Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is important that we commemorate today, the seventh anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This Nation and the world should also remember that the first battle of the war against terror started in the skies over this country, and it was started not by the military but by an average group of American citizens who, by fate, found themselves on Flight 93, which had taken off from New Jersey, headed to San Francisco, CA. When they, as a group, figured out their plane had been taken over by terrorists who planned to use that plane and the passengers in it as a weapon of mass destruction against the Capitol of the United States, they did an extraordinary thing: This group of average citizens made a battle plan and executed that plan against America's enemies. This exceptional group of Americans knew they were risking and sacrificing their lives to stop an attack on America, which, in fact, was on the White House or this very building we are in today--this very building, the U.S. Capitol. The passengers of Flight 93 faced their enemies without hesitation and brought that plane to the ground in Shanksville, PA. That action was the opening battle in the war against terror.

Today, people are gathering in New York City at Ground Zero, where the World Trade Towers once stood so proudly. People will gather here in the Nation's Capital. This morning, the President observed a moment of silence on the White House lawn and then joined those gathering at the Pentagon, at the site where Flight 77 crashed, to dedicate a memorial to those who died in that building--a building that symbolizes the American military, the greatest fighting force in the world.

This remembrance is not just taking place in New York and in our Nation's Capital, it is taking place all across our Nation. Certainly, we are not alone in mourning the 2,975 people--citizens from more than 90 nations--who died in the terrorist attacks. So our allies and friends mourn with us.

These attacks carried out on September 11 changed the way we view our world. Many Americans, for the first time, felt vulnerable. While it was not the first terrorist attack on America, it was the largest on our soil since Pearl Harbor. So it is critically important to note that this attack wasn't an isolated incident but a carefully planned operation that was part of al-Qaida's war on America. Bin Laden had already declared war on America publicly. It was, at its foundation, an attack based on a belief that America was corrupt, decadent, and lacked the courage or the will to vigorously defend its very existence.

They were wrong. The attacks that led up to that day--I will just make a note of them--the attacks that led up to that event were:

In 1983, there was an attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 241 American servicemen.

In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked by terrorists, and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair.

In 1985, TWA Flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue fellow passengers was murdered.

In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed, leaving 270 dead.

In 1993, al-Qaida operatives attacked the World Trade Center and bombed it, killing 6 people and injuring 1,042. In June of 1996, 19 American servicemembers were killed, with 372 wounded, in the Khobar Towers barracks attack in Saudi Arabia.

In 1998, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed, killing 223 and wounding thousands.

On October 12, 2000, while a warship of the United States of America, the USS Cole, was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden for a routine fuel stop, a small craft approached and detonated their payload, putting a 40-by-60-foot gash in the ship's port side, killing 17 American sailors.

All of that occurred before the hijacking of those four planes on September 11, 2001. Since that day, while there have been attacks on England, Spain, and around the world, there have been no further successful attacks on the United States.

Even though we are in an election campaign, it is important for us not to forget that the failure of al-Qaida to launch another attack on us is not due to the terrorist organization's relinquishing their objective, renouncing their goal of killing Americans and disrupting our lives and economy, but it is a testament to the vigilance of our law enforcement and military officials and President Bush's bold decision to stop sitting back, stop being on the defensive, and to treat these attacks for what they were--part of a war against the United States. He firmly declared that we should go after these terrorists and any who harbor them and utilize deadly force where necessary. This strategy has worked. No successful attacks have occurred since that time on our homeland. I don't think any of us would have felt that was likely the case, or would be the case, on September 11, 2001, even though I think all of us, as a nation, agreed it was time to move on the offensive. That is the best way to defend our great country.

Since September 11, 2001, 19 attacks have been thwarted in various stages of preparation. This chart is difficult to read, but the red lines across it indicate some of the successful interventions and defeats of terrorist plans. I will just mention those.

In December 2001, Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airplane headed to Miami from Paris, using explosives in his shoe.

In May 2002, Jose Padilla, who was charged with conspiring with Islamic terrorist groups, planned to set off a dirty bomb in the United States.

In September 2002, the Lackawanna Six from Buffalo, NY, were arrested and charged with conspiring with terrorist groups.

In May 2003, Lyman Faris, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Kashmir living in Columbus, OH, was arrested for plotting the collapse of the Brooklyn Bridge.

In June 2003, a Virginia jihad network, involving 11 men from Alexandria, was arrested for conspiring to support terrorists.

In August 2004, members of a terrorist cell were arrested for plotting to attack financial institutions in the United States and other sites in England.

In August 2004, two men were arrested for plotting to bomb a subway station near Madison Square Garden in New York.

In August 2004, two leaders of an Albany, NY, mosque were charged with plotting to purchase a shoulder-fired grenade launcher to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat in New York.

In June 2005, a California father-son terrorist team was charged with supporting terrorism.

In August 2005, four men in Los Angeles were accused of conspiring to attack National Guard facilities in Los Angeles and other targets in the area.

In December 2005, Michael C. Reynolds was arrested by the FBI and charged with being involved in a plot to blow up a Wyoming natural gas refinery.

In February 2006, three men from Toledo, OH, were arrested and charged with providing material support to a terrorist organization.

In April of 2006, Atlanta natives were accused of conspiring with terrorist organizations to attack targets in Washington, DC.

In June of 2006, seven men were arrested in Miami and Atlanta and charged with plotting to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as FBI offices and other buildings.

In July 2006, 10 people were arrested after the FBI discovered a plot to attack underground transit tunnels in New York.

In August of 2006, British authorities stopped a plot to load 10 commercial airliners with liquid explosives and attack sites in New York, Washington, and California. Fifteen men were charged.

In March 2007, a senior operative for Osama bin Laden already in custody

confesses to have planned September 11 attacks and said he also planned attacks on Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and other sites.

In May of 2007, six men were arrested and charged with plotting to attack soldiers at Fort Dix, NJ.

In June of 2007, four men were charged with plotting to blow up jet fuel in a residential neighborhood near JFK Airport in New York.

It is quite clear that it is imperative this Nation continue to be vigilant and keep these terrorist groups off balance, to keep our homeland and our allies secure.

I believe as the years go by, history will view the efforts of the U.S. Government favorably in keeping its citizens safe after the attacks on September 11, 2001.

President Bush made a bold decision. He took decisive action. A reorganized intelligence community that Senator Bond talked about was put in high gear and has dramatically improved our intelligence concerning terrorist groups. We were not where we should have been. We are still not, but we are dramatically improved. The FBI has dramatically changed its mode of operation from mere investigation after an attack to preventing further attacks. Unprecedented cooperation with and assistance from State and local law enforcement has raised our defensive capabilities and our intelligence-gathering networks manyfold. It is tremendous the improved relations we have with State and local law enforcement, and there are many more of those officers than there are Federal officers.

For 7 years, we may thank the Lord and the hard work of so many that this Nation has remained free from terrorist attack. Will it continue? We may all pray that it will, but we know we remain at risk. We know for decades to come there will be some in this world who are willing to even give their lives to attack free nations around the world.

We must remain vigilant. We must not forget what we have done wrong in the past, how we refused to recognize the reality of the threat, as the 9/11 Commission so clearly reported. But we must also not forget how going on the offensive, destroying the bases of operation of the radical Islamic networks, of attacking their military infrastructure, of attacking their soldiers, of capturing thousands and killing thousands of their operatives has made us safe and have put the terrorists on the defensive.

Despite what some say, these efforts have gained worldwide support. The terrorists are losing support throughout the world. Al-Qaida made Iraq the central front against the United States and poured people into that country. But they made a bad decision to challenge the magnificent, courageous, and lethal U.S. military.

Recent reports have declared that al-Qaida in Iraq has been decimated. There may still be some left, but the power of that network that 2 or 3 years ago existed has been decimated today, most experts say.

So let's remember what we have done right. Also, we must keep these efforts up because it may well take decades before we will be victorious in this effort. If we remain firm, if this Nation continues to be smart, determined, and dedicated, their doom is sure. This group cannot defeat us. They may succeed with an attack here, they may succeed with an attack there, but if we have the will, if we have the courage, if we have the maturity, if we have the determination to remember those heroic people who started this war defending this very Capitol Building, who gave their lives in Pennsylvania for us--and we will honor their memory and honor the memory of those in New York City and honor the memory of those in the Pentagon and on the ship, the USS Cole--we will honor them by being firm, being faithful. We will be successful.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, we had an announcement yesterday by the Secretary of Defense on the procurement question for the tanker for the U.S. Air Force that is very disturbing and disappointing to me. Basically, the history of that was that the Secretary and the U.S. Air Force had evaluated the two competing bids and had selected the Northrop team's bid as the best aircraft and best buy for the country.

The GAO, Government Accountability Office, reviewed that and said the Air Force had made errors. I did not think great errors, but they said there were errors and they ought to review the process. The Secretary of Defense said he, in effect, was disappointed those errors had occurred and he personally would take the process under the Department of Defense's jurisdiction and he would direct individuals to evaluate the two bids and to make a decision on what the best aircraft would be and the best buy for the American warfighter.

Remember that the Air Force had declared that replacing the 50-, 60- year-old tanker fleet was their No. 1 priority in the entire U.S. Air Force. For those of us who know about the Air Force and know how much they like fighters and those kinds of aircraft, for them to say that was a significant thing. So we were proceeding along that path. Secretary Gates said he was going to do it fairly and objectively, and he would do his best to complete the process by the end of the year. So his announcement yesterday that they could not complete it at the end of the year, that there has been controversy about this, and that he would, therefore, put it off and cancel the bid process and let the next Congress and next President deal with it was a bad mistake. It was contrary to what he had said in the country needed to be done a few months ago.

I think this is a matter he made a mistake on. I respect Secretary Gates. I was pleased when he stood up and said: We need this tanker. We need to get this done. We are going to get it done. I am personally going to be responsible to ensure it is done right and fair. Then, to walk away from that, and to leave the impression the reason that occurred was because of a political brouhaha going on, and Members of Congress fussing here and there and making comments was doubly disturbing.

My view has always been the Department of Defense ought to pick the best aircraft, and I thought they had when they chose the plane they did. I will note the aircraft Northrop Grumman/EADS had offered was 16 years newer than the aircraft Boeing had submitted, it would have much more capabilities, and was a better aircraft. That is what it was, and that is how it was selected. The Northrop team submitted a very frugal bid, and even though it was an aircraft that had more capabilities, it was very competitive or lower on price. So I thought we were heading in the right direction.

I will note for the record I was involved in this early on. When Senator McCain questioned a lease agreement that was entered into with the Boeing company, he felt something was not healthy there and he objected. It was going to release 60 of these aircraft. They had not been bid. It was a sole-source contract. It did not go through the Armed Services Committee. But it was actually done through the Appropriations Committee without the

Armed Services Committee studying the issue or looking at it. After all that happened--and it is unfortunate people went to jail over it in the Air Force, and others--we ordered, the Congress did, that a bid process take place. There were two bidders. Only two entities could supply this kind of aircraft. The Air Force selected the one they thought was best.

Some people did not like that, and we had a big fuss, and now we are at a position where we could literally be looking at a delay of 2 or 3 more years. It has already been delayed about 7 years. This is very disturbing and very concerning to me ultimately because the Air Force is going to be further delayed, substantially, in a new aircraft being chosen and put into the fleet. It can save money in the long run because it will be newer, require less upkeep and maintenance, carry more fuel, and it has more capability. It can do the work of three airplanes at once.

I know Senator Warner and others on our committee, when this issue arose--Senator Levin and Senator McCain--felt that a bid was the right thing to do. We ordered that we pass legislation to do that. I am sorry the Defense Department seems to have given up and punted it. Many are estimating this could result in a delay of 3 years before the matter comes to a conclusion now.

I could not agree more, I say to Senator Warner. I thank the Senator for his leadership at that time. Basically, it did point out, did it not, I ask Senator Warner, that the authorizing committee is a valuable committee and that those kinds of major programs should be taken through the committee of authorization? Would the Senator agree to that as a matter of historical perspective here in the Senate?

Very good.

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

Mr. President, I thank Senator Leahy for his amendment and his interest in dealing with a difficulty that has impacted real life. Contractors should be held to account, and there is difficulty in gathering the evidence necessary in a prompt way in a time of conflict to effectively carry out prosecutions--I can see as a former Federal prosecutor--within the time of the statute of limitations. There is only one concern I have about it, and I will address that in a moment.

But, fundamentally, the Senator is correct. We have discussed this a good bit in the Judiciary Committee, where Senator Leahy is chairman. We did the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act that I sponsored and led the first one of those. We do have to be careful because it can have unintended consequences.

The trial of a marine in California for an act in Iraq that he was acquitted for just a few days ago resulted from the bill that we passed. I don't think any of us at the time thought that we were subjecting military persons to a civilian trial when we were dealing, we thought at the time, with defense contractors. We need to be careful as we deal with the issue. I know Senator Leahy agrees with that. For the most part, I understand and support what he is attempting to do.

The statute of limitations is an important principle of law. It is something as a Federal prosecutor, as attorney general of Alabama, I had to deal with on many occasions. My colleagues probably know that an individual who commits armed bank robbery, if he is not prosecuted within 5 years, cannot be prosecuted. If a person commits arson, they can't be prosecuted. It is not from the time of discovery of the offense, it is from the commission of the offense because we are talking about criminal law. We have a great heritage of understanding the difficulties faced when we put somebody in jail based on old evidence that is somewhat difficult to deal with.

With regard to civil actions, we have a number of statutes of limitations that commence on discovery of the wrong, but for the most part, except for murder, certain crimes, I think for almost all crimes dealing with death and maybe one with child sexual abuse, there is a limited statute of limitations.

The statute of limitations on most crimes in the Federal court, even serious ones, is 5 years. I do believe during the debate that we extended the statute on S&L fraud to 8 years. The truth is, these savings and loans would go bankrupt 4 or 5 years after the crime was committed. Then it takes 2 or 3 years to investigate it. By then the statute had run, and you have, red-handed, defrauding the people, and you couldn't prosecute the case. I understand the difficulties we are dealing with here.

Yes.

I agree. That is why we have passed the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, why

we have expanded it, under the leadership of the chairman. I supported making sure that contractors were fully covered from the original act based on a crime that came to my attention where a young person was sexually molested and the host country didn't want to prosecute it and they couldn't be tried and court-martialed because the person was a contractor, not a military person. We made that possible.

Since we are in a world in which some of these authorizations to use military force may be very long indeed, it is determined not by what we do so much as by the actions of the enemy; that is, if they continue to attack us, I think our authorization of military force will continue many years perhaps. If the conflict ends, it could be ended sooner. So we could be in a position, just as a matter of law, of limiting the amount we are exposing a contractor to of criminal prosecutions for something that happened many years before, when actually in the fog of war, sometimes it is more difficult to handle things correctly. It would be certainly more difficult to gather evidence, and it is more difficult to get witnesses here and that kind of thing.

My suggestion would be that we do as we did with the statute of limitations on S&L fraud but have some sort of definite end to it because some of these extended wartime efforts could go on for a number of years. I don't see as a matter of principle, not specific facts, why a contractor who commits fraud in the United States gets the protection of a 5-year statute, even if it is against the Department of Defense, but one in Iraq, in the chaos of war that even affects them--their ability to maintain discipline over their workers is sometimes more difficult, frankly--that they would be prosecuted with an unlimited statute of limitations. That is something we could discuss, and I ask the Senator to think about it. I don't take any fundamental objection to the work he is doing. It is fundamentally sound and good, and I support it.

I will say this, if I could: In Toussie v. United States, the Supreme Court held:

The purpose of a statute of limitations--

Which I want to say is available in all cases, for all kinds of crimes, except very few, such as murder--

The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit

exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of

time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature

has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a

limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to

defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may

have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize

the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-

distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary

effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to

investigate suspected criminal activity.

The Court has further held:

Passage of time, whether before or after arrest, may impair

memories, cause evidence to be lost, deprive the defendant of

witnesses, and otherwise interfere with his ability to defend

himself. . . .Possible prejudice is inherent in any delay,

however short; it may also weaken the Government's case. . .

.Such a [statute of] limitation is designed to protect

individuals from having to defend themselves against charges

when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage

of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment

because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit

may also have the salutary effect of encouraging [cases to be

prosecuted promptly].

But I will say that is the only concern I have. I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It will definitely close a loophole.

I would note I had the honor last night to be on an airplane coming back from Alabama sitting by a young individual who served 2 years as a contractor in Iraq. He is going back for a third year. We talked about some of these things. I did not know this amendment was coming up. But he talked about that some of the people do not perform very well. Many of them are very hard working. Many of them are former military people who served with great distinction.

But in this time of war, some people do lose their discipline, and fraud is a matter of real risk. We do need to watch every penny, and we certainly do not need to have unscrupulous contractors billing the American people for work they do not perform, for making false claims to the Government. I think a statute of limitations probably needs to be extended in this case.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am not aware of any.

I would like to discuss that a little more with Senator Leahy, and perhaps he will convince me that my suggestion is not wise, so I would object at this time.

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

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

Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to Senator Levin and Senator Warner and the staff and other members of the Armed Services Committee who have worked hard to produce a bill that I think does the job pretty well to meet the challenges we have and at the same time has bipartisan support, which is important for passage as it is one of the realities of this Senate. So I think we have done fairly well.

I wish to share some thoughts about some issues in general.

I think it was Fareed Zakaria who wrote a book not too long ago noting that perhaps we had reached the end of history or beyond history. I understand he has since indicated that is not a viable philosophy anymore. I saw the cover, I believe, in the Weekly Standard recently which said: ``The Return of History.'' History teaches us that this is a dangerous world. We wish it were not so. We wish we did not have to have a Defense Department. We wish there were no such thing as war. I respect people who are prepared to be total pacifists in their lives, but for most of us who lack that kind of faith, we believe we have to be prepared to defend our legitimate national interests around the globe and do those things with courage and fidelity and to think ahead, to be prepared, and that peace is most often accomplished through strength. I believe we have a pretty good recognition of that in this bill, and that is why I support it out of committee.

I wish to note the unease we have seen in some of the nations of the world. We know about the rogue nations. But it has been very troubling, I have to say, what Russia is doing today. It seems in their statements, in their comments, in their actions, and in their military aggression that they are not seeking to align themselves with nations of good will that seek to work in ways that avoid military conflict, that act in ways that are just and fair to their neighbors. So that is a big problem, some of the things they have been saying to the Czech Republic and Poland about missile defense; some of the threats they have raised toward the Baltics; the military attack they launched in Georgia, their rhetoric in Georgia; their rhetoric toward the United States represents almost bizarre activity. That is something I had hoped wouldn't happen. I think President Bush has done everything he could, saying that he divined in examining Mr. Putin that he had a good heart, but it looks as if that heart is--if it was good then, it is getting darker and darker today. I just wish it weren't so, but I am afraid it is so.

We are looking at what is happening in China, whose economy continues to grow. There is a very nationalistic impulse in China. Their military is growing at a rapid pace. It is technologically advanced. We spend billions and billions of dollars on developing weapons systems and research and development. Too often, China steals that information and then produces a system that may well be comparable in some aspects for a far less investment than we put into it.

So those are things we face in the world today. I think a wise nation, a mature nation understands that you have to be prepared, that you have to be ready to defend your values, and that allowing nations that do not share our values to achieve military parity or advantage is not a good thing.

I wish to share, along those lines, a resolution I will be offering. It will be to call on this Senate to exercise its prerogative to make a statement through a sense-of-the-Senate resolution that we affirm the action taken by the Czech Republic and Poland to accept and participate in our goal of establishing a third site for missile defense in Europe. Missiles launched by Iran would pass over Europe before they reached the United States. Truly, Iran does not have that capability today, but our intelligence experts tell us they are moving forward with progress toward that goal. They also seem totally unrepentant with regard to their determination to build nuclear weapons, which is even more problematic as we think about the possibility that they could launch a nuclear weapon attack against our allies or even against the United States. Central Europe represents a good location to place another missile defense system.

I heard someone suggest: Well, the Russians have a right to be concerned. We were concerned when the Russians put missiles in Cuba. But, of course, those were offensive nuclear weapons designed to kill people. What we are talking about is operating with independent, sovereign nations to put a system up that would have limited capability to protect us from missile attack. It has no offensive capability. It is a defensive, peacekeeping weapons system.

For reasons that go beyond my comprehension, the Russians have apparently felt that they have a right to decide what the people of Poland do or what the people of the Czech Republic do. They are going to tell them that they can't have such a system. They at one time were under the Soviet boot, so now the Russians have a right to tell them that they can't--as an independent, sovereign, democratic Nation--make a decision that is in their interests and in the world's interests and in Europe's interests and in NATO's interests to place a limited missile defense system there. What kind of mentality is that? I say that because that ought to give us concern in this body. We ought to be concerned about that kind of mentality. It spilled out in a military attack in Georgia. It was not coincidental that while the Russian troops were still attacking in Georgia, high Government officials from Poland and the Ukraine and, I believe, Estonia came to Georgia and stood with them because they have a real sense that they might be next. They have not forgotten what Mr.

Putin said last year or the year before--less than 2 years ago. He said the greatest disaster of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

What does that have to say about Russia's mentality and approach to life today? We were at a NATO conference not too long ago, and one nation that had been under the Soviet Communist boot, in response to that, and after our discussion, said they thought that may have not been the worst thing in the 20th century. They said they thought it was the best thing that happened in the 20th century. That is the kind of reality we are dealing with in the world. It tells us we are not beyond history. History is here. It has not gone away.

We need to be very smart about how we utilize our limited financial resources to prepare ourselves for the future. These are problems we have to think about. Of course, we have the immediate threat of terrorism. We know the history of the attacks on the United States, on our warship, the USS Cole, in a neutral harbor; marines have been attacked; the Khobar Towers--by a group of people whose stated objective was to destroy us. Bin Laden declared war on the United States. That is what he said on his Web site--that he was at war with us. He killed so many of our people on 9/11, and destroyed the trade towers and attacked our own Pentagon, our own military headquarters right here in the United States. Is that not an act of war? Is that not consistent with a desire to destroy the United States? They had the Capitol or the White House in their sights, had it not been for the American heroes who took that plane down in Pennsylvania. So I guess we have to prepare for that. I wish it weren't so. I wish we could sit down with these terrorists and have a few hours of discussion and reach some accord that would result in us not having to prepare to spend billions of dollars to defend our interests around the world, and they would stop attacking us. But that is not likely to happen. That is not going to happen in the short term.

President Bush was right, fundamentally, in his decision that we would not sit on defense and wait to be attacked again. He made a fundamental decision that the best way to preserve, protect, and defend the United States of America is for our military to quit being on the defensive and allowing terrorists to be treated as a law enforcement problem and, after they attack you, you see if you cannot investigate and figure out who it is and perhaps prosecute somebody. We needed to defend America and stop the attacks before they came. That is what I believe history will give him high marks for. It has been going on 6 or 7 years and we have not had another attack on this country. It has been a challenge for us. We have called on our military to perform to the highest level. We have sent them time and again into dangerous places. We have extended their deployment. We hated to do that, but we have done it. They have met the challenge and they have answered the call. They have been successful in protecting us. We don't know how things will come out, but I believe we will be able to see the government reach maturity in Iraq--a decent and good government that is a positive force in the world, and likewise in Afghanistan.

I think we should be prepared as a Senate to affirm the action of Poland in recent weeks to approve the deployment of 10 missile interceptors in Poland. That could be effective against an Iranian attack or maybe a mistake. It would not be enough to stop the hundreds of missiles the Russians have, for Heaven's sake. It would not be able to do that, but it would be able to protect Europe, and even the United States, from the long-range missiles that Iran is striving to build right now. It is also a good way to bind our countries in mutual security and mutual interests, and it affirms the Czechs' and the Poles' commitment to democracy and freedom, to the Western way of life, to the values we share, and a rejection on their part of terrorism and bullying. We will be offering that resolution, and I will talk more about it.

We also need to be sure that we follow through on the authorization to send this bill and actually see that the money gets appropriated in the next aspect of Defense spending. For example, I will note that our committee, I am most proud to say, has fully funded and given the authorization to fund the site for the Czechs and the Poles, who have supported the President's request in that regard. I think it was a very important decision on our committee. Other committees of the Congress that have relevant jurisdiction to put out the money have not been as supportive. I am proud that our committee has been. It is important for these other committees--it is important in the geopolitical world we are in that our friends, our allies, free sovereign nations, Poland and the Czech Republic, have stood up to pressure from Russia and they have stood up to leftist complaints, and they have agreed to deploy this system.

We ought to affirm it with a strong vote on this resolution and, ultimately, in passing an appropriation that is adequately funded. It is not going to be difficult to put this system in place. It would require some little differences in the missile system. We need a two- stage instead of a three-stage rocket. That is not hard to adjust to. But the main guidance systems, the high technology, would be the same. We are on track to do this.

Our bill that Senators Levin and Warner have moved forward to the floor does the right thing. I hope this Congress will explicitly express our appreciation to the Poles and Czechs and reaffirm our commitment to financially complete that project.

I see other colleagues here. I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that MAJ Monique Matthews, a military legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the discussion of the Defense bill.

Mr. President, I want to share a thought about the vote we will undertake. I know some of us were taking to calling the speculation bill our Democratic leader offered the ``no energy bill'' because it had nothing in it to produce any more energy for America-- American energy, which I think is a critical component of any successful policy to make us more energy independent, which, indeed, can make us energy independent if we do the right things as far as foreign oil and energy.

I would say to my colleagues, some of whom are part of the so-called Gang of 10, who are trying to work out a compromise they think might produce some more energy for America that might change a few policies that would make us more energy independent and help our economy, which by any calculation is being pulled down by the increasing price of energy, the Cato Institute says electricity bills have doubled since 2001. Electricity has already doubled.

Before we get into some of the more extreme proposals for the regulation of utilities and requirements on utilities, I would say that gasoline prices have surged. The world price of oil hit 140-some-odd dollars per barrel. It has dropped some, to maybe the $107, $110 range per barrel, which is better, but it is still far above the $30 a barrel it was just a few years ago.

So this is adversely impacting American families. We calculate it costs $57 more a month for a two-car family for gasoline each month than it did this time last year. It is also impacting adversely the American economy. I believe it is an absolute fact that this surge in energy prices is causing the economic slowdown we are facing today, and we have to do something about it.

There are things we can do. So I want to say to my colleagues who are trying to work on something, I am for you. I want you to go ahead. I want you to push forward. I want to put some things in there that will work. That is my policy. I will support anything--efficiencies, conservation, innovation, creativity. It must include more production of American energy, of course. Anything else would be mindless. People do not seem to worry that we pay $130 a barrel for imported oil, but they want to constrict our ability to produce oil and gas here at home. So I just want to say that.

I urge my colleagues who are discussing this issue to produce some things that will work, and you will have a willing supporter in this Senator. I am willing to do some things that may be even dubious if we can get some things that are good. For example, I understand they are talking about more offshore production. I think that is absolutely necessary. We need to have nuclear recycling. I am hopeful that will be part of any compromise package.

I offered with Senator Domenici earlier this year, just a few months ago,

the SMART Act, which would favor the nuclear recycling of waste, which would reduce its toxicity dramatically and reduce the amount that would be needed and produce more uranium capable of creating electricity. It would increase, I understand, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's staff so we do not have unnecessary delays in approving new powerplants. We have not built one in 30 years, but France is building them. The Brits just announced plans to build five more. We need to get in that game. We have not done so in 30 years.

I would note, however, there is nothing in this legislation that I can see that I am hearing about that would create energy from shale oil in the West. There has been no production from that 2,000 acres in ANWR that is part--that will be producing oil and gas out of an 18-acre region the size of the State of South Carolina. So those are things I hope we can have, before I yield the floor, in a compromise package and that would actually produce more energy for us.

I would note I am honored to serve on the Armed Services Committee with Senator Levin and Senator Warner, our senior member. I see them both here to kick off this debate. It is a very good committee. It is a committee I have learned a great deal from serving on, and I think it is important that we be able to move forward with the Defense authorization bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to SGT Peyton Williams, a constituent of mine from Wetumpka, AL. Sergeant Williams was selected as the Marine of the Year for the Second Marine Division. Out of the over 20,000 marines who comprise the Second Division, Sergeant Williams was selected for his outstanding performance in Operation Iraqi Freedom, OIF. This prestigious award signifies that Sergeant Williams represents the best of what a U.S. Marine should be.

Later this month, Governor Bob Riley will proclaim August 21, 2008, as Sergeant Peyton Williams Day in the State of Alabama. I would like to express my pride in his accomplishment, and appreciation for his service to our Nation in Iraq. Sergeant Williams contributed to the success of the counterinsurgency in the Al Anbar province. His work there was critical to our success in our current operations and he serves as an example to his fellow marines and an inspiration to all young Alabamians who will follow him in service as members of the military.

According to his company commander, CPT Brian Cillessen, ``Peyton has more talent by accident than most Marines learn in a career. He is a great American who has served his country well, and I am proud to have the honor to serve with him and would welcome the opportunity in the future.''

I would like to echo Captain Cillessen's praise of Sergeant Williams, it is Marines like him who have ensured the success of the surge strategy. I believe that with dedicated marines like Sergeant Williams in the force, victory is not only possible in our current operations in Iraq, it is certain.

And so, I applaud Sergeant Williams' hard work, and I look forward to hearing more great things about this fine son of Alabama.

Mr. President, today I recognize the University of Alabama at Birmingham, UAB, a place known for its outstanding, world-renowned HIV/AIDS research and treatment. Dr. Michael Saag directs the Center for AIDS Research at UAB, which was established in 1988 by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases to stimulate research and scientific advancement concerning AIDS and HIV. This program was initiated in 1998 and currently includes 20 centers funded through a consortium of six National Institutes of Health. Under Dr. Saag's exceptional leadership, the UAB Center for AIDS Research has grown dramatically as shown by its increase in total research funding, from $2.9 million dollars in 1988 to over $90 million currently.

UAB has a remarkable program in Zambia, the Center for Infectious Disease Research, headed up by Dr. Jeff Stringer. The UAB Zambia program, which receives funding through the President's Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, is treating over 170,000 patients, with up to 100,000 patients on ARV treatment.

Dr. Stringer and his remarkable team have also worked vigorously with the Zambian Government to deliver ``prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission'' services to over 500,000 women in Zambia, preventing tens of thousands of infants from being born with HIV. The UAB HIV prevention and treatment service units support 175 public health facilities in four of the nine provinces of Zambia. Prevention of mother-to-child transmission services are offered in 154 clinics and hospitals.

HIV care and treatment services are offered in 46 sites, and include a comprehensive cervical cancer screening program that has screened over 5,000 women in its first year. Research has shown a direct connection between HIV and cervical cancer among women, and groundbreaking work in the field has demonstrated the importance of screening HIV-infected women for cervical cancer, especially in resource-poor countries of the world. Dr. Groesbeck Parham and his group from UAB/ CIDRZ, using PEPFAR resources, have led the way in creating mechanisms to screen large numbers of women in Zambia, saving thousands of lives.

The UAB Zambia program also provides HIV testing to TB patients, and TB screening for all HIV patients in a comprehensive, integrated TB/HIV initiative.

I applaud the fine work UAB is doing, and I know that their service has saved thousands of lives. This is a prime example of the clear, positive results we have seen come about through PEPFAR, and one major reason I worked to ensure that new PEPFAR legislation preserves the focus on treatment that has undoubtedly contributed to its success.

I am proud of the role UAB has played on an international level in striving to provide top-notch treatment, as well as research to continuously improve on that treatment for Alabama, the nation, and the world, over the past 20 years.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

Nine and a half minutes. I thank the Chair.

Energy

Mr. President, it is no doubt that the American people are engaged on the question of energy, and gasoline prices primarily. But they are worried about their country. They are worried about their own budgets. They are worried about the direction the Nation is heading and the fact that we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign sources of energy. It impacts our national security as well as our economy.

We know that now $600 billion, perhaps $700 billion a year of American wealth is transferred abroad on an annual basis to purchase the 60 percent of

imported oil we utilize in America, in our transportation system primarily. That is a wealth transfer the likes of which the world has never seen. It is not good for our economy.

The average family--and I have calculated it based on a two-car family driving 24,000 miles a year--is paying $105 more per month for gasoline than they were 1 year ago using the same number of gallons of gasoline. This is a big deal. There is no doubt about it. After our families pay their taxes, after they pay their Social Security, after they pay their house payment, their insurance, their retirement, and their other bills, now $105 more every month is hitting them because of increased gas prices, and 60 percent of that money is going abroad to purchase the gasoline in a wealth transfer that is adversely affecting our economy. This is a national crisis. There is no doubt about it.

This Nation needs to do something real. We need to take action that will work. I am, frankly, very open to a lot of different ideas that we might be able to adopt. I think both parties have ideas that would work. We need conservation. We need biofuels. We need more production of energy at home. All of those things, it seems to me, are quite possible. This Government should accelerate it and make it a reality. Yet we remain here, unable to act in any way it seems.

For example, agriculture. Yes, crop prices, commodity prices are up, but the fuel that is utilized on the farm has doubled. Fertilizer prices, which come so often from natural gas, have also doubled. Our chemical industry, most of it is a worldwide industry. They have plants, these big chemical companies do, all over the world. When they decide where they are going to make a new chemical, they ask who has the lowest price for energy. Natural gas is often a component of new chemicals and because of prices--we have seen a flat or declining chemical industry and an expansion of it in other places where the price of energy is lower.

I believe the future of the American economy is at stake. We must carry out conservation efforts. I see my esteemed colleague, Senator Bingaman, here. He had a hearing a week or so ago and he has had some of the best hearings on energy. I am honored to serve on his committee. We had some fabulous hearings with some wonderful witnesses. The hearing I refer to included Dr. David Green at the Oak Ridge Center in Tennessee, a National lab, a Federal lab, as a witness, and he made a series of suggestions for immediate actions on energy. This is just to increase the miles per gallon that we get. His first thing is driver behavior. He contends that the average driver, if they drove better, could save 10 percent. Curb aggressive driving, observe the speed limits, don't carry extra weight in your car, have vehicle maintenance, have realistic speed limits. For every 5 miles per hour over 55, the fuel economy, Dr. Green says, declines 7 percent.

He talks about heavy trucks. Improved aerodynamics on the truck could save up to 600 gallons per year--just doing that--and other suggestions he made--low-rolling resistance tires. Better tires get better gas mileage. Driver training can be a big asset, updating fuel economy standards, the labeling of used cars. When people go out and buy a used car, it wouldn't be hard to have posted the mileage of all used cars so that the person could see what that mileage would be if they bought that particular used vehicle. He goes on with a number of other things.

I say that just to point out that he was just one witness in one area: automobiles and vehicles. There are many more things we can do to conserve fuel and I support this.

I believe we ought to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels as soon as possible. I believe we should get away from them as much as we possibly can and reduce our imports. This would include, for me, supporting investment in and promoting hydrogen vehicles and fuel cell vehicles. I think natural gas vehicles do have a role to play. Produce more diesel vehicles that get 35 to 40 percent better gas mileage. Half the cars in Europe are diesel; we only have 3 percent. Why is Europe doing that? They get better gas mileage. They tax diesel less in Europe; we tax diesel more. We have a new sulfur diesel fuel that is extremely clean.

All right. I think we are in a position--and I think the Presiding Officer understands this--the American people want us to do something. We need to reach across the aisle and accomplish something.

How much time remains, Mr. President?

I have to conclude that this is the problem. I don't believe it is the Democrats I know in Alabama, or I don't believe it is all the Democratic Senators and Congressmen I know in Washington, but let me tell my colleagues what is happening and where we are and how we have reached an impasse that has to be broken.

Former Vice President Gore, a former Democratic nominee for President of the United States, made a speech recently and said that within 10 years, we should generate all of our electricity without any fossil fuels. Half of our electricity today is coal. Twenty percent is natural gas. He would eliminate all of that and replace it with biofuels, with solar, wind, and the like. That is a radical proposal--a proposal that is not within the realm of possibility. It is a stunning idea that simply cannot be achieved that fast. I would favor it as soon as we could, but we have no way of doing that.

Senator Obama, the Presidential nominee now, praised that speech. He didn't adopt everything in it, thank goodness, but he did praise Gore and his speech. He has indicated he opposes further drilling, and he is at best lukewarm, if not unfavorable, to nuclear power.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, said she wanted to save the planet. She has been opposing any production through drilling or shale oil or clean coal or offshore production. Our own leader, Senator Harry Reid, has said sometimes he favors production, but his only proposal he has brought forth on the floor of the Senate is to sue OPEC for not producing enough oil. I would suggest we could sue the Congress for not producing enough oil in America. He wanted to tax oil companies, which means you certainly would not get any more oil doing that. Now, we have a speculation bill. Not one of those three pieces of legislation actually would produce any energy.

So let's get out of this. This is not a position the Democratic Party can take. It is not a position a majority of Democrats in America believe in. I am prepared to meet halfway. Let's move to hybrids any way we can. Let's do more biofuels. I think that can work. Let's go to wind, producing as much and as fast as we can. I am for whatever works if it is reasonable and not placing an unfair burden on the American people.

All I can say is, we are seeing a position here that is not acceptable. It is radical. It is damaging our economy. It is saying we will not do the things necessary to create a bridge to get us to nuclear power, clean fuels in the future that can get us off fossil fuels.

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in Senator Coburn, we have one of the smartest Members of this Senate and I believe the hardest working. There is no one more principled. It is perfectly all right in this body to object to a bill if it has some impact on your special interest in your State, but when a Senator such as Senator Coburn stands and objects to a piece of legislation because it is bad policy or impacts our national debt, that is not considered appropriate around here.

He has the quaint idea that you should actually read the bill. He and his staff read hundreds of bills. They let them go if they think they are OK. They object to the particular parts they think are bad. They ask for amendments to improve those bills. And then when asked, if they do not accept Senator Coburn's suggestion, he simply says bring up the bill and let me offer my amendment. That is not good enough. They want unanimous consent to run hundreds of bills through in the dead of night, without anybody looking at them, and I am glad one person has the courage and the integrity and the spine to stand and object. He is the one who is for good Government, in my view, and not the crowd who wants to run things through without full debate.

I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Senator Coburn, with regard to the Emmett Till bill, you have been open about your objection. This is not a secret hold, is it?

You worked on it. You spent a lot of your time. You talked to the Department of Justice, you studied the bill, you studied the language in it. You have a sincere concern about the way it was originally written; is that right?

In fact, you talked to the Justice Department about it, I believe; is that correct?

You spent a lot of hours of your personal time trying to make this legislation better. Have they told you they needed as much money as the bill originally authorized?

The Department of Justice said they can meet the goal with one-third less money than the bill has in it?

And you are willing to accept that amount?

I don't think that is an unreasonable position, I would say to my friend the majority leader. I think that is good work, what a good Senator should do. They should ask questions.

You served on the Judiciary Committee, so you were engaged with that discussion when it first came up?

On the Child Protection Act, the goal of that was--I served on that subcommittee--the goal of that was to create task forces around the country to exploit computer technology to identify pedophiles and child molesters, a goal which I support and I think you support. But the amount of money just seemed to be drawn out of thin air, one-point-something billion dollars; is that correct?

OK. When it came out of the subcommittee, as I recall-- and I talked to the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Biden, at length, and our staff talked, and we asked him to bring the amount down.

I served 15 years in the Department of Justice. I know the Presiding Officer was a U.S. attorney also. I know something about how task forces work. We didn't need $1.2 billion. I tried to get that down.

I was placed in an uncomfortable position to either vote for a bill that I supported in general or insist that the number, the amount of funding, be reduced to a reasonable level. Sometimes you wonder, maybe they want to put you in that position. I voted against the bill in committee.

After you raised an objection and placed a hold on it or made clear your objection, the bill has been reduced in amount?

I ask unanimous consent to use 5 minutes of the time allotted to the Republican leader.

Mr. President, first, I appreciate particularly the work of my colleague, the senior Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, who has, for quite a number of years, fought to improve oversight of the GSE, the Fannie and Freddie agencies that are so dominant in our loan market.

I am pleased, finally, now that we are in a crisis and the warnings he has raised for years, along with Senator Sununu, Senator Allard, and some others, that they now are willing to accept some significant oversight over these tremendously large institutions while, unfortunately, placing the taxpayers at risk.

So I think, all in all, with the crisis we are facing, I am inclined to support this legislation; although I am not, in general, happy we are in this circumstance.

I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute. I do not see another colleague here.

I would note that for these reasons, I think it is bad public policy. I ask my colleagues to vote against it on the merits and also because we need to continue to talk about producing more energy for America; keeping American wealth at home and not continue to transmit $700 billion a year of our wealth to nations around the world, often who are hostile to our national security interests.

I reserve the remainder of our time on this side.

Will the Senator yield?

Who gets the benefit?

Mr. President, I say to Senator Domenici, thank you so much for clarifying this. It is like we are hearing two different conversations utterly unconnected to one another. But I notice Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, had offered a consent request. He offered and asked that we be allowed to offer seven amendments--just seven amendments. There was some confusion about it. But did you hear what the majority leader said to that offer?

What did he say? And what power did he have to carry out what he said?

Mr. President, I think that is a sad event.

I ask the Senator, would you not say that this body we take so much pride in as being the greatest deliberative body in the world--maybe in the history of the world--on an issue that is as important to the family budget and the entire Nation's economy that is shaky now because of surges in gas prices--isn't it bad policy--I say to Senator Domenici, you have been here 36 years, you have chaired the Energy Committee, you have written energy bills that have made the country better. Isn't it critically important right now for America that we start talking about and debating openly, not trying to manipulate it but openly to see what we can do to produce more and use less energy?

Mr. President, I will ask this too.

I say to the Senator, you have watched this so closely, and we have the question of oil shale in the West.

Two years ago, when your Energy bill passed, we had an opportunity to begin to see if we could make that be successful. I think we can. We had testimony in the Energy Committee that indicated it would come in below the world price of oil.

But what happened? Wasn't it when the Democrats got the majority in the Congress, Speaker Pelosi put in language that barred any utilization of Federal lands to produce oil from shale?

But it was a very recent act in the Interior appropriations bill, not fully debated anywhere.

Slipped in, as we say, in the dead of night. It reversed the option to going forward and basically denied the Interior Department the ability to write the regulations that would allow it to go forward.

Mr. President, do we have a time agreement now?

Mr. President, I would just say what an honor it has been to serve with Senator Domenici. There is no more effective advocate, no more courageous Senator in terms of speaking the truth about complex matters in words that Americans can understand, and no stronger Senator in committing to a sound economic policy than Senator Domenici. We are going to miss him in this body, there is no doubt about it.

I wish to briefly share a few thoughts about the LIHEAP legislation that was offered.

First, I would note that the Democratic leadership has proposed two pieces of legislation at this point in time over the last few weeks that would deal with energy. One is speculation, which I am open to in seeing what we can do to tighten that up, but it produces not one barrel of energy. They also tried to move today a $2.5 billion energy subsidy to subsidize the purchase of fuel oil for people in America, and they want to spend it. There is no money whatsoever to pay for it, so it is going to be treated as an emergency, adding to the debt this Nation already has. I would just suggest that if you are looking at sound energy policy, it seems to me that Senator Alexander has it right: We should find more and use less.

I would suggest it is crystal clear that the LIHEAP legislation that is designed to use $2.5 billion of the taxpayers' money--actually, money we don't have because we are already in debt--to subsidize the utilization of more energy--really some of the dirtiest energy we have in America; burning dirty fuel oil in private home furnaces--that is not consistent with a sound energy policy.

So I reject the LIHEAP bill first and foremost because it is unpaid for, it adds another $2.5 billion to the national debt, and it is on top of an already $2.5 billion LIHEAP piece of legislation. This is not good leadership from the Democratic side on matters important to America.

You remember the dispute we had over automobile gasoline. The prices went up, and some suggested we should cut the tax. We said no, that is not good policy. Why would you want to encourage the utilization of more gasoline by cutting this tax? It is just not good policy.

We need to do something fundamental about energy. It is an even worse policy to tax the American people or add debt to our grandchildren to subsidize the utilization of some of the Nation's most dirty energy.

The very people from that area of the country--the Northeast primarily--are the ones who have consistently objected to the production of more energy. Time and time--I have been here 12 years, almost. I know where the votes have come from. The very people pushing for this subsidy to burn more dirty fuel oil are the people who had objected and successfully blocked attempts to produce more, cleaner energy in America, and it is not good.

We need to talk about this. We need to get serious about America's energy policy. I know my fine colleague, the great advocate from Vermont, tried to argue that this is a fair allocation of money and that it is not regionally biased in favor of Vermont or some of our Northeastern States, that it helps rural Southern States with air- conditioning. Well, I am just looking at the numbers in the bills. I have the numbers State by State right here. In Vermont, they have one Congressman. They got $17 million. I guess that is less than--$17 million under this program. Alabama, with seven Congressmen--seven times the population--got a total of $18 million.

Look, this is a gimmick. It is a transfer of wealth to a certain group of people for political reasons, and we are going to send the debt to our grandchildren. It is not good policy.

We ought not to go to the LIHEAP bill because we need to be talking about how to produce more energy. If we produce more energy and we produce cleaner alternative energy sources, if we build nuclear plants that some of these same people have opposed, if we were building another 100 nuclear plants instead of the 100 we have--and we haven't built one in 30 years--if we had been building them the way France has, where 80 percent of their energy is from nuclear power, we wouldn't be in the crisis we are in today, but they blocked that. So I just protest a little bit. Count me as saying no on that question.

I see some of my other colleagues are here, and I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation to Senator Coburn. I believe that is one of the most important speeches I have heard in the 12 years I have been in this Senate. We are going to have a test. This body will be tested in the days to come, it appears, because some Members who run the railroad are unhappy that one Member of this Senate--the hardest working Member of the Senate and one of the most intelligent Members of the Senate and one of the most principled Members of the Senate--has an odd view about legislation.

Senator Coburn believes we ought to read legislation and, if there is something wrong with it, before we pass it, we should try to fix it. He believes we are spending too much money--and we are.

I will note that, according to the conservative way of figuring debt, last year our deficit was $177 billion. Already this year, we have done a $150 billion stimulus package. We have done other things. The economy is slowing down. Our deficit this fiscal year, ending September 30, is likely to be $450 billion, maybe $500 billion. If you figure it another way, it can be another $150 billion more.

So isn't it good that we have a Senator who will stand up here and fight to try to contain the recklessness we have ongoing in this body? He would actually read legislation and spot the weaknesses because I have watched him. I don't know how he possibly has the time to do all that he does. And it is for America.

One of the oddest things about this body I have observed--and I have been one, on occasion, to hold legislation also and object to certain parts in it. I am sure Senator Coburn has seen this. If you object to something because it adversely affects Oklahoma or Alabama or Tennessee, some special interest in your State, why, that is fine. That is quite acceptable. Every Senator has to protect their own special interest in their State. That is why you are here. But if you actually protest a piece of legislation because it is bad policy, because it does not further America's legitimate national interest, because it dumps wealth and debt on our grandchildren, then that is ridiculous. What is the matter? You are just a crank. You are just trying to slow down the machine. You are stopping the train.

I am telling you, this is a big deal that is coming up. This body is famous for unlimited debate. On a number of pieces of legislation they will ask the question--the majority leader and others frequently ask a question, and this is what they say: I ask unanimous consent that this piece of legislation pass--maybe 100, 200, 500 pages--without an amendment, without any debate, and we go straight to a vote and just pass it.

How many Members of this body actually read it? Very few, if any. Senator Coburn tries to read them. He tries to analyze them. He does the right thing that every Senator should do. If he sees something that needs to be debated or corrected, he objects because he is not ready to consent. Isn't that fundamentally it? He is not prepared to consent because he thinks there is something bad in it for America. He is one of the most principled people I know in committing to what is best for America--not just Oklahoma but for America.

So the majority leader has gotten his back up. He just wants all these bills to go through, and he doesn't want to have them brought up.

Senator Coburn has repeatedly improved pieces of legislation. I hope if we proceed with this debate--and I don't know if Senator Coburn possibly has time--but I would like to see brought out on the floor of this Senate some of the corrections and improvements to hundreds of pieces of legislation that he has achieved by standing up and saying: I am not going to consent until you fix this problem. You know it is bad, go on and agree to it. And frequently they will agree. They will say politics made us do it. We really didn't favor that anyway, Tom. But maybe if it is the only way we can pass it, we will just do it and do the right thing. So legislation is improved time and time and time again as a result of his work.

I know with regard to this African AIDS piece of legislation, I met with a group from Africa--a grandmother whose daughter died from AIDS and who had her grandchild with her who has AIDS--and they objected to several different things in that bill. They said they would rather have no bill than if we pass it the way it was originally written.

Senator Coburn--Dr. Coburn--understands this, and he put his foot down. He made them improve that bill before he would agree to have it come up for a vote or support it, which he did eventually.

I am just saying the good government crowd is being spun around, and many in the media are being spun around that good government is on the side of those who don't like people who put holds on legislation. I would say it is crystal clear that anybody who loves this country, who worries about reckless spending, who wants integrity in government should be on the side of a Senator who will stand up and read the legislation, who is prepared to come to the floor and debate the problems he

sees in it, and who will offer amendments to make it better. That is what a Senator ought to do.

That is what this Senate should be. It will be a dark day, it will be a day of shame in this Senate if we cobble all these pieces of legislation together and ram it through without any opportunity to amend it. That is what the plan is, as I understand it, to just cobble up 36 pieces of legislation that people have concerns about and just file for cloture, shut off debate, and pass them all. That is not good policy. It will be a dark day for this Senate.

I am so proud I had the opportunity to be here and hear Senator Coburn's speech. He is doing the right thing for this country. I am proud of him and I will be supporting him and I think a lot of others will too.

I yield the floor

Mr. President, I certainly agree. I say to Senator Alexander, I think you have articulated that so well. I just heard most of the remarks of Senator Carper, our Democratic colleague. He was talking about ways to produce more nuclear power, biofuels. I think-- don't you--there is a basis for compromise between our parties that will have conservation plus more production? Both of those together, I am convinced, will help break this cycle of ever-rising prices of fuel. That is the direction we need to go. I do find it odd that the Democratic leader is keeping this negotiation--really, this discussion that would occur from a real Energy bill debate--keeping that from occurring and keeping progress from being made.

Mr. President, I think that is exactly right. I just want to thank the Senator for his leadership and study. One of our Members said there are few issues in which more Members of this Senate have educated themselves than on energy. I think most of our Members are deeply committed to doing something. If they are listening to their constituents, they are.

I calculated out, I say to Senator Alexander, that according to the estimates of the Government, the average family travels 24,000 miles a year. That means in their budgets they will spend this year, based on the increase in gasoline prices, $1,260 more. That amounts to $105 per month. After they pay their Social Security, after they pay their taxes, after they pay their insurance, after they pay their house loan, and all these fixed expenses all of us have, they have that little remaining money

that discretionary money to do the things they want to do to take care of their family and many critical needs, and they have $100 less per month.

I believe we have to do something. I do not believe we should go home without confronting this question. It requires conservation, less utilization, alternatives to this high price of oil, as well as more production.

Mr. President, I could not agree more. In fact, Senator Carper, our colleague, just 10 or 15 minutes ago emphasized plug-in hybrids as one of the key solutions. I think you and I agree from our discussions that in the immediate future, a plug-in hybrid automobile may have more potential to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels than almost any other thing that is within our technological capabilities to achieve. Would the Senator agree with that?

Mr. President, I ask Senator Alexander this. I get so frustrated when I say and Members on this side say: Well, we need to produce more oil and gas, we have blocked 85 percent of our offshore lands--not south of Alabama, we have supported that, but other areas are blocked--and they say that is because we are for oil companies. But the truth is, this idea you and I are talking about--a plug-in hybrid-- would take us from oil, would give some competition to the big oil companies, and would have a significant effect, would it not, in, hopefully, reducing the price of oil and their profits in the process?

Mr. President, I say to Senator Alexander, I have great affection for the Democratic leader, but I just could not agree with his statement that we do not have time. We have a whole month coming up for which we are supposedly going home for recess. Our soldiers are working 7 days a week, with 15-hour days. This Congress cannot stand to stay in session a while and confront this issue and do some things we know will work?

I know there are a lot of specific steps everybody in this Chamber would agree would be positive to deal with this problem. We need to take those steps, and on a bipartisan basis; but we can't get there unless we are able to bring up the bill and debate it.