to do. I can do it some other time. I am taking five or six other Senators with me. They can do it some other time. So do not come to the floor and say we are going to stay here in the August recess. Who suffers more for doing that, Democrats or Republicans? They do, I would think.

If they have any common sense--I know they do--those Senators who have election contests would rather be home than here. So do not suggest that somehow I am afraid to be here. We may not be doing energy legislation during that time, but we have so much to do.

We have the Defense authorization bill. If we don't get the media shield, we have that too. We have a number of other important issues we have to do. Consumer product safety, we have to do that conference report. So there are plenty of things we can do during the August recess, if the Republicans would rather be here. So don't say: We are going to really get you. We are going to ask you to stay here during the August recess.

Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don't let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks. We don't need a vote to recess. We will just be in pro forma session. We will tell the House to do the same thing. So let's not be threatening about staying in during the August recess.

People ask: Why do the Democrats think Republicans may be somewhat mischievous in amendments they offer? Let's look at recent history. We have tried in good faith to legislate on bills, one of them we thought would be a good idea. Let's have an open amendment process. The first amendment they came here and offered was something that has been panned by every editorial writer in America, an 18-cent tax holiday. Remember, in Nevada we paid about $3.30 for a gallon of gas. Everyone knew the McCain issue to deal with the energy crisis was laughable. But that was the amendment they offered.

Then we decided, well, there is another piece, maybe they will not do it this time. But, bango, one of the first things they did was offer their own GI bill of rights because John McCain said the bill that is now law is too generous. So, again, we got off track on that.

All of my friends lamenting what the present status of the Senate is, all they have to do is look back at recent history. Presidential elections have consequences. Presidential elections always cause problems on the Senate floor. It is difficult to legislate when one Senator can do so much damage.

I would say to my friend from Pennsylvania, he read from the Congressional Record something I said in 2006. I said that. But if he were logical--and I think he is--he should have read the rest of that because, if you understand, he voted to go with Senator Frist that filling the tree was just fine. Suddenly, he has found religion. Back then, he didn't have it. Senator Specter voted with Senator Frist to fill the tree.

NOPEC--he talks about that. I know a little bit about that piece of legislation. I believed strongly, with Senator Kohl and Senator Specter, that OPEC should be subject to the antitrust laws of this country. I have said so publicly, and I tried here to bring that matter to the floor. I asked consent that we would be able to do that. Who objected to it? The Republicans objected to it. We didn't. We wanted to legislate on that. They wouldn't let us.

My friend from Pennsylvania has joined the throng to vote against Medicare, speculation, the energy package of tax extenders, LIHEAP, global warming--all these issues, and this package today.

I say that people who voted today against this package decided they wanted to have a vote to satisfy big oil. And to use the lame excuse that Harry Reid was a tyrannical guy and was stopping them from legislating. They have stopped themselves from legislating because they want to maintain the status quo. That is what this is all about. President Bush is for the status quo, and his people in the Senate are marching along behind him.

Again, I repeat, you go home and explain, I say to my Republican friends, you go home and explain to your constituents, the next person you see in a wheelchair, go up to them and say: You know, I voted against you because Harry Reid was being a tyrannical guy in the Senate.

You go home to someone whose family is bereaved because their mother, sister, or friend had a baby, and they were so depressed that they are now in a mental ward of some hospital or they committed suicide. You go home and explain to that family that is the case.

You go home and explain to someone who is a stroke victim or a family who has a stroke victim: I decided to vote against you because Harry Reid didn't give me an amendment to vote on whether OPEC should be subject to the antitrust laws.

You go home and tell people--there is going to be 5,600 new people this year

who will be diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease. From the time they are diagnosed to the time they die is an average of 18 months. You go home and tell them and their families, their friends: I voted that way because Harry Reid wasn't handling the Senate right. I had a chance to vote on it, but I didn't like the way he was doing it. So you understand, Harry Reid was the bad guy. I am a good guy, even though I voted against your best interests.

You go home and tell people who are struggling every day raising children, trying to keep them away from evil people who do things that are very horrible with pornography with children, they exploit children--we have legislation here that would stop that. You go home, go to a PTA meeting and tell them: Well, we had something that would help this pornography with children, but Reid, I just don't like the way he runs the Senate.

You can go home and talk about the 34 pieces of legislation. You go home, you Republicans, go home and explain to your constituents how you did that. It is pretty hard to do, but you can go ahead and do it.

If any Member of my party suggested to me or the members of my caucus to vote against so many priorities based on specious and misleading arguments, I would want a way out too. I understand the rights of my friend from Oklahoma. He has a right to do what he has done. I think he is wrong. But I do say this: His Republican colleagues know him as well as I do, and what he has done is no surprise. But I am just saying they should join together, as they did earlier this year, when there were over 90 pieces of legislation he had held up for the same baseless reasons he is holding this stuff up.

They voted because they said: Enough is enough. Well, enough is enough. They have decided they want to go along with the crowd. Eric Hoffer, somebody I thought was a great author, just had a birthday. He is dead, but they announced it was his birthday, a longshoreman, philosopher. He wrote a lot about what happens in crowds; people go along with the crowd. He wrote about it. He was President Kennedy's favorite author.

These folks over here are going along with the crowd, just like Eric Hoffer said people do on certain occasions. They will regret having done so.

I do the very best I can, trying to be fair, fair to everyone in my caucus and fair to everyone in the Republican caucus. I have never been a bully. I have been involved in a few fights in my life, but I very rarely ever picked a fight. I certainly haven't picked a fight here. I want to get along. That is my personality. So I am not upset at anyone, other than to say: How foolish what is going on here in the Senate. I say, with a clear conscience, I am not the cause of it.