Floor Statements

Madam President, Mr. Thomas W. Richardson of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will soon retire with over 37 years of exceptional service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He is member of the Senior Executive Service and is the Director of Corps' Engineer Research and Development Center Coastal Hydraulic Laboratory. His accomplishments and dedication to the Corps of Engineers' laboratory community and the Army are exceptional and will have a significant and long lasting positive impact on this Nation.

Following 3 years of service as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mr. Richardson began his Army civilian career in 1974 as a research hydraulic engineer at the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, in Vicksburg, MS. Through the 1970s and early 1980s he was a principal investigator for research studies on dredging systems for beach nourishment for offshore sources and an assistant investigator on a research study to develop new systems for bypassing sand past tidal inlets. During this time he designed and constructed the world's first portable, land-based hydraulic sand bypassing system, which was delivered to the Corps of Engineers North Central Division as an operational plant. A systematic approach became available to address a major national concern with both economic and strategic aspects; that of bypassing sand to preserve beaches and to maintain harbor channels.

In 1983, Mr. Richardson became chief of the coastal structures and evaluation branch, Coastal Engineering Research Center where he supervised 16 researchers specializing in functional design and performance of coastal structures, dredging and sand bypassing systems, geomorphic evaluation, and empirical design methods for coastal projects. From branch chief he quickly moved up to division chief in 1985 and served in that capacity for 14 years, first as chief of the Engineering Development Division and then as the Chief of the Coastal Sediments and Engineering Division. He directed numerous comprehensive research and development investigations, and studies of coastal processes, sediment transport, shoreline change modeling, beach fill design methods, prototype systems design and development, and functional design of coastal projects. Notably, he developed general technical approaches and R&D programs that produced the extraordinarily successful and patented CORE-LOC concrete armor unit and the Scanning Hydrographic Operational Airborne LIDAR Survey--SHOALS--system.

Mr. Richardson assumed the duties of acting assistant lab director in January 2000. In June of that same year, he was elevated to acting director, CHL. Mr. Richardson joined the Senior Executive Service in March 2002 upon becoming director of the CHL.

Under the leadership of Mr. Richardson, the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory directly supported the Army transformation, civil works strategic plan, global war on terrorism operations, and high priority civil works operations. In addition, CHL addressed critical levee issues for the Department of Homeland Security by developing a unique system to rapidly repair breaches in levees caused by natural phenomena or terrorist attack.

Throughout his career, Tom Richardson has demonstrated a profound commitment to the Army, the Corps of Engineers, and the Nation. He is a consummate professional whose performance in over 37 years of service has personified those traits of competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect of its senior civilian leaders. I congratulate Mr. Richardson on his distinguished service to the U.S. Army and the Nation.

Mr. President, I am pleased to have been here to hear most of the comments and remarks of our colleagues about the distinguished career of the Senator from Alaska, Ted Stevens. I haven't had a better friend in the Senate than Ted Stevens and his example and his friendship have been very vital to my service in the Senate, and the people of my State have benefited from the relationship I have had. So I am glad to have this opportunity here today, when so many are saying the things that come to their mind and are in their heart about the impact Ted Stevens has had on the work of this Senate and on individual Senators and their careers.

I am one of those who had the privilege of being by his side as a member of the Appropriations Committee. After 2 years in the Senate, I was able to get on that committee and moved up pretty quickly, because of the retirements of other Senators, to sit by his side and to benefit from his example. I am grateful to have had that opportunity, and I thank him for his generosity, for his time and his efforts to help assure that I was assisted. I tried to be helpful to not only my State but to programs and activities within the Department of Defense that I had strong feelings about and thought were very vital to our national security interests. Missile defense comes to mind as one of those issues that we dealt with in a way that led our country to move forward quickly. Senator Inouye was very much a part of that as well. I think their experience and the way they worked together served as an example to the rest of us as to how working through the committee system of the Senate benefits our country and how it is important to this institution that traditions be respected and observed. It is not just for procedural standpoint benefits, but it truly does improve the quality of the work and the importance of the influence of the Senate in our government today.

So I can't say enough in terms of praise and expression of appreciation, except that we are going to miss the benefit and the example of Ted Stevens here in this Senate. There is no way around that. We are suffering a loss by his departure from the Senate. We wish him well. We know he is going to be around and we look forward to continuing the friendship and the opportunities to get advice. He may volunteer some advice that he thinks we might need, and I hope he will. I invite him to. We will continue to benefit from his service and the things he has done in his great career to help this institution and our great country.

It is a sad day for me but one that I know he appreciates very much in terms of the people who have spoken and the things that have been said about him. These are words of praise that are very well earned.

Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier this week, I have serious concerns about the way the appropriations process was handled this year. One of my greatest concerns was the removal from the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of $350 million to aid Mississippi and Louisiana hospitals with problems they continue to face from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. This funding was extremely important to these hospitals to be able to retain the workforce needed to address the health concerns of the area. I was pleased, however, to learn that the majority had increased the amount of funding available under the Social Service block grant program specifically for this purpose. It is my understanding that the House Appropriations Committee included an additional $288 million under the program to help assist these hospitals. It is my hope that when the Department of Health and Human Services awards these funds that they consider this intent.

Mr. President, my friend John Warner, the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia, has decided to retire from the Senate after 30 years of exemplary service.

John and I were sworn in as Senators on the same day. While our paths had crossed a few times before becoming Members of this body, we became good friends and neighbors as well as competitors on the tennis courts.

Before John was elected to the Senate, he had achieved national prominence as the Administrator of the American Revolution Bicentennial Administration. He also had served as Secretary of the Navy.

As a Senator, John has served prominently as chairman of the Armed Services Committee where he worked effectively on shipbuilding issues that were important to both of our States.

John Warner has served with great distinction in the Senate. He has earned the respect of all Senators because of his stewardship and his sense of responsibility for our national security interests, which he has done so much to protect.

The Senate, the State of Virginia, and the Nation will greatly miss having the benefit of John Warner's steady hand at the helm.

Wayne Allard

Mr. President, it has been a genuine pleasure to serve in this body with the distinguished Senator from Colorado, Wayne Allard. He has made significant contributions through his thoughtful and effective leadership for the betterment of our country.

He has brought to the challenge of public service a seriousness of purpose and sense of responsibility to do this job well, not for personal aggrandizement but for the improvement of our national security and our Nation's economy.

In the process, he has reflected credit on his State of Colorado and his family. His personal qualities of humility and trustworthiness have aided him as he has worked to contribute to the quality of this legislation we have enacted.

Wayne Allard is one of the most respected Members of this body. He is also one of the best like Senators. We are certainly going to miss having the benefit of his leadership.

We wish him well in the years ahead.

Madam President, it is with mixed feelings of remorse and pleasure that I speak on the subject of the retirement from the Senate of my colleague and friend from New Mexico, Pete Domenici. He and his wife Nancy have been close and dear personal friends. When I was elected to serve in the Senate, they reached out to my wife Rose and me and made us feel at home and very comfortable in our new Senate environment. That was 30 years ago.

The Domenici family will surely be missed, but I know we will stay in touch. I wouldn't be surprised to get a call from Pete if he sees or hears about my not doing right on an issue he feels deeply about. He is not bashful, nor easily intimidated, and he is going to continue to be consulted for advice and counsel from time to time by me and others who respect him so highly and realize they would benefit from his good judgment and insight.

From public works to budget and energy, to appropriations, he has been a conspicuous and forceful advocate of public policy in the Senate committees. His contributions to public policy during the years of his service in the Senate are unsurpassed, and the genuineness of the respect in which he is held by his colleagues is unequaled. It has been a great honor to have served with Pete Domenici. I extend my sincere congratulations to him on his outstanding career in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Pete Evans, a fellow in the office of Senator Domenici, and Peggy Mallow, a member of his staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the day.

Madam President, according to the order, I was allocated a certain amount of time. I think it was 15 minutes.

I doubt if I will use that time, for the information of other Senators who may be waiting for the opportunity to speak.

We have adopted, strictly speaking, an amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2638, an act making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for fiscal year 2008. But most Members are aware that what this bill actually contains is the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. It also contains a continuing resolution to fund the rest of the Government through March 6, and a substantial disaster supplemental in response to floods, wildfires, and hurricanes.

I highlight the title of the bill because it is indicative of the sometimes opaque and convoluted process by which the bill was drafted. Its contents were determined almost exclusively by staff members and a small handful of Members of the Senate. There was no opportunity for most Senators to advocate for a specific request. There was no forum in which to offer amendments. There were no meetings in which to argue policy or discuss grievances that Members may have had with the provisions of these bills. There was no meeting of the conference committee. Only a few elements of the bill have been previously considered on the floor of the Senate. Only the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs chapter was debated on the floor of the other body. Yet we have only a few days remaining in the fiscal year, and we have been compelled to either concur in the House amendment or risk the shutdown of the Government.

The appropriations process has rarely, if ever, been perfect, and I am the first to admit that. In many years, the regular order has been abandoned at some stage of the process because of pressures of the legislative and fiscal calendar.

This year, we have thrown regular order completely out the window. In the process, we have failed both the Senate and, in my opinion, the people we represent. Not any of the 12 fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills have been brought to the Senate floor. Only one appropriations bill was brought to the floor of the House.

The Senate committee did not mark up even three of the appropriations bills, including the Defense bill, that supports men and women in uniform, which accounts for almost half of all discretionary spending. We didn't consider the bill in committee. Yet here we are with a so- called conferenced Defense bill buried within a much larger appropriations measure, which we have adopted.

It is not without precedent to have regular bills appended to the continuing resolution or other appropriations bills, but this is a $1 trillion appropriations package that has been presented for final action without a conference committee meeting, without any noncommittee members having had an opportunity to discuss the issues, to amend the bill, and without even committee members having an opportunity to consider most of the provisions of the bill.

Now, the principal reason, we understand, is that the leadership made a conscious decision early in the year not to engage the President, not to fuss with the President over appropriations bills. Of course, he has insisted that his request be honored, that the submission he has made to the Congress for appropriations be honored in terms of the top line figure; that any bill increasing the amount above the President's request would be vetoed. But you know what. I don't remember any President since I have been in the Senate who hasn't said something such as that when he submits the bills to the Senate. I can remember the Senate working its will, considering the President's requests. I remember President Reagan standing there with a big continuing resolution and supplementals and everything else we can imagine; it was about 2 feet high and tall, and in his State of the Union or speech to the Congress, he said: Don't ever send me another bill such as this. I will veto it. Well, guess what. We kept sending bills, and if they weren't that high, they might have been close to it. That is what we have on our hands here, the chief executive insisting on his right to participate in the process and be an influence in the process through the budget submission and the request for appropriations that he is bound to make to the Government every year, and we are bound to respond. We are bound to act, and we have.

So I am not quarreling with the technicality; what I am suggesting is we have denied our own Members the opportunity to openly discuss, to debate, to offer amendments on these bills. I think we need to reexamine that process of putting half of the day-to-day operations of the Government on auto pilot, which is what was the result, for 6 months--for 6 months--rather than negotiate with the President, or attempt to override his veto. We can override the veto, too. It is not the end of the world when the President vetoes a bill.

So the majority continues to express confidence that the Congress will be able to come back next year and, working with the next President, we hope to complete action on the remaining appropriations bills. Whether that is realistic to expect, we will wait until the next Congress and confront the next administration with our views on the appropriations levels and the proper way to write these bills of funding the Federal Government.

I fear the next Congress may refuse to do that and instead extend the continuing resolution through the end of

the year. There may be some adjustments made here and there. We have done that before. We did it in 2007. We wouldn't spend much less under that scenario, but we might omit some details, guidance, and oversight provisions that are our responsibility to undertake.

So if the majority was unable to win concessions from the President on their spending priorities, we could have overridden the President's vetoes or rewritten the bills to accommodate the President's concerns. There is nothing to stop Congress from coming back next year and working with the next administration to address in supplemental legislation any shortfalls we may become aware of. That is probably what we will end up doing. But with this CR, this continuing resolution, we will put half of the Government adrift, in effect, for the next 6 months.

We have been able to take some comfort in the past by the fact that the Appropriations Committees did that which was their responsibility to do. This year, however, even the committee has fallen short. In the Senate we marked up only 9 of the 12 appropriations bills. In the House, only five were reported from the full committee.

That is because the majority didn't want to take votes on the single issue which has been the top priority of American families throughout the summer--energy prices. The majority didn't want to risk even considering amendments to amend or repeal the moratoria on oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf, or the moratorium that prohibits the development of Rocky Mountain oil shale deposits.

I was elected by the people of my State to vote on issues such as energy policy. That is what we are here to do. But we spent much of the summer, in effect, avoiding our responsibilities.

What has been the result? Before us we now have an appropriations bill that does exactly what the majority had hoped to avoid--it lifts the moratoria on oil shale and Outer Continental Shelf development. In the process of getting to that result, however, Members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been denied the opportunity to debate and offer amendments to the other appropriations bills, including the Defense appropriations bill that is buried in this package.

This saddens me.

I regret that Republican committee members in the other body were denied an opportunity to amend the Defense or Homeland Security bills that are part of this package.

I regret that Republicans in the other body were denied an opportunity to offer a motion to recommit this bill. The majority precluded even this minor parliamentary opportunity by using the fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security bill as a shell for this bill.

I am sorry for all Members of the other body who were denied any opportunity to offer amendments to any piece of this package aside from the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill. Even amendments to that bill were controlled by an unusually restrictive rule.

I regret that some members of the Senate Appropriations Committee were unable to offer amendments to the Defense bill, the Interior bill or the legislative branch bill because those bills were never brought before the committee.

I am sorry for all the Members of this body who will have no opportunity, and have had no prior opportunity, to offer amendments to the various elements of this package.

This is a $1 trillion appropriations bill, yet there has been no conference committee to resolve differences between the House and Senate. This Senator has taken part in only a single meeting on this bill, and that meeting was confined to the Defense Appropriations chapter and was limited to the chairmen and ranking Members of the Defense subcommittee. There was no similar meeting for any of the other parts of this bill. Instead, decisions were made exclusively by staff, the committee chairmen, and the Democratic leaders.

To be clear, Chairman Byrd and his staff have been steadfast throughout this process in advocating for Senate priorities. I am grateful for Senator Byrd's support, and other Senators should be as well. I would like to be able to help him, however, and I know my colleagues on the committee would like to help as well. Yet without markups or conference committees or formal meetings, there is no venue for Members to express their views or advocate for their priorities.

Some will criticize this bill for including billions and billions in earmarks that were tucked into a must-pass spending bill behind closed doors. It may surprise people to hear me say this, but there is some truth in this. While I will defend vigorously the right of Congress to appropriate funds for specific purposes or projects, I will also defend the right of individual Senators to challenge those choices throughout the legislative process. Just like anything else in a bill, earmarks should be subject to scrutiny and amendment in committee, on the floor, and during conference. We do ourselves a great disservice by centralizing decision-making in the hands of a few, and by not allowing all Members of the House and Senate to contribute their own unique knowledge and ideas to legislation.

Don't get me wrong. This bill includes many positive measures.

In the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs chapter, the Department of Veterans Affairs is funded at a record level of $94.4 billion, including $31 billion for medical services. Our commitment to quality care for our veterans has never been greater.

The Homeland Security chapter includes funding for 2,200 new border patrol agents, $775 million for continued work on physical and tactical infrastructure along the southern and northern borders, and funding above the President's request to accommodate an additional 1,400 detention beds.

The Defense chapter provides a balanced approach to readiness, modernization and quality of life programs for U.S. military men and women. It provides the level of support that they deserve--including additional family advocacy programs, enhanced health care, improved training, and state-of-the-art equipment.

The bill includes $9.3 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency for essential disaster response across the United States. These funds are crucial to help our citizens and communities recover from recent disasters such as Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, as well as past disasters such as Hurricane Katrina.

At the end of the day, I am pleased that we will get the three principal security-related appropriations bills to the President. I regret the process that has brought us to this point, and the degree to which Members have been shut out of the decision-making. It would be unconscionable for Congress to adjourn without enacting a Defense bill while our troops are in the field, fighting to implement the policies of our government and sometimes making the ultimate sacrifice.

I will support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. But we must do better next year. We must put the upcoming election behind us, and recognize that shortcuts in the legislative process are often the long way around. Enacting appropriations bills is one of the core duties of the Congress. If Congress is to regain the trust and respect of the American people, we must perform that duty in a timely and transparent fashion.

Thank you, Madam President.

My hope is we will admit we have responsibilities that go beyond putting the Government on this auto pilot as we have described. We are here to challenge the President when we disagree with him, but we don't need to avoid completely our responsibilities or abrogate our responsibilities.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I sincerely thank my distinguished colleague and friend, Senator Byrd, the chairman of our committee. We have worked closely together during my time in the Senate. I have enjoyed the opportunity to learn from him. I appreciate the cooperation he has extended to me personally. Also, that is true of his staff members, that we have worked together and with mutual respect. That respect still continues. I am grateful for it. I know that by continuing to put our best efforts forward, we can improve this process, and I look forward to that day.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be equally charged to both sides.

Mr. President, I asked the distinguished Senator to yield to me because I want to commend her for the strong argument she has made, the attention she has brought to the issue of agricultural disaster both in her State and Texas in particular. But this also affects my State, Mississippi.

Listening to her a little while ago, from my office, over the television, made me think: We do need to address this issue, and why not put language in this bill that would help ensure that consideration was given?

I wish to be listed, if the Senator will permit me, as a cosponsor to her bill. I am pleased to support it and I hope it is helpful.

I don't know whether we have the votes. I don't know what would happen in conference. I don't know what will happen when the administration sees it. But I think you have made some excellent points and they need to be acknowledged by those in charge of our programs so ways can be found to help these farmers.

Mr. President, I appreciate the leadership permitting me to comment on the schedule for consideration of the Appropriations bills before the vote on the stimulus bill. It is unfortunate that the continuing resolution comes in the form it does to the Senate. What this bill actually contains is the fiscal year 2009 Homeland Security Appropriations bill as well as the Defense appropriations bill, and the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. It also contains a continuing resolution to fund the rest of the Government through March 6, and a substantial disaster supplemental in response to floods, wildfires, and hurricanes.

There was no opportunity for the Senate to carefully review all of this bill in the time that is being allotted for its consideration this morning, there was no opportunity for most Members--whether they were members of the Appropriations Committee or otherwise--to advocate for specific requests, no forum for offering amendments, no meetings in which to argue policy or air grievances, there was no meeting of a conference committee.

A few elements of the bill have been previously considered, but only a few, by the Senate. Only the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs chapter was debated on the floor of the other body. The regular order has been thrown out the window and we have failed to give the Senate and the people we represent an opportunity to know exactly what we are about to do. Not one of the individual appropriations bills has been brought to the Senate floor. But in spite of that, we have to appropriate the money, we have to vote in support of an appropriations bill. I rest my case. I hope we can do better in the future than we have done in this cycle.

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago today, the Committee on Appropriations marked up three fiscal year 2009 appropriations bills. Those bills would provide funding for programs ranging from agricultural research to veterans' health care and from foreign aid to the infrastructure that supports our men and women in uniform in our Armed Forces. While some members of the committee had concerns about the overall spending levels in those bills or individual provisions within them, the committee reported the measures by broad bipartisan votes. Those votes reflected the committee's collective belief that it has a fundamental responsibility each year to draft, debate, and report to the Senate its spending recommendations for the day-to-day operations of our Government.

The markup on July 17 was the committee's fourth markup of the year to consider fiscal year 2009 bills. The bills reported at that meeting brought to nine the total number of fiscal year 2009 bills approved by the committee. There was every expectation the committee would complete action on the remaining three bills in July, as Chairman Byrd had publicly indicated. It was also expected the committee would consider a second supplemental bill.

Despite complete inaction on appropriations measures in the other body and low expectations for timely enactment of the fiscal year 2009 bills, the committee was fulfilling its responsibility to make recommendations to the Senate and moving toward completion of the only portion of the appropriations process under its direct control.

So I give Chairman Byrd credit for getting the committee as far as he did, given the dim prospects for floor action. The Senate deserves to at least see the committee bills before making a judgment about whether it will allocate time to consider them.

Unfortunately, progress in the committee came to an abrupt halt last week. The chairman announced the committee would not meet to consider the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills and would not meet to consider a second supplemental. At the time, the reasons given for the cancellation were not clear. It was clear, however--and has been explicitly admitted since--that further markups were canceled because the majority did not wish to discuss, debate or vote on amendments relating to domestic energy production.

It is virtually unprecedented in our committee to cancel a markup to avoid a vote. The amendments that likely would have been offered in the committee are completely germane to the appropriations process. The appropriations bills in place for fiscal year 2008 contain at least two provisions that prohibit the use of funds for certain purposes and thereby inhibit the development of American energy resources.

One of those provisions is a moratorium on further development of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The other prohibits the issuance of regulations that would govern the development of our extensive domestic oil shale resources. Both of these matters would have been directly relevant to a fiscal year 2008 supplemental. It is also likely that one or both of these provisions would have been continued in the fiscal year 2009 Interior and related agencies appropriations bill, and as such would have been subject to consideration by the committee.

Nobody is playing political games in wanting to offer these amendments. Members interested in offering these amendments had several opportunities to present them during markups of the other appropriations bills but withheld from doing so on the promise that the committee would meet to consider the appropriate bills. I thought this was the responsible thing to do, but perhaps I was wrong.

Members are entitled to their own views about whether the moratorium on Outer Continental Shelf development should be continued. The same goes for oil shale production. But at a time when energy prices are dramatically affecting our economy and challenging the budgets of families across America, I do not think we as a Congress are entitled simply to sweep the issue under the rug--or attempt to--because it is inconvenient. We are not entitled to continue the moratoria for another year as part of a long-term continuing resolution without so much as a debate or a vote.

In addition to increasing our domestic supply of energy, responsible development of the Outer Continental Shelf and of American oil shale will mean billions of dollars in royalties, rents, and bonuses that will be paid to States and the U.S. Treasury--money that otherwise would be paid to foreign governments, many of which have policies that are in opposition to U.S. interests.

Responsible development of new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and of American oil shale would not solve our energy problems overnight, but no one is claiming it will. But if we take action now, perhaps we can avoid a debate 10 years from now in which we try to adopt quick fixes or overcome our failure to even vote on these matters today.

When last week's markup was canceled, all of the Republican members of the committee signed a letter to Chairman Byrd to express our disappointment and asked that he reconsider. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

It is now obvious we will go out of session having not finished our work as a committee, having not met to consider appropriations bills that deal directly with the most pressing issues facing American families today.

When we return in September, it is highly unlikely the committee will act on the remaining fiscal year 2009 bills or the second supplemental. Both the majority leader and the Speaker have indicated we will consider a second supplemental bill in September, but it is hard to imagine there will be enough time to act on that measure in committee. That is a shame.

Yesterday, Chairman Byrd issued a press release outlining what would have been in the chairman's mark of the supplemental had the committee met to consider it. He outlined a bill that would appropriate some $24 billion to respond to natural disasters, to improve American infrastructure, and for other purposes.

The chairman included a number of items I had requested that are important in my State of Mississippi in our ongoing efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina. He included a number of other items in response to requests by other members on both sides of the aisle.

While there will justifiably be concern about the total cost of this proposal and some of its component parts, in my view, it is a measure worthy of consideration in the Appropriations Committee.

But a press release is not a markup. It is not a draft of a committee bill. No Senator can amend a press release. No Senator can see the legislative language that would implement the spending described in the release, and no Senator can know what provisions might be included in the bill but not mentioned in the press release.

I am the ranking member of the committee, and I do not know these things. If I thought we would return in September and hold a markup of the bill, giving the Senate time to debate it fully, perhaps I would be less concerned. But we know time is short once we return. Based on what we have witnessed on the floor in recent months, I have little confidence Senators will be allowed freely to offer amendments to the supplemental if it is taken straight to the floor.

I wish to reiterate that Chairman Byrd has done an admirable job of trying to uphold the committee's responsibilities and prerogatives in the face of these circumstances. We both share the view that our committee has an important and fundamental responsibility to write and put forth bills that support the basic operations of our Nation's Government. As a Congress, however, we are getting into some very bad habits as it pertains to consideration of these bills.

We are completely abandoning efforts to move the regular appropriations bills across the House and Senate floors, something which has nothing to do with filibusters. Nobody filibustered the fiscal year 2008 bills that were brought to the Senate floor. When we do manage to pass appropriations measures, the differences are resolved not by an open meeting of a conference committee but, usually, in closed-door negotiations, followed by an exchange of messages between the House and Senate. Now, apparently, we are starting to cancel committee markups based on an unwillingness to take votes on difficult issues. They may be entirely germane.

So I regret these trends for the sake of our committee that is struggling to maintain its tradition of bipartisan cooperation and action. I regret it for the sake of millions of Americans who will simply not know why the Senate cannot manage to take votes and process its legislation and its appropriations bills in a straightforward and open manner. I regret the way we are letting things slide now into an unusual procedure that does not reflect credit on the Senate.

Mr. President, we will soon be adjourning the current session of the Senate, and we have yet to consider any meaningful proposals to help relieve the pressure all of our constituents are feeling because of the high cost of energy. Before we return home, we should pass a bill that encourages increased production of energy here at home to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Americans have responded to the jump in the price of gasoline by driving less and using less, and the price of oil has decreased significantly in the last 2 weeks because of this effort.

There is a direct link between supply and demand and the price of oil. In order to pay less for oil, we must have more supply and we must have our own domestic supplies.

We have been debating a bill that will not increase supply or decrease demand. The Democrats continue to thwart our efforts on this subject, and we find ourselves in a logjam.

Even though oil prices have dropped some, gas prices remain at an alltime high. Americans are spending an inordinate amount of their hard-earned income on gasoline. My constituents in Mississippi spend the highest amount of their income on gasoline of any State--nearly 8 percent--according to the National Resources Defense Council.

The status quo is not good enough. We must act. If the price of oil can drop more than $20 a barrel in 2 weeks because of decreased demand, imagine what could happen if we could couple that with increased supply.

We are very lucky that we have energy resources in America to explore. Many areas offshore are currently off limits, but they hold great potential, as do the large deposits of oil shale in the Rocky Mountains. With our abundance of coal, we have the opportunity to utilize coal-to-liquids technology as another fuel source. We are not lacking in resources. Yet we continue to be beholden to foreign oil cartels that are not producing at the rate of current worldwide demand.

We should also be making sure nuclear power is available in the quantities we need. Companies such as Entergy in Mississippi have made application to build new nuclear plants. We need to ensure that the permitting process is rigorous but more expeditious.

We have the opportunity today to begin weaning ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil, but in spite of the suffering that high gas prices are creating across the country, we are not moving fast enough. Let's get together and get this job done.

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

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. I am pleased to join him, to thank him for his remarks and his leadership on this pressing concern. The Department of Energy estimates that even with intensive conservation efforts in place and enforced, maintaining our economic growth through 2025 will require a 36-percent increase in energy supply. Unfortunately, over half of the oil we are now using is imported, imported from high-cost foreign sources. As demand rises and domestic supply is not increased to accommodate for our own needs, we will continue to be subject to the prices being set by foreign countries.

This is not only due to increases in demand from developed countries. The increased cost for petroleum is also affected by the demand in emerging economies such as India and China. There are new pressures and new reasons why the cost continues to go up. In fact, between 2008 and 2030 it is expected that in China and India, they will account for 70 percent of the increase in global consumption.

What we are urging is not just to take the shortsighted look, the easy answer the majority party has put before the Senate, but take a bold stance--come out for using more American energy, not from expensive foreign sources. We can develop our offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, far from the coastline, and add to our energy supply. That will bring down costs.

We need to do real things. We need to conserve more. We need to look for alternative sources, and there are plans in place and programs to do that. What I am saying is we should not give up. That is what this bill that has been brought before the Senate does. It is a bill to surrender--surrender to the high cost of foreign oil and gas. We do not need to adopt it. There are better alternatives and we are urging that we embrace them.

I appreciate the Senator yielding.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding again to me. We do not have time to waste. This is the point. We have proposals to utilize more of our own energy. We can do it. We just need to make ourselves realize that is a better answer than pushing the dates farther along when we do nothing, do nothing, say we are doing something but not getting at the problem. Unless we produce more of what we need here at home, we are going to continue to be subject to the decisions being made overseas by those who have the oil, have greater resources than we do. But we have enormous resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Technologies have developed to the point we can produce that energy and protect the environment at the same time. We need to gut it up and approve it, approve expanded exploration and production from our own resources.

The Gulf of Mexico has a huge reserve of untapped resources. We need to use that too.

Senate Republicans are not interested in structuring votes designed for failure and designed for political cover. This issue is too important to blame for our collective lack of accomplishment. We now need to address this vital issue. Energy and gas prices should not be politicized and we are not going to walk away and give up on this debate. We are here to stay and fight.

About 8 minutes.

Yes, he is in the Chamber as well.

Mr. President, I think under the order there is time for me to speak at this point.

Mr. President, I think the Senate should support an 18- month extension of current Medicare law with the inclusion of a 1.1- percent increase in physician reimbursements. We should also make an effort to identify long-term improvements that will strengthen a system that is badly in need of repair.

New legislation is important and urgent because of the expiration on June 30, 2008, of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act. This extension, which was signed on December 29, 2007, delayed cuts to payments under the physician fee schedule from taking effect until July 1, 2008.

Unfortunately, despite the knowledge that bipartisan negotiations were ongoing and could have achieved passage in time to prevent these cuts, the majority leadership chose to force a vote on H.R. 6331, a bill which the administration had promised to veto. My vote against the immediate passage of H.R. 6331 was a vote to protect the beneficiaries of Medicare and ensure their access to affordable and high-quality health care in the future. The fact is that providing health care to the constituents we represent must remain one of our top priorities. It is a priority that should transcend party politics.

In its current form, H.R. 6331 includes over $17 billion in new spending that comes at the expense of some of Medicare's more vulnerable participants, and it restricts seniors' private coverage through cuts to Medicare Advantage plans. Medicare Advantage is an important and widely used program that offers seniors quality health care at a low cost. This bill would result in a $13.6 billion cut from Medicare Advantage over the next 5 years and a $50 billion cut within 10 years. Specifically, over 2 million seniors would lose access to their private fee-for-service plans, reducing benefits to a one-size- fits-all plan and reversing what the program was intended to do in the first place.

This issue is particularly relevant in my State. Seventy-nine percent of the people in my State who are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans are also enrolled in private fee-for-service plans. I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that would put their access to health care in jeopardy.

The Senate should work to develop a bill that will accurately reflect the cost of providing quality care. If we don't, we risk a disruption in physician services to those who need care the most and we risk increasing the cost of health care. We must mitigate the negative impact of expiring provisions on providers and benefits.

The first step is to extend the current Medicare law until a compromise can be reached. We all understand that temporary fixes can only carry us so far. We need a long-term solution that fixes the sustainable growth rate to control costs, a long-term solution that recognizes the importance of increasing Medicare reimbursements, and a long-term solution based on bipartisan compromise. Anything less is not sustainable.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3118

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. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I was saddened by the news of the death of our former colleague, Jesse Helms of North Carolina. It was a privilege to work with him when he served as chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He was always courteous and respectful of the interests of all of the members of the committee. His conscientious efforts to be fair and resourceful in achieving a consensus on the provisions of legislation providing Federal Government support for the producers of food and fiber were deeply appreciated by me as a Senator from the State of Mississippi, which is so heavily dependent on farming and agribusiness.

I also admired his warmhearted and friendly manner. He was the epitome of the Southern gentleman. He was forceful and combative in his arguments in support of the issues he believed in, and he was never afraid to say what he thought, even though he knew he might not be supporting the prevailing view.

His wife Dot was one of the most precious Senate Wives Club members. My heartfelt sympathies go out to her and all the members of the family of our departed colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sara Love Swaney, who is a member of my staff, be given floor privileges for the remainder of the day.