Floor Statements

Mr. President, with regard to the Federal Election Commission, let me first say that my good friend the majority leader is correct that I was not inclined to reconstitute the FEC with a three- to-two Democratic majority, and that would have been, of course, the case had we gone forward on some but not all of the FEC nominations back before Memorial Day. So it is a fact that, in addition to objecting to Republican nominees of the FEC, which has become something of a tradition around here, there was an additional attempt to gain a majority on the FEC by acting prematurely, before we could confirm a full complement.

Now we have the opportunity to confirm a full complement, and there have been various efforts, it appears, to delay in order to give the DNC an opportunity to file a lawsuit today. Maybe I will be proven wrong today. Maybe they won't file that lawsuit, and then I will feel comforted that the effort to delay confirming all six--or the four additional FEC members whom we are confirming--was not somehow related to litigation being proposed by the DNC. So I hope they will not file that lawsuit, and I guess that will be the best evidence of whether there was an effort underway here to delay it.

I am encouraged by the fact that the majority leader indicates we can confirm these nominees today, and I have given him advance notice that I would like to propound a unanimous consent agreement that we do just that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed, at some point today mutually agreeable to the majority leader and the Republican leader, to executive session for the consideration of the following Federal Election Commission nominations: Calendar No. 306, Steven T. Walther; Calendar No. 624, Cynthia L. Bauerly; Calendar No. 625, Caroline C. Hunter; and Calendar No. 626, Donald F. McGahn; and the nomination of Matthew S. Petersen, which is to be discharged from the Rules Committee.

I would further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and finally, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my good friend the majority leader, and I hope we will be able to confirm these nominees today. Also, hopefully the lawsuit by the DNC will not be filed today, further raising the suspicion that the delays of the majority were related to facilitating that legal action.

Mr. President, let me say with regard to this week that this is a week when the Senate, hopefully, can make significant progress. There are three very significant pieces of legislation we hope to deal with this week, as the majority leader indicated.

After a failed attempt to address the housing crisis without Republican input, Democrats finally agreed last week to allow our input. As a result, we now have a bipartisan housing bill that addresses many of our concerns. I think it could be made even better with some further amendments, which I am hopeful we will have an opportunity to offer, even if cloture is invoked, because as much as I would like to see this bill move forward, there are some housing- related amendments that have been shut out of the process so far, and I am hoping the majority leader and I can discuss how we might be able to dispose of those expeditiously before we clear that bill here in the Senate this week.

We must also complete two important and long overdue national security measures--the supplemental troop funding bill that the President first requested more than 500 days ago and an updated terrorist surveillance bill that the Senate first approved last August but which expired more than 4 months ago, after House Democratic inaction. It is worth noting that on both national security measures, Democrats will be approving something Republicans have supported all along.

Regarding the supplemental, Republicans have argued for the past year

and a half that Congress has a solemn duty to fund our troops while they are on the field of battle. Regarding FISA, Republicans have argued for more than a year that the intelligence community should have the tools it needs to listen in on conversations between terrorists overseas and that companies that may have allowed them to do so should not be punished for helping.

I remain hopeful the Senate will be able to get these important issues accomplished this week, and maybe a bipartisan Medicare agreement as well, and other matters that can be dealt with. It is interesting how quickly the Senate can move when there is a broad bipartisan consensus behind measures. It may have taken a while for our friends on the other side to come around to our view and the view of most Americans on these issues, but for the sake of our troops, our families, and our security, we are glad they finally did. I hope the majority leader and I, working together, can figure a way through this massive amount of legislation in a very few days that allows us to reach a successful conclusion on many legislative fronts that will give both sides an opportunity to leave here at the end of the week believing this was a week of significant accomplishment for the Senate and for the American people.

Mr. President, let me say on this occasion I almost entirely agree with the majority leader about what needs to be accomplished this week. We do indeed need to do the housing bill. We do indeed need to do the supplemental for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FISA bill, the Medicare fix--it is a complicated legislative tangle which my good friend, the majority leader, has described, and with which he is trying to deal as we move through the week. But my goal is really the same as his, and we are going to continue talking to each other, continue to sort of run the traps

and hopefully clear the traps in such a way that we can have a highly successful week before the recess.

That is my goal. It is the same as his goal. I will be working with him to see if we can get all of those things done in the next few days.

Madam President, this year marks the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Diocese of Bardstown, which was established in Kentucky as one of the oldest dioceses in the country. Pope Pius VII carved it from one of the oldest dioceses in the New World.

The territory of the Bardstown Diocese once covered a giant swath of land, including what are now the States of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and half of Arkansas.

The Bardstown Diocese was established alongside the dioceses of Boston, Philadelphia and New York. Its seat was eventually moved to Louisville, Kentucky, and made an archdiocese. But its place in the history of American Catholicism continues to be a point of pride across Kentucky.

Kentuckians celebrate this bicentennial throughout the year at the St. Thomas Church, considered the ``Cradle of Catholicism'' in the Bluegrass State and still located in Bardstown. A two-story log house that stands on St. Thomas property is the oldest structure related to the Catholic faith in our region of the United States.

Built in 1795 by Thomas and Ann Howard, the property was willed to the church by Mr. Howard in 1810, and it became the first home of the St. Thomas Seminary, the first seminary west of the Alleghenies. It later served as the residence of Bishop Benedict Joseph Flaget, first bishop of the Bardstown Diocese.

Bishop Flaget and others who worked to establish the Bardstown Diocese were pioneers of the land as well as of the spirit. Kentucky was the western frontier of the young United States at that time, and frontier life posed many hardships.

But the diocese survived and thrived, and the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States earlier this year was timed to coincide with its anniversary.

Madam President, Kentucky is proud to include one of the oldest outposts of faith and freedom in America. I ask unanimous consent that a story from the Louisville Courier-Journal about the celebration of the Bardstown Diocese's anniversary be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, there is no doubt that the subprime mortgage crisis is a timely and important issue, and it is a worthy topic for the Senate to have taken up. There is also little doubt that the single most important issue facing Americans at the moment is the high price of gasoline at the pump.

Indeed, it would be difficult to find a single American who has escaped the painful effects of the recent record spike in gas prices and who is not eager for Congress to do something about it. That is why I was so concerned to hear the Democratic nominee for President say last week he was not as concerned about high gas prices as he was about the fact that they rose so quickly. He would have preferred a ``gradual adjustment,'' as he put it, to the sudden shock we all got.

More concerning, not a single Democrat in the Senate has come forward to distance himself or herself publicly from his words.

The message of the junior Senator from Illinois was clear: High gas prices don't concern him as much as they concern most people. By allowing his comments to stand, congressional Democrats are being equally clear they agree with him.

The fact is, on the issue of lowering gas prices, congressional Democrats have had very little to say. There is a commonsense response and that is to increase supply at home in a limited, environmentally responsible way.

America floats on top of an ocean of untapped oil reserves three times the size of Saudi Arabia's. As an immediate response to high gas prices, common sense dictates we should be moving immediately to increase our own massive domestic supplies and add American jobs in the process. In the short term, there is only one answer to high gas prices, and that is more American energy now.

Looking ahead, there is no doubt something needs to be done about demand. But while congressional Republicans have a solution to the problem, our friends on the other side have shown a stubborn unwillingness over the years to do much at all about increasing domestic supply, and the result of yesterday's inaction is the strain American families are feeling today in the form of record-high gas prices.

By failing to address supply, even with gas prices at $4 a gallon, congressional Democrats are telling the American people $4-a-gallon gasoline is acceptable, that they should get used to it. Kentuckians are not interested in getting used to $4-a-gallon gas and neither am I.

Congress has the power to do something about high gas prices, and we should. Americans are looking to Washington for action. What they are getting instead from Democrats in Congress is a lecture on ``gradual adjustments.'' Americans do not need a lecture; they need relief.

While Americans grow increasingly frustrated with gas prices, Democrats in the House of Representatives are showing where their priorities lie. Among other legislative business this week, they scheduled a vote on whether to ban the interstate sale of monkeys. House Democrats also recently took up resolutions commemorating National Plumbing Industry Week and the International Year of Sanitation. These resolutions are important, no doubt, to some. Yet none of them will do anything to lower gas prices.

Americans frustrated about high gas prices are wondering why Democrats in Congress are talking about monkey trade, and I don't blame them. It is time Democrats took the issue of high gas prices as seriously as the American people do. It is time Democrats in Congress join with the Republicans and get serious about lowering $4-a-gallon gas and lessening our reliance on Middle Eastern oil.

Unanimous-Consent Request--Federal Election Commission Nominees

Mr. President, I have indicated to my good friend, the majority leader, it was my intention to ask consent that we go ahead and confirm the FEC nominees. This agency has been essentially dysfunctional for most of the year because of disputes over the membership. I have given him notice that I would like to do that. I did not wish to surprise him.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that today, at a time to be determined by the two leaders, the Senate proceed to executive session under the following order: that the Senate begin consideration, en bloc, of the following Federal Election Commission nominations: Calendar No. 306, Steven T. Walther; Calendar No. 624, Cynthia L. Bauerly; Calendar No. 625, Caroline C. Hunter; Calendar No. 626, Donald F. McGahn; and the nomination of Matthew S. Petersen, PN1765, which is to be discharged from the Rules Committee; provided further, that there be 1 hour of total debate on the nominations, en bloc, with the time divided equally between the chairman and the ranking member of the Rules Committee. I further ask unanimous consent that at the expiration or yielding back of time, the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and, finally, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I am pleased to hear the majority leader shares my concern that we do not have a fully functioning Federal Election Commission. In fact, yesterday, the Democratic nominee for President called the system broken. Today is another example of the broken system.

This battle has been going on for more than 2 years, believe it or not, starting with the recess appointment of very well-qualified and well-respected experts in this field. The three recess appointments expired at the first of this year, and two nominees have ultimately withdrawn, citing the need for gainful employment, both well qualified, but one, having been unfairly and falsely maligned, ended up withdrawing.

So here we are today, after an April 29 commitment by the majority, that a review of new nominees would be simple and a commitment to speedy review. I know that is what the majority leader hoped to accomplish but, in fact, here we are still.

Let me be perfectly clear, we have gone out of our way, willing to confirm nominees who many on our side believe are completely misguided on the matter they would be regulating. But in the interest of obtaining a fully functioning FEC, it has always been my belief that the Democrats pick their nominees and we pick ours. I can't recall ever having made a Democratic nominee for the Federal Election Commission ``controversial,'' but that seems not to be the case when Republicans pick nominees. They are frequently demonized and declared unqualified.

Nevertheless, we are where we are, and hopefully we can get this done as rapidly as possible. There always seems to be a snag, and the snags always seem to be on the other side. I know this is something the majority leader is not happy about. He has just indicated he wants to move forward, and it is my hope we can get this done as rapidly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article citing the Democratic National Committee's intent to file yet another frivolous lawsuit next Tuesday--one that was dismissed once before--against the FEC, citing their failure to act on a matter related to Senator McCain.

Mr. President, the only way the DNC can maintain this suit is if there is a nonfunctioning FEC. Thus, in order for the DNC's already failed lawsuit to go forward, this package must be objected to, and they have done just that.

I hope this continued delay of getting a fully constituted FEC is not related to the fact that the DNC is trying to, we think, file a lawsuit on Monday. Those are the kinds of shenanigans which I don't think we ought to export from the campaign to the Senate. In the Senate, it strikes me we have an obligation to get this Federal Election Commission reconstituted and functioning, not to try to give one party's national committee or another some kind of advantage in a pending lawsuit.

So I am encouraged by the majority leader's desire to get these nominations completed. I know we are not having votes Monday, but we are in Monday. It strikes me that Monday would be a very good time to get these nominees confirmed, if, in fact, we can't do it later today if the snag the majority leader indicated could be cleared up. I know, because he has just said, he shares my view that we ought to get this job done, and I think the best time to do it would be today. The second best time to do it would be shortly after we convene on Monday.

Exhibit 1

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a young man from my home, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, who gave his life in the performance of his duty as a U.S. marine. On April 15, 2006, an improvised explosive device detonated under LCpl Justin Sims's humvee as he patrolled Al Anbar Province in Iraq. The Covington, KY, native was 22 years old.

For his valor in uniform, Lance Corporal Sims received several awards, medals, and decorations, including the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, and the Purple Heart.

At a young age, Lance Corporal Sims had found what many Americans twice his age are still searching for: his life's calling. Justin's family members agree that even as a child, he aspired to serve his country in uniform.

His mother Alma Sims commented that:

On 9/11, he was a junior in high school. He said, ``I'd go

now if they would take me.'' You would think he was bred to

be a Marine. From 4 and 5 years old, his favorite movie was

Tour of Duty. The Marines was all he talked about.

Perhaps Justin was influenced by his grandfather Coleman Luster, an Army veteran. Justin admired his grandfather's service, if not necessarily how he chose to serve.

Alma remembers:

Papaw and Justin would joke around. Justin would say,

``Army was the best thing back then, but the Marines rule

now.'' Justin looked up to Papaw. They were real close. My

dad would always tease me, ``You did great raising your boy.

Let's see how these girls go.''

These girls were Justin's four sisters, all younger than he was. Justin was a kind and caring older brother, and with Alma being a single parent, he made sure to spend a lot of time with his sisters to make things easier for his mother.

Alma said:

He would take my four girls to school each day whenever I

had to go to work early. I told him, ``You don't need to do

that because I have a sitter.'' But he insisted on taking

care of them. You would think that him being 11 years older,

he wouldn't want anything to do with them. It was just the

opposite. If there was snow on the ground, he would take all

the girls out sledding. There was no hill too large for him.

Justin started ROTC in the eighth grade and participated at Holmes High School. He was a marksman with State honors for his ROTC rifle unit and participated in sharpshooting competitions all over the country. Neighbors recall seeing young Justin practicing how to twirl his rifle in front of his house. Once he tried to teach one of his sisters, then only 8 years old, how to twirl the rifle. She ended up with a big dent on her forehead.

Alma says:

We still laugh about that today because they told me she

had fallen.

Justin graduated from Holmes High School in 2003 and later that year enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He was eventually assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment, 2nd Marine Division, II Marine Expeditionary Force, based out of Camp Lejeune, NC.

Before he left, however, while still in his senior year at Holmes, Justin worked after school at a restaurant.

There, he met a young woman named Leah, who only worked at the same restaurant for a week but kept hanging around to see her friends.

Alma recalls:

He started flirting with her, then told her he was going to

ask her out.

Justin Sims and Leah Matt-Sims were married on December 26, 2004, after changing the date a few times because of Justin's uncertain deployment schedule. The happy couple found time

to honeymoon in Kentucky before Justin returned to Camp Lejeune.

Alma recalls:

When he came back from his first tour, I said, ``How many

people do you know can say, `I have protected the United

States'?'' He would say, ``And I do it with pride.'' He

considered it an honor to be a Marine and to serve his

country.

As a marine, Justin would periodically return to Holmes High School and speak to students in the ROTC Program. He deployed for his second tour of duty, this time in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, in March 2006.

Alma said:

I told him before he left for his last tour, ``I have a bad

feeling.'' He said, ``If something would happen to one of my

brothers, I would never forgive myself. It would drive me

crazy for the rest of my life.''

At a memorial service for Justin held at Holmes High School in Covington, the mayor announced that on that July 4th, the city would dedicate the Justin Sims Memorial Park. It is the same park where Alma and her daughters would go every Sunday and write letters to Justin when he was at boot camp.

Our prayers are for the Sims family today after the loss of this dedicated marine. We are thinking of his wife Leah; his mother Alma; his father Beechie; his stepmother, Linda Gregory; his sisters Tia Bryars, Briana Bryars, Tiffani Sims, and Maliesa Jones; his grandmother, Mae Luster; and many other beloved family members and friends. Justin was predeceased by his grandfather, Coleman Luster.

Mr. President, Justin's mother Alma tells us:

I miss talking to him every day, but I believe God has a

bigger job for him in heaven.

Those who knew Justin, whether as an ambitious boy in Covington or a dedicated warrior in Iraq, would surely agree. I want the Sims family to also know that this Senate celebrates the life of LCpl Justin D. Sims, and we honor his sacrifice on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend, Nelda Barton-Collings. Mrs. Barton-Collings is a well-respected Kentuckian and businesswoman, recently retired after serving 28 years on the Republican National Committee.

Mrs. Barton-Collings resides in Corbin, KY, where she was married to Dr. Harold Bryan Barton. After the passing of Dr. Barton she took on the ownership and operation of his two nursing homes. At the same time, she took night classes to become a licensed nursing home administrator. She has since grown those two nursing homes into numerous nursing homes and banks throughout eastern Kentucky.

Mrs. Barton-Collings used her vast business skills to serve her community, State, and eventually her Nation by committing to public service. She started out as a precinct chair, and then rose to become Kentucky's national committeewoman for the GOP. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan appointed her to the Federal Council on Aging. In 1990, she was the first woman elected chairman of the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce while serving on the President's Council on Rural America and the National Advisory Council to Small Business Administration, through an appointment by President George H.W. Bush.

She has long been a voice of great leadership on the Republican National Committee, where she was the first woman from Kentucky to address the RNC and call the meeting to order. Her position gave her opportunities to extend democratic ideas and philosophy to the former Soviet Union. She and 40 other political and business professionals volunteered to visit the Soviet Union in 1990 to discuss the foundations of a democratic government. ``They want freedom so badly; we hoped that we have helped them in some way,'' she said of her experience in the Soviet Union.

Nelda has given the good people of Kentucky and this Nation over 28 years of public service, and I would like to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this committed public servant. The News Journal in Corbin, KY, published an article highlighting her accomplishments and what a champion she is for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, and I ask unanimous consent that the full article be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank my good friend from South Carolina for allowing us to go forward today. As he knows full well, we have been complaining on this side that we have not been allowed to legislate on frequent occasions lately. The majority leader has outlined a way to go forward today that allows us to do what we used to do in the Senate, which is to actually offer amendments related to the subject and vote on them. I believe this is a good way to proceed. I thank the majority leader for his accommodation, and I thank my good friend from South Carolina as well.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``no.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``no.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``no.''

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a well-respected Kentuckian, Mr. Clarence L. Miller. Throughout his life, Mr. Miller has contributed immensely to our Commonwealth and Nation.

Recently the Sentinel-News in Shelbyville, Kentucky, published a story about Mr. Miller. The story summarizes the extraordinary life he led, while paying tribute to him as a remarkable Kentuckian. Throughout his career as a public servant, Mr. Miller has worked hard to give back to the State and Nation that he loves so dearly.

I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Clarence L. Miller as a true patriot and Kentuckian whose legacy will forever be remembered, and I further ask unanimous consent that the full article be included in the Record.

Mr. President, high gas prices continue to frustrate the American people, and so I think it is important that Congress show we are fully engaged on this issue and ready to help in any way we can. Unfortunately, that means the parties will have to come together on a solution, something our friends on the other side seem, at least so far, stubbornly unwilling to do.

The commonsense solution to this problem, we all know, is a combination of energy exploration in the United States to bring down prices in the short term married to a long-term strategy of energy independence through development of clean energy technologies. If we are going to help Americans in the short term, obviously we need more American energy now, but our friends on the other side don't want to hear it. They think Americans should get used to $4-a-gallon gasoline.

Asked last week about the sudden spike in gas prices, the Democratic nominee for President said he would have preferred a gradual adjustment. As I have said several times, and others have, I don't think that is the common view in the United States, and I want to give my colleagues on the other side one more opportunity to say that, in their view, Americans shouldn't have to get used to $4-a-gallon gasoline. I haven't heard a single one of them say so yet, but I can't imagine they agree with their nominee that what Americans really needed was a gradual adjustment to $4-a-gallon gasoline.

Mr. President, on another issue, Senator Bond reports that the FISA discussions have yielded a rough compromise that may be acceptable to the DNI, the White House, and the chairs and ranking members of the Intelligence Committees. Because the House leadership has denied a majority of House Members a vote on the acceptable Senate- passed bill last year, the burden remains on House leaders to prove they are capable of passing FISA legislation that the President will sign.

Mr. President, I just listened to my good friend the majority whip spend considerable time this morning complaining about obstruction and delay, so, as I indicated to him in advance, I am going to give him a chance to move forward, if they will just take yes for an answer.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 776, S. 3118, a bill to preserve Medicare beneficiary access to care, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Did I hear an objection?

Another option we could pursue on a bipartisan basis is to do what we did last December, which is pass a 6-month extension on a bipartisan basis. So maybe we can simply extend existing law for 18 months, the 18-month period being the one we had been discussing before the bipartisan talks broke off.

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of a Senate bill, which I will send to the desk, and is a clean 18-month extension of the December Medicare bill. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, our greatest successes in this Congress have come when both sides work together. We have seen it many times, from last year's Energy bill to the economic stimulus package. We started down the same path when we began the Medicare discussion a few months ago. Both sides wanted to prevent cuts to physicians in the Medicare Program, preserve access to the quality medical care our seniors have come to depend on, and improve the program with things such as electronic prescribing. Unfortunately, the majority walked away from these bipartisan discussions. With the deadline for action approaching at the end of the week, frankly, we need to pass a bill.

I am willing to consider many different options. Senator Grassley drafted a bill that would protect Medicare benefits for seniors and that could be signed into law by the President. It should be passed today in the Senate, but the majority has passed on an opportunity to do that.

I am going to resist the temptation to launch into a speech like my good friend from Illinois about how many times legislation has been blocked by the minority. I think the finger-pointing at this point on this bill is ridiculous. We have a couple of weeks to pass it. We need to get together and pass it.

If the other benefits and improvements to Medicare are unacceptable to the majority, my side is willing, as I suggested a few moments ago, to extend the bill passed in December of last year for 18 months, with a 1.1 percent update for 2009. It was acceptable enough to pass 6 months ago by unanimous consent, so it should be acceptable enough now. It is critical we prevent these cuts from taking effect. This bill would do that. The majority, unfortunately, has objected to that path.

It is some cause for confusion. I thought our friends on the other side were interested in preserving seniors' access to physicians from being compromised. As physicians face a 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursement, we need to be working together. I know I speak for myself as well as Senator Grassley when I say we remain hopeful that the majority will stop playing partisan politics and return to the negotiating table so we can quickly pass this much needed legislation.

Finally, I notified my friend on the other side I also wanted to ask consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 771, S. 3098, a bill to extend expiring tax relief. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

That was the extender package, the McConnell-Kyl- Grassley package. That includes the 1-year AMT patch omitted by the House bill that we had a vote on yesterday and extends the provisions that expired in 2007 for 2 years. This is a 1-year

longer extension than in the House bill we had the vote on yesterday.

S. 3098 does not include any tax hikes, reflecting the position 41 Senators took in a letter to Senator Baucus on April 23 of this year.

Our Republican alternative also includes the Ensign-Cantwell energy tax incentives, which were approved by the Senate earlier this year, 88 to 8.

In addition, S. 3098 does not contain the New York City earmark. It also does not contain the tax break for trial lawyers. It also does not contain Davis-Bacon expansion. And it also would not be vetoed by the President.

On balance, this is a bill that could pass the Senate and get signed by the President. We hope to pass it as soon as possible.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that my good friend on the other side of the aisle and I both know how we pass these bills--we pass them together. As he frequently said when he was in the minority and in a position similar to mine, we are not the House. We are the Senate. It is not going to work to turn the Senate into the House. We all know that. Both sides have tried it. We have been in the majority and the minority, and the minority always insists they be part of the process.

We have two important bills here that clearly need to be completed. We all know how to get there--bipartisan negotiation on the Medicare bill and bipartisan negotiation on the tax extender bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, let me echo the remarks of the majority leader. We are going to have an opportunity tomorrow to legislate like the Senate has long been accustomed to legislating. We are actually going to offer amendments. They are going to be related to the bill, and we are going to get started. The majority leader and I and Senator Dodd and Shelby all agree on how we ought to go forward. I hope Members on both sides who have amendments that are related to the subject matter will get them out early. Let's process them. Let's have the votes, and let's let the Senate work its will.

We also have the other items the majority leader has indicated we need to address before the recess. We will work

diligently to get passage on all those matters. There will be a lot of cooperation on this side of the aisle, and I am confident there will be on the other side of the aisle so we can have a productive workweek before the Fourth of July break.

Mr. President, it has been more than a week since the Democratic nominee for President, the junior Senator from Illinois, responded to high gas prices by saying it wasn't high gas prices he minded but the fact that people didn't have time to get used to them. In his words, he would have preferred a ``gradual adjustment'' to a sudden jolt.

As I said last week, I can't imagine this is a view many other people share, certainly not the people of Kentucky, who I assure you are not at all interested in getting used to $4-a-gallon gas, however gradual the adjustment. Our Democratic colleagues on the other side of the aisle have had a week to demonstrate they do not embrace the ``gradual adjustment'' philosophy of their nominee. We haven't heard a word from any of them.

Maybe they don't have a problem with $4-a-gallon gasoline either. Maybe the junior Senator from North Dakota was speaking for all of them when he said over the weekend that $4-a-gallon gasoline was finally forcing people to conserve. Telling people whose livelihoods depend on getting to and from work that they should get used to high gas prices is not an energy policy.

Supporting a gradual adjustment to $4-a-gallon gasoline is not an energy policy. Americans need an energy policy befitting America, and that means using the natural resources we have here at home to bring down prices in the short term, while pursuing a long-term strategy for energy independence through clean technologies. We can do both, and we should do both.

We need more American energy now. That is the short-term solution to the current crisis. So, again, I call on our friends to consider this reasonable two-part solution and to drop their absolutist opposition to energy exploration in America.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object. I will use a few moments of leader time to explain why.

Mr. President, we need to get back to first principles around here. The Democratic majority scheduled the hearing my good friend references in a way that would violate the standing rules of the Senate. Rule 26.5 provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of the rules, when the

Senate is in session, no committee of the Senate or any

subcommittee thereof may meet, without special leave, after

the conclusion of the first two hours after the meeting of

the Senate commenced and in no case after two o'clock . . .

unless consent therefor has been obtained from the majority

leader and the minority leader . . .

Typically, as we all know, the minority provides consent for committees to violate rule 26.5. The minority routinely provides this consent, frankly, in the interest of comity. But comity also requires the majority to treat the minority fairly which means, at a minimum, that the majority needs to keep its commitments to the minority. If commitments in this body are not kept, then comity breaks down. If that occurs, the minority will not routinely grant consent to those matters that we usually do. In this case, we have unfulfilled commitments with respect to treating circuit court judges fairly. It is the middle of June. The Senate has only confirmed eight circuit court nominees. This is less than half the number the majority leader and I agreed to at the beginning of the Congress. It is barely half the number of circuit court nominees that a Republican Senate confirmed in President Clinton's final Congress. More troubling, the chairman has threatened to soon stop confirming circuit court nominees altogether here in June.

The Republican conference does not consider this lack of progress and thinly veiled threat to be, frankly, in good faith. Not surprisingly, it is, therefore, not inclined to freely give its consent to matters that are important to the majority. That is the way things work around here. As I have said before, the Senate works best when there is a spirit of cooperation. Absent that spirit, the minority will be compelled to protect its rights using all protections afforded it under Senate rules.

There is an easy solution to the problem. We have been talking about it both privately and publicly over the last few months. The majority needs to start confirming circuit court nominees, at least those who meet the chairman's own criteria.

And it seems to me that before the committee spends its time creating new vacancies, which is what the hearing today was about, it needs to work

on filling the vacancies that already exist. Unfortunately, the Judiciary Committee is moving at a glacial pace toward that end. It has only held two circuit court hearings this year. Before that, it hadn't held a single one since last September. We have no indication that it is going to pick up the pace. There are several outstanding nominees who have been sitting in committee who meet the chairman's criteria. Until they are treated fairly, the majority will find our cooperation increasingly hard to come by.