Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which profiles Mr. Alvin Sykes. Mr. Sykes and I have worked closely together to reach a compromise on this bill, and I would like the story of his life and his work on this legislation to be part of the record.

I would also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a message from Mr. Sykes to me, expressing support for the compromise.

Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record three letters. The first is to the bill's sponsor, Senator Chris Dodd, explaining my objection to the legislation. The letter is dated June 25, 2007. The second is a subsequent letter to Senator Dodd, seeking a UC agreement for floor time on the bill, dated June 19, 2008. The third is a similar letter to Senator Reid, sent the same day.

If we are in a quorum call----

I think I have until 11:45, I believe.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, our side of the aisle has allowed me until 11:45 to speak.

Katy French

Mr. President, I am on the Senate floor for a lot of reasons at a lot of different times, but today is extremely unusual. I wish to spend the time talking about how important staff is in Washington. We are only capable of doing and accomplishing what we accomplish because we have staff here to help us.

I have had the great fortune over the last 3\1/2\ years to have someone on my staff who has displayed character virtues like none other I have seen in my career. She will be leaving my staff. Her name is Katy French. She has a master's in public health from Harvard. She has been on the front lines of HIV/AIDS since the epidemic came about. She worked for both Senator Gregg and Senator Brownback. The characteristics about her that make her great--in Oklahoma we would say her ``plow runs deep.'' She is well-rooted in the principles of liberty.

What she has done with that principle is recognize that if you are free, and you have liberty and yet you don't spend your life helping other people, the liberty is for naught. So she has been a great example to me and my staff over the last 3\1/2\ years for her tireless dedication--which all on our staff have--and for bringing with that well-rootedness, that deep-rootedness, the ability to challenge a Senator, to tell us what she thinks even though we may not like it, to bring forth ideas that aren't in the conservative realm yet are humanitarian, great ideas, the ideas to help people. The people who know Katy French know she means business, but that business has always involved taking care of people.

One of the first things she did as my staff director on the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee was set up a hearing on malaria. What we know is millions of people today in Africa are being cured of malaria because we, in fact, changed that program. The oversight hearings we held changed the direction. I know the Presiding Officer of the Senate now, the Senator from Ohio, is very much interested in that topic. Through her work, millions of Africans are alive today who would not otherwise be alive because the program was changed where we actually made a difference.

I can't think of any greater tribute to an individual who comes to work to help us in the Senate than to measure the value of what they have done in terms of the lives that have been made better, made healthier, and have forgone a serious disease and dread. She also conducted more hearings in our subcommittee than any other committee or subcommittee in the entire Senate in the 109th Congress. Most staff directors of committees know--and subcommittees know--how hard it is to put together and hold hearings.

Probably the greatest tribute to Katy is the fact that she didn't stop with that. When the Pope was here in his visit this last year, he called on America's youth to reach out and make a difference. Katy is in the middle of her career. She has made a big difference in the Senate for three separate Senators. She has made a big difference in terms of the PEPFAR legislation--the original legislation and the legislation that we just passed and the President has signed. She listened to that call to make a difference. So it is

both a sad time and a happy time for me to know that Katy is joining a religious order to further her life in giving to other people.

She is foregoing money. She is foregoing material things. In fact, she will be in an order that was established some 30 years ago associated with the Catholic Church out of Argentina that she will dedicate the rest of her life to, making a difference--a real difference--in other people's lives.

She will be focusing on troubled urban youth. Her characteristics and multilingual talents will lead her in that direction. To me, the greatest compliment you can have as a Senator is to have a staff member leave for such a higher calling. For Katy and all of those who work in our office and on behalf of the Senate, and as a reflection of the rest of the staff of the Senate, we thank you for your efforts on behalf of freedom.

I thank you, Katy, for your efforts on behalf of our office and what we are trying to do for the people of Oklahoma. Most importantly, I thank you for your grasp of faith and what it means to truly give up your life so that in the words of that man from Nazareth: ``He who is last will be first.''

Katy French has lived that example. We will miss her.

I thank the Senate for the time.

I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I will assure everyone I will not take 20 minutes.

First of all, let my thank all of those on the committee who worked on this bill.

The Higher Education Act of 1965, HEA, authorizes the Federal Government's major Federal student aid programs, as well as other programs which provide institutional aid and support. HEA also authorizes services and support to disadvantaged students, and to students pursuing international education and certain graduate and professional degrees. The last time the act was reauthorized was over a decade ago, in 1998.

The Senate passed HEA reauthorize on in July of 2007, with a vote of 95-0. The House of Representatives passed their version February 7, 2008, with a vote of 354-58. The final conference agreement is the product of nearly 6 months of work between the House and the Senate.

The Higher Education Act conference report, by the numbers, is nearly 1,200 pages, authorizes for appropriation of roughly $3.7 billion, creates 65 new programs, requires 24 new government studies, and requires the Department of Education to create and publish 26 different lists with information from more than 6,463 schools.

This bill seeks to address an enormous concern for many American families and students who are struggling to afford the cost of a college education. During the 2006-2007 academic year, more than $130 billion in financial aid was distributed to students in the form of grants, Federal loans, work-study, and tax credits and deductions. However, this financial aid is hardly keeping pace with the increasing rate of tuition.

According to the College Board, from 1996 to 2006, tuition rose 51 percent at 4-year public colleges and universities, after adjusting for inflation. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics, the average rate for undergraduate tuition and fees has nearly tripled over the past decade.

No one argues that the cost of college is rapidly rising, or that Congress, the States and institutions of higher education should examine this issue and work together to increase access and affordability for students. However, we must ask ourselves, is this bill the right solution? This bill dramatically increase general Federal financial aid to students through the following:

Increase the Pell Grant maximum from $5,800 to $8,000 at a cost of potentially $1.6 billion per year;

Permits students to receive Pell Grants year-round at a cost of $2.6 billion over 5 years;

Increases the loan fund for Perkins loans at a cost of $1 billion over 5 years;

Expands deferment for PLUS Loans and accrued interest would reduce direct spending $75 million over 5 years; and

Extend Federal loan forgiveness to the following groups--at a cost of $10.9 billion over 5 years: Public-sector employees (including Federal Government employees in Washington DC), nutrition professionals, mental health professionals, medical specialists, dentists, STEM employees, physical therapists, occupational therapists, superintendents, principals and other administrators, fire fighters, librarians, early childhood educators, nurses, foreign language specialists, speech language pathologists, school counselors, and others.

Dramatic increases in Federal student aid may sound like a helpful solution at first. However, research shows that increases in government funding only lead to further increases in tuition. According to a report by the Cato Institute, for every dollar increase in Pell Grants, private 4-year colleges increased tuition by more than two dollars.

The findings of the College Board in ``Trends in Student Aid 2007'' are even more astounding. The College Board reported that student aid increased by about 82 percent over the decade from 1997 to 2007, and Federal loans increased by 61 percent. Interestingly, this increase in aid covered about two-thirds of the increase in tuition at private 4- year colleges and almost all of the increase in tuition at public 4- year institutions.

These statistics demonstrate that both public and private universities are increasing tuition at the same pace--if not faster-- than the Government increases funding. If we truly wish to make college education more affordable for students and families, we must focus on why tuition is increasing, despite increased subsidies from the Federal Government.

A July 31 editorial in the Washington Times discusses the correlation between increased government funding and rising tuition. The editorial states of the higher education conference agreement.

This bill would do nothing to rein in rampant tuition

inflation, by far the biggest problem in higher education.

Indeed, by giving students yet more taxpayer-furnished aid,

it will just keep exacerbating the problem . . . Just look at

the numbers: It's no coincidence that while the inflation-

adjusted price of college has gone up roughly 70 percent over

the last two decades, aid per-student rose almost 140

percent.

The best way to make improvements in higher education is to begin removing the Federal Government from the equation. When Congress and the U.S. Department of Education interject themselves into education matters, the result is generally less competition and individual control, more bureaucracy and an ultimately an inferior outcome.

The American Council on Education states that the higher education conference agreement ``would create a huge number of new reporting and regulatory requirements . . . Complying with these new unfunded mandates will take time and will increase the administrative costs facing colleges and universities.''

Rather than increasing the role of the Federal Government in subsidizing and regulating higher education, Congress should create incentives for families to save money and ease tax burden for students. Federal education tax credits and the Federal tuition tax deductions generated $5.9 billion in savings for taxpayers in 2006.

The Higher Education conference agreement does more than expand financial aid for students. The bill authorizes 65 new programs, many of

which are duplicate, wasteful and unnecessary. By authorizing appropriations for these programs, Congress is allowing them to take funding away from student aid. Consider the following examples of misplaced priorities in the bill:

Henry Kuualoha Giugni Kupuna Memorial Archives: Provides a grant to the University of Hawaii Academy for Creative Media for the establishment and maintenance of memorial archives--such sums as necessary;

Campus-Based Digital Theft Prevention: Provides grants for schools to develop programs to prevent illegal downloading and distribution of music, movies and other intellectual property--such sums as necessary;

Pilot Program for Course Material Rental: Provides grants for college bookstores to operate textbook rental programs--such sums as necessary;

Off-Campus Community Service: Authorizes work study grants to institutions for recruiting and compensating students to supplement off campus community service employment--such sums as necessary;

University Sustainability Programs: Provides grants to establish sustainability programs and practices on campus. The term ``sustainability'' is not defined in the bill--such sums as necessary;

Modeling and Simulation Programs: Establishes a task force to study modeling and simulation and to support the development of the model and simulation field--such sums as necessary; and

Teach for America: Authorizes a 5-year grant to Teach for America, Inc. for $20 million in FY 2009, $25 million for FY 2010 and such sums for each of the four succeeding fiscal years.

It is important to note that if a Federal audit of Teach for America recently found that the organization did not properly account for $775,000 in Federal funds. The Department of Education Inspector General found that Teach for America was unable to provide documents to support roughly half its claimed spending. The New York Times reported that there was no documentation that any teachers actually attended and completed the class or that there even was a class. Rather than cleaning up the waste, Congress authorizes $45 million for the organization.

According to a July 11 CBS Evening News report titled, ``Teach for America Gets Schooled; Organization That Trains Teachers Gets a Failing Grade for Its Accounting Skills,'' after the audit, Teach for America tried handing over some newly-found documents, but it didn't help. The Inspector General said they contained ``significant discrepancies.''

Another important way to help contain the skyrocketing costs of education is to simply ensure taxpayers' dollars and students' tuition are directed towards educational purposes, and not lobbying or earmarks. We cannot continue to earmark millions of dollars to universities with billion dollar endowments, while students and families struggle to afford the cost of college.

The total cost of earmarks for colleges and universities exceeded $9 billion between 1995 and 2003. At the same time, average annual tuition at public 4-year institutions increased by 137 percent, from $2,357 to $5,836. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently reported that Congress set aside a record $2.3 billion in pet projects for colleges and universities last year, $300 million more than in 2003, when the total was $2.01 billion.

Furthermore, in 2005 and 2006, colleges and universities spent more than $127 million on lobbying activities. This amount could have paid the full tuition for more than 21,760 students to attend public colleges and universities. Most students struggling to pay for housing and tuition may not be able to afford a tutor, much less a lobbyist. They should not, therefore, be forced to pay higher tuition so their school can hire Washington lobbyists.

Nobody who listened to Senator Alexander can come away saying we have not done what we need to do. And this is certainly a compromise piece of legislation.

But it is very worrisome to me that the only thing rising faster than the cost of health care in this country, other than gasoline in the last year and a half, is the cost of a college education. The only way we can compete globally is with an educated workforce. We have to ask ourselves the question, Why is it costing so much? Could it be the 10- foot tall--now with the passage of this bill--group of regulations that require billions of dollars to comply with every year that has taken away from the educational opportunities in this country?

I think another thing that was not addressed in the bill that should have been added in the bill is the fact that we have had over $9 billion worth of earmarks in the higher ed bill over the last 7 years. That is $9 billion that did not get prioritized. It was put in in the dark of night, inside a bill, inside an appropriations bill, that did not go out on the basis of merit, did not go out on the basis of a competitive grant.

And when the American people hear that $127 million was spent last year by colleges and universities to lobby this place, is it not any wonder that we are spending $9 billion on earmarks?

I also want to spend a moment talking about realtime writers. I held that bill; am still in opposition to it. I know it is in the bill. That is the way things work around here. I am going to lose that. But I want you to ask yourself the question: If there is greater demand for realtime writers and we are seeing the salaries rise and we are seeing the numbers start to come in, why in the world are we going to create a program to pay for it when the market is going to create the demand and the pay to get people to do it? We are going to blow that money because those people are going to go do that because the amount of money that is being paid for someone to do that is rising. So we are going to get in the middle of the economics of that. We are going to create a false level of it because we are going to train them. Now, do you know what is going to happen? Everyone who is a realtime writer now is going to make less money in the future.

So we are going to disown the economics of supply and demand, much like we are doing on energy, and we are going to put a grant program in, we are going to make sure these people are there, but everyone who is doing it now is going to make less money, and then we are going to have an overage. And so then what is going to happen is the people who went out and did it on their own and invested in it, they are going to go look for another job because we did not trust what has made this country great, which is the idea that if there is a demand, someone is going to fill the supply, and if they do not, the price is going to rise. So we have put that in this bill.

It will be a part of the bill. It is going to become law. But we are going to waste that money. It is shortsighted. It is wasteful. This bill creates 65 new Federal Government programs. Thirty-six reports are demanded from this bill, and it gets rid of six programs. Of the programs we create, nary a one has a metric on it so we can measure it 2 years from now to know whether what we did was right or wrong. In Oklahoma we call that peeing into the wind. It is going to come back on us.

As to the cost of a college education, we are seeing families squeezed by $2,400 a year in energy costs because we didn't act when we should have acted on energy, and we are not acting now. So they have less resources. Even with the wonderful increase in Pell grants and everything that we have done in this bill, the cost of a college education is going to rise about 9 percent a year. They can't keep up no matter what we do with Pell grants.

The better part of wisdom would be to ask the question: Is what we are doing really making a difference to increase the availability of a 4-year education or a 2-year education post high school?

The maintenance of effort in this bill will kill every community college in Oklahoma because they design programs for certain things and then walk away from them because there is not a demand for them anymore, whether it be for a new business, a new industry, or a new area where there is a shortage, and then they walk away. Now they have a maintenance of effort requirement. There is no exemption on that. You have killed one of the best things we have in Oklahoma, which is our community colleges. You are going to strangle them with this maintenance of effort. Now they will be very hesitant to create a new program that

will make a big difference in the lives of Oklahomans, even though they will only run the program for 2 years because they will have to continue to fund it to be able to get anything else from us. It is shortsighted.

I will not go on. I know everybody who worked on this bill is well intentioned. Their heart is in the right place. They want us to have better educational opportunities. They want us to be able to afford it. They want greater excellence in terms of academia. I just don't think we did it. If we didn't do it, we are not going to be able to measure because we don't have any metrics.

The hope would be that maybe we could learn from this exercise. Maybe we ought to put in metrics. If we are going to create 65 programs, maybe we ought to think about getting rid of 65 instead of 6, and maybe we ought to measure the effect of what we are doing.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Consumer Product Safety Bill, while well intentioned, will do little to improve consumer product safety.

Since when should the Government be held responsible for the safety of consumers when time and time again the Federal bureaucracy has failed in its other safety obligations and responsibilities?

In 2005, Hurricane Katrina was a stark and sad reminder that a bloated, inefficient, and incompetent bureaucracy does not have the ability to protect citizens.

Just last year, the interstate bridge collapse in Minnesota reminded us all of the misplaced priorities of the Federal Government. Instead of ensuring

the structural soundness of bridges, politicians were more concerned with their earmarks, and diverted funds away from bridges such as the one in Minnesota for their own political benefit.

In another example of Government incompetence, the census is currently in grave peril of not completing its constitutional duty effectively and on time. This speaks volumes about the inefficiencies of our Government, as we have 10 years to prepare for the census with over two centuries of experience to draw upon to execute this responsibility.

This bill is a perfect example of politicians rushing to legislate on a problem that really isn't there in order to pat themselves on the back to try to curry favor with their constituents in an election year.

The truth is the paranoia and hysteria currently with consumer product safety is not proportional to the reality of the situation. Nancy Ord, Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, stated in January, ``Last year was marked by intense media scrutiny of the agency and of toy recalls in particular . . . the coverage reached near-hysteria level, And then, of course, some politicians, sensing a possible political issue, jumped on the bandwagon.''

While there has been a rise in product recalls, in a sense, the recalls are themselves a positive sign, as dangers were identified by manufacturers and products were removed from the market.

More importantly, these product recalls have not translated into dire health consequences, as there has been little evidence of any deterioration in overall product safety. There were few if any reports of consumer injuries from the recalled products. Although the number of injuries from toys increased somewhat in 2006, injury rates generally have decreased since 2001. Also, lead poisoning cases are at historic lows in many areas.

Regardless, many of the companies that fall under the CPSC umbrella have raised the levels of their own self-policing. Wal-Mart has announced that this month it will require independent lab testing for all new toys as well as those it reorders. Mattei and others have ended the use of certain kinds of batteries. And the Toy Industry Association has worked with the Commission on a plan to test toy safety in the design and manufacturing process as well as the final product.

The political reaction to the problem, like most Government solutions, is to throw money at it.

While some statutory upgrades are needed, almost doubling the size of the agency, as this bill does, will not eradicate or drastically improve the issue.

As we have seen time after time, when Government throws money at a problem, rarely does it improve a situation, and more often than not, it further complicates and aggravates the problem.

In addition, there are also a lot of unintended consequences in this bill, as it is a trial lawyer giveaway. While the dramatic increase in authorization is troubling, the provisions that subject businesses to the wrath of the trial lawyer and plaintiffs bar are far more problematic as they will raise the cost of doing business, hurt or destroy small businesses, and could further exasperate an already unstable economy.

Authorizing State attorneys general to initiate lawsuits, creating a consumer product safety database, and drastically increasing fines are free giveaways to trial lawyers that will do little for consumer safety and will unnecessarily damage small businesses.

Allowing State attorneys general to bring lawsuits on behalf of their residents for violations of consumer safety rules would reverse 35 years of successful policy experience.

Overzealous State attorneys general will now have the authority and discretion to interpret safety regulations and could unilaterally on a whim rule a business is noncompliant and could then hand over expensive lawsuits to their trial lawyer's cronies who are notoriously close with State law enforcement officials.

State attorneys, then, would be hard-pressed to deny politically active State trial lawyers to sue companies when the litigation will not cost the State a dime and could, in many cases, bring the attorney general positive publicity.

This provides false incentives for overzealous attorneys general and would run precisely counter to the CPSC's policy of carefully balancing cost and benefit in making safety regulations.

Lawsuits, which are expensive, adversarial, and often drawn out, can be an impediment to a successful long-term relationship that maximizes compliance and safety.

State attorneys general should not have the power to reduce the effectiveness of the CPSC's efforts by undermining its balanced approach to enforcement.

Another free giveaway to trial lawyers is the creation of a consumer product safety database. The database is estimated to cost $10 million, which accounts for over 10 percent of the Commission's budget.

This section requires the CPSC to establish a Web site to post any complaint, regardless of accuracy or merit, from consumer groups or individuals.

While on the surface the database appears to aim to educate and warn consumers about potential product defect or harm, the reality of it is far from effective. It is highly doubtful that many consumers will know about or even care to peruse a Government Web site to validate whether a product is safe prior to purchase, especially considering the claims are not verified prior to posting.

What the database does provide in much more practical terms however, is a centralized, consolidated data source where law firms, unions, and lobbyists are given access to cherry-pick consumer reports for potential lawsuits.

There is already a consumer product database, called lawcash.com, that consolidates consumer product complaints.

The Web site brags that its database provides consumers ``the information you need and the access you deserve to find out if you are eligible to claim your share of billions of dollars distributed yearly through thousands of class action lawsuits.''

This reveals the true motives for such ``consumer product batabases,'' and accordingly the Government has no role in serving as a conduit of information that promotes hit job lawsuits.

This cumbersome endeavor will divert funds and resources from efforts that actually go toward consumer safety and redirect it toward maintaining a Web site that will only contain inflammatory information that unions and lawyers can utilize to sue businesses.

The bill drastically increases maximum civil penalties more than tenfold and the individual violation more than twentyfold, subjecting each product that wrongfully enters the market to a $100,000 fine. The threat of a $100,000 fine will cause many small manufacturers and retailers who commit only minor violations to declare bankruptcy.

Additionally, faced with these hefty fines, this provision could erode the healthy and productive relationship between businesses and the Commission.

Faced with bankruptcy, many businesses would be much less inclined to voluntarily report violations and as a consequence would not receive the proper guidance to fix the problem, subjecting the business and its employees to potential harm.

While allowing increases in frivolous lawsuits and drastically hiking up the fines for businesses may allow Senators to tout to the public that they are tough on consumer safety, these actions are unlikely to improve the situation, and more importantly, the unintended consequences would be to increase the cost of doing business, impairing economic and job growth at a time when our economy desperately needs economic and job growth.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may speak for about 7 minutes. I will try to do it in less time.

Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for being on the floor tonight. I am one of the reasons why he is here, so I beg his indulgence at this time.

The Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act was first introduced in the 109th Congress. The Republican sponsor at that time on our side of the aisle agreed to the offsets in that bill. That wasn't agreed to by the other side, so that bill wasn't passed. Although the offsets were accepted, it was still opposed.

Over the past 5 months, two press conferences have highlighted my ``obstruction'' of this bill and questioned my motives for holding it. I sent two letters to the prime sponsors of the bill and to the majority leader offering to negotiate a compromise on the bill. None of those were ever responded to. No sponsor ever contacted my office in the 110th Congress to try to work on this. Instead, I chose to work, because I couldn't get a response, with Alvin Sykes, a wonderfully incredible man, who is behind this bill. He has my utmost respect and admiration.

I will submit for the Record an article dealing with his incredible life story and his commitment and arduous work for this legislation.

Mr. President, I reached a compromise with Mr. Sykes and the Emmett Till Campaign for Justice, whose board of directors has endorsed our compromise language.

I ask unanimous consent that an e-mail we got from Mr. Sykes be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass the modified Emmett Till Unresolved Civil Rights Crime Act, where it is paid for by taking money that is not appropriated. This is the problem everybody had, not offsetting. What this bill will do is, if we don't appropriate--and we won't this year, because we are going to have a continuing resolution--this will allow that money to be divided out in three categories in the Justice Department, which the Justice Department is accepting from both legal salaries, the FBI, and the U.S. Marshals--all the people working on these unresolved civil rights cases. I ask unanimous consent that it be called up and passed at this time.

Mr. President, it is sad to note that this could not pass tonight. We could accomplish what everybody claims to want. The fact that nobody was willing to work on this bill, but held it without compromise and without offsets, it is the same issue again. We are going to grow the Government and not get rid of waste. There is $2 billion in waste a year in the Justice Department. Yet we are going to grow this program and not pay for it.

I also note for the Record that I spoke with Senator Dodd about the bill tonight. He had no objection whatsoever and he agreed with the compromise. He is the chief sponsor on that side of the aisle.

Mr. President, I call up and ask unanimous consent to pass a compromise bill on child exploitation. The bill, S. 3344, is the Protecting Children from Pornography and Internet Exploitation Act of 2008.

I had a conversation with Senator Biden this evening. He is in full agreement with this. He understands that others on his side of the aisle might not be in agreement. He is the chief sponsor of that bill. Our bill gives everything that was included, plus the SAFE Act, which everybody agrees needs to be a part of any approach we make. The authors on the other side of the aisle took a $1.3 billion authorization and compromised and lowered that. We compromised by accepting that spending on the basis that we would add the SAFE Act to it. This bill has been changed in substance in no way other than that.

I ask unanimous consent that it be called up and passed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an extension of my time as I go through the rest of these. I will be as brief as possible.

I also note, again, there were hard efforts to work this out. The fact is, the majority has decided that all the bills will be in one package, regardless of the efforts we have worked on.

I also make the statement that this came out by a voice vote from the Committee. I didn't vote ``yes'' on the bill in the committee. No. 2, there is no requirement that a Senator, even if he votes for a bill in committee and is assured he can work on the bill after the committee, is obligated to support a bill that comes out of his committee.

The next unanimous consent request I have is on this same bill, S. 3344, titles I and IV, which include the PROTECT Act and the SAFE Act.

I ask unanimous consent that those two sections be called up and passed. They are identical; nothing has changed and there is nothing controversial. Again, I ask unanimous consent that they be passed.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. President, shouldn't an objection to the bill be stated?

Mr. President, there is no embarrassment or any pain on my part to try to do this. I have worked on these bills to try to do what I thought was right. I reject any statement that I am embarrassed. I have no pain about this. I am proud of the work I have done in trying to stop excessive spending and when we have appropriate programs to favor that spending through offsets of other wasteful spending.

I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass subtitle D of S. 3297, the Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act. This was never held by anybody on our side. It was never objected to by anybody on our side. There was never a hold and never an objection.

I ask unanimous consent right now that we pass that one bill. Even if you want to play politics, the point is, here is one we can do tonight. Nobody has ever objected to it in the Senate. We can pass and still have the 34 or 33 bills. Here is one we can make a difference with tonight.

I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass this item.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and pass subtitle E of S. 3297, the Enhancing the

Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography Act. This is a bill that also was never held on our side of the aisle.

Again, I make the same argument that, in fact, we can do something tonight. There is no controversy surrounding this bill, no controversy about what we should be doing. I ask unanimous consent that we pass this item.

Mr. President, I thank the majority whip for his patience in dealing with this business tonight.

I will end my remarks with the following: What we have had in the Senate this past week is an attempt to change the Senate to the House. The Senate's tradition is debate and amend. Every one of the bills I have had a hold on, I proudly hold those bills. I have notified everyone involved in the legislation on why I was holding those bills. The fact that we had no response to negotiate any sort of compromise whatsoever on those bills tells us there was no good intent in the first place to try to pass those bills.

Let the record show that the Emmett Till bill could have been passed tonight, supported by the very people who started this bill in the first place, who started the effort to get it passed, who endorsed our efforts and, in fact, it was denied.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, if the majority leader would agree, I wish us to have a back and forth debate. I would let Senator Durbin have the last word, if that is OK with the majority leader.

I suggest that the last 2 minutes of debate be controlled by Senator Durbin, and the rest be divided equally among us, as we have it divided now.

Will the Chair advise me when I have used 7 minutes?

Mr. President, I listened to the majority leader and the distinguished colleague from California. I anticipate what I will hear from the Senator from Illinois.

One of the first observations I had is that we have shut down debate on the Senate today because we came in at 3 o'clock. We have 30 minutes to debate whether on a motion to proceed, we will proceed to spend $11 billion. We can dispute, if we are going to authorize it, whether we intend to spend it. That is what your press release says, Senator Durbin; that is what Senator Boxer's says. You intend to spend it. If you don't intend to spend it, then offset it and the authorizations won't make any difference. It is $10 billion-plus in new spending. It creates 36 new Federal programs, some of which I am for. It puts a ban on the sale of nonhuman primates across State lines. That is probably not a big deal.

We could be spending time on true American energy independence, which has to do with national security. We could spend time on lowering gas prices. We could spend time on eliminating wasteful Washington spending. The statement by the minority leader was that he will offer us a chance to come back to this, but we are going to spend 60 hours on this, 30 hours postcloture and 30 hours on the other, so we won't ever get back to energy, and he knows that. We will not get back to energy if we take up this bill.

So the question that is before us is--today, the President announced, with our help--and the President cannot spend any money without Congress's help--we will have the highest budget deficit on record in this country--highest ever. It is $2,900 per man, woman, and child in this country--money we are going to spend that we don't have and that we are charging to your children and grandchildren.

This is a debate about priorities. Nine of the bills in this package I have no objection to. They could have gone through. The majority leader knows that. There are about five of the bills I adamantly oppose. We have 46,800 dog bites a year. That is not business we should be working on now. That is local. So is subhuman primates. If you count the money we are going to steal from Social Security, that is another $100 billion. We are going to take it and put an IOU in for Social Security.

What is this bill about? This bill is about trying to bust the process here, where we start thinking about the future. We are going to say it doesn't spend any money, that it doesn't have any effect on the budget. We are going to say there is no real cost until it gets appropriated. But the fact is if we authorize another $10 billion in spending--and I note also in the letter that the majority leader asked to be submitted into the Record, if authorized and appropriated, it would spend $11 billion.

Well, it is unconscionable to me that someone would support a bill that did not work hard to make sure it is appropriated. If you are not going to do that, then you are not true to the very people you are saying you want this bill to take action for. The people supporting this bill have every intention of having the money spent. Let's not kid ourselves. So if the intention is to spend the money, the money is going to get spent. That is how we got to a national debt--that is how we have an $85 trillion unfunded liability in front of us. It is not wrong to want to try to fix that. It is not wrong to try to address issues. The ALS Registry is something the CDC can already do. As a matter of fact, their own quote on it was that they spend only $29 million a year on ALS. We are going to spend $75 million on a registry that doesn't cure anybody. Why don't we spend $75 million additional on research for ALS? Why don't we spend this $10 billion at NIH so we cover all of the diseases, where we can make a major impact? No, we want to respond to interest groups and lobbyists, and we want to go home and say we have done something, when we have not done anything except raise costs.

There is $300 billion worth of waste, without a doubt, every year that occurs--waste, fraud, or duplication in this country. This body doesn't want to offset it.

The majority leader, as well as many of the Members and authors of these other bills, have been offered commonsense offsets to pay for their bills. Just like every family does, when you have something new you want to do and you have a limited budget, what do you do? You make a choice, you decide a priority, and then you decide what you would not do so you can do what you want to do. We don't do that in the Senate. We conveniently charge it to our grandkids. What nobody realizes is this past Saturday, the Senate and the House increased the debt limit by $800 billion. Most Americans didn't even know that. It was tucked very neatly into the housing bill. We increased the debt limit $800 billion--$800 billion more we are going to borrow.

People will say: Senator Coburn, you are for the war, you supported the war. But I did not vote for the appropriations bills for the war, and there is a reason for it. Because we should be paying for it. We should be making the hard choices instead of charging the war to our kids.

This is a debate I am glad we are finally having. Part of me says I would love to get on it, but the most important thing we need to do and the most important thing the Senate needs to be doing is working on energy.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to Senator DeMint, Senator Sessions, and Senator Burr, in that order.

Mr. President, the answer to that question is everyone who has a bill in this, outside the nine that have never been hotlined or approved in the past, every one has been offered amendments to offset spending out of the duplication of waste that is already going on.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

And for Senator Durbin?

Let me ask that again. The time remaining for me is 31 seconds?

Mr. President, I will finish and end. First of all, the actual facts are that we are spending in Iraq $8 billion a month. It is not $10 billion to $15 billion; it is $8 billion.

No. 2, I am not holding four of the eight Judiciary bills in this bill. As a matter of fact, I already agreed to three of them by unanimous consent, and they have gone through this body already. We can play with the facts all we want. The fact is, what is the priority for the American people? I wish to help people who are paralyzed. I have been a supporter of the Emmett Till bill. I think we ought to pay for it. We spent $396 million for conferences in the Justice Department for the last 5 years. Why would we not take some of that money and pay for it? No, that is hard work. We would not do the oversight. We would not get rid of the wasteful spending. What we will do is pass new spending. That is what has to change.

What my colleagues want to do I am not necessarily objecting to. What I am objecting to is how they want to do it. I am objecting to doing something in the name of good today that undermines the name of good tomorrow, which is the future availability and potential for the children who come our way.

We can have disputes about the war. I have not voted to fund the war, not once. What I have voted for is transparency and elimination of waste, and I brought up amendments. The sponsors of this bill, every one of them voted for the bridge to nowhere; every one of them voted for the Hippy Museum in New York instead of the Child Health Program. Every one of them voted to, in fact, vote for sidewalk and bike trails instead of fixing the falling down bridges in this country.

The question is, When will we have people who will vote for the future? It is easy to spend money up here. It is very easy to do. And because we are on different sides of the debate doesn't mean those who want to do this are wrong. What is wrong is, in fact, creating a situation where we are going to charge it to our children.

There are options. Senator Reid was offered a list of amendments to offset at the Justice Department for the Emmett Till bill, and so was Senator Dodd. They refused to even consider offsetting any wasteful spending.

I yield the floor.

I am told by the staff that we cannot waive that.

Should we go past that to a cloture motion, I would be entitled to 30 hours of debate. If you add these, 60 hours of debate, unless we debate all night long every night, would that, in fact, take us past the time, the expected time of adjournment?

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

I thank the majority leader for the time.

Mr. President, in the bills we did not agree to go to, I have worked with Senator Biden on the child exploitation alternative bill, which would protect our children from pornography and Internet exploitation. That bill is at the desk and has been filed.

After working with Senator Biden, adding the SAFE Act, which is an act that would decrease the amount of graphic and vile images of child pornography currently available on the Internet and help root out people selling, trading, and displaying images, and by expanding the requirements for the Internet service providers to report on online child pornography, which is a bipartisan bill as well, as were two of these components I never held in the bill, I ask unanimous consent that we call up and pass that bill, as amended, with the concurrence of the majority leader.

Is it my understanding there is an objection to the unanimous consent?

Reserving the right to object.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

Mr. President, was I not recognized to offer two unanimous consent requests, and that the floor was actually mine, other than the objection to the unanimous consent request?

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I would make the point--I understand the majority leader's concern with my actions. My actions are not of impure motives, nor are my attempts to embarrass anyone. But the fact is, we could pass these bills if we weren't struggling with politics. The fact is, if we wanted to do something about it--and I believe many of the Members of this body do--we can continue the game of reducing minority rights or we can truly work to try to work out the problems on the bills. That is what the attempt was. I will not go any further with that.

I will take this time to ask unanimous consent for another agreement--the Emmett Till bill, which I offered multiple times; multiple potential amendments to solve this problem. I met with Mr. Sykes, who is leading this effort. I agree with the purposes of the bill. I have always agreed with the purposes of the bill, and I objected because the Justice Department spent over $400 million in the last 7 years on conferences, and the Justice Department says they can do what we want done for about a third of the amount of the money. So I am willing to offer a way to pass the Emmett Till bill tonight on the floor, a way that allows the Justice Department to take funds from within their other funds and pay for the costs of this bill, which will be about a third less than what we would have authorized, and that will happen in spite of the fact that we do not plan to offer any appropriations bills this year.

The Emmett Till bill could become law and be in effect at the level at which we would all want it by agreeing to the following unanimous consent request, the bill I filed, and I ask unanimous consent it be adopted and passed.

I make the note that what we have is the majority leader saying I want cover. I don't cover for anything, I say to the majority leader. I have been out front opposing these bills from the start because they were not paid for or they were not good policy. To claim that my effort to pass this legislation now in a way that both saves money for the next few generations and also will accomplish the very goal that he says he wants to accomplish--that has nothing to do with feeling guilty. I think it is a great victory for the American people today that we did not spend $11 billion and get on a bill that would spend it.

I understand there is a permanent disagreement, both on how we have done this and also on the policy questions, but the fact is, if we want to solve unsolved civil rights violations, the way to do it is this. The way not to do it is to say: We are not going to do it, we are not going to work with you, we are not going to change it.

The whole purpose of not agreeing to the unanimous consent request on the bill in the first place was there is so much waste in the Justice Department. It would be my recommendation that maybe after a few days we take another look at that, and I will work with the authors of the bill in a good-faith effort to try to make both those bills capable of being passed. I know many on your side would like to get the legislation done no matter what.

This is no attempt to cover for anybody. I have too many holds to try to cover for anything.

I will yield to the Senator from Alabama.

Absolutely not.

I have a concern with the money authorized in this bill that will be wasted and appropriated when we have not taken care of a large amount of the waste in the Justice Department.

I have.

They said they needed one-third of what the bill authorized.

That is correct.

And have it paid for out of wasted funds at the Justice Department.

I first raised reservations on this bill when it first came up.

That is correct. The bill as offered brought that number down to $360-some million, which was never offered to me but was in the bill as it came to the floor.

Yes, it has, by three-quarters.

I will.

I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his question. I think you accurately assessed it. The fact is, this country has an energy crisis. We have chosen not to address American resources for that. We have chosen to do anything but that, and that is why we have seen bill after bill forcing political votes rather than solving the real problem Americans want the Senate to address, which is how do we stop sending $700 billion of our treasure out of this country every year, knowing we are going to be on carbon-based energy for at least the next 20 to 30 years, and how do we use American resources.

You are absolutely right. That is the real question. That is what we should be about. That is why Republicans stood and said the thing the American people are interested in is us addressing the issues that are impacting them directly today, the $2,400 per family, trying to get to work or get to school.

The question the Senator asked is absolutely right. The real question is energy and trying to take us off energy and run out the clock and not deal with this before we go on summer break.

I think the Senator makes a good point. The answer to that is yes. As a matter of fact, we would have been halfway through this bill had cloture not been filed when it was introduced at the same time, as we just saw on the bills this evening. A bill is introduced, cloture is filed at the moment of introduction, as it was with the Advancing America's Priorities or, as I call it, the Grow Government and Spend More of Your Grandkids' Money bill, the point being we could have already accomplished half of what this country needs had we had an open amendment process that was germane to the energy needs of this country.

I answer the Senator from Pennsylvania by saying yes, he was. No majority leader should fill the tree, Republican or Democrat. It goes against the best traditions of the Senate. It goes against the tradition of full debate and full amendment.

Our energy problems could be solved tomorrow as far as this bill. We could ask a unanimous consent to withdraw the amendments filling the tree. If we had unanimous consent to do that, we could have open amendments with the provision there would only be germane amendments to the energy needs of

this country. We could do that, but we have moved from debate about what is in the best interests of this country to what is in the best interests of the next political election. That is what this debate is about. It is not about energy. It is not about what is in the best interests of the next two generations. It is not what is in the best interests of the Nation from a national security standpoint or energy security standpoint. It is about what is best for the next election.

We need to get away from that. Regrettably, Republican leaders have used it but never to the extent of 15 times has it ever--it has not been used 15 times in total until the present leader has exercised it 15 times. He has cut off debate and all amendments.

I was not aware of that.

I am.

I am aware of that.

I was.

I am.

I was aware of that.

I was aware.

I was aware of that. I had actually offered unanimous consent to waive the cloture and was denied.

I am. I am very pleased in your effort.

I will not take but a moment longer. I think it is fair to allow the majority leader to regain the floor.

The Senate I know and the Senate I studied was not about limiting debate. It was not about having a Rules Committee of one, it was about unlimited debate, germane but unlimited. It was about amendments. It was about using the parliamentary rules we have in a fair and straightforward way to advance what you thought was best for this country.

The majority leader has the toughest position in this body. It is a hard job. There is no question. I defer to his judgment. I am not critical of his judgment. I am sorry for the Senate that we are to the point now where we can only move legislation when it is approved and the amendments are approved by the majority leader and his leadership.

I think that fails the test of our Founders' version of the Senate. I think we will rue the day that we have gone down this path. But I will continue to use every parliamentary maneuver I know to lessen Washington's wasteful spending, to pass good bills and make them better and not to say that just because you do not approve of a unanimous consent request that you do not have something to offer.

The fact is, we have passed 855 bills by unanimous consent. I may have let too many go. But the fact is we negotiated with a lot of people and got a lot of bills through. The frustration factor is part of the Senate. Working together we solve problems, working against each other what we do is we lower the rate of acceptability and confidence in this body to the 9 percent it has today.

My hat is off to Harry Reid for the amount of time he has put in, the amount of effort he puts in it. I would hope he would choose to go a different way, reaching across the aisle, working across the aisle. Everybody's ideas have value. Everybody's input should be offered and there should be real negotiation.

One last comment. This omnibus package of bills had 34 bills in it. There were only three bills that I absolutely opposed, nine bills I never objected to at all. And every other bill in that I made an offer to reach out, offer amendments, offer suggestions. Most of the time it was flatly rejected: We are going to roll over you. You cannot have input.

If that is the way the Senate operates, then we are going to be back here a lot of times in the future. I know, pretty heady times, thinking that we may not have the power to do that. But that power, if it goes away, will not last for very long being in absence. It will be back. The American people get it.

This country is on a crashing course, financially. Fiscally, we cannot handle what is happening to us. Until we start handling the problems now that are going to be the crisis in the future, we will fail the American public.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I will take a few minutes to add to the legitimate complaints my colleague from Illinois, the majority whip, raised. Currently, in this country, we spend $29 billion researching ALS and other motor neurological diseases. The CDC says we don't need an additional registry. Their quote:

The CDC already has the authority to create a registry

under the Public Health Service Act--S. 1382 is not necessary

to achieve the purpose of the bill. The goal of a registry is

to create lists of patients with ALS so that government has

records of the incidence and prevalence and researchers have

lists to find patients for research.

The goals of a registry can be achieved without a registry.

The National Institutes of Health already reports on the

prevalence of ALS, ``As many as 20,000 Americans have ALS,

and an estimated 5,000 people in the United States are

diagnosed with the disease each year. . . .''

Scientific experts think a registry for ALS is a misguided use of resources. According to the CDC, ``Putting patients in contact with medical researchers is a worthwhile goal, but a registry is not a means to accomplish it.'' There are better ways of putting patients in contact with researchers. For example, a quick search on www.clinicaltrials.gov reveals many ongoing clinical trials related to ALS and a new recruitment effort called ``ALS Connection.''

We increased funding last year for www.clinicaltrials.gov. So it is not about not wanting to help people. The question is, are we going to spend $75 million on another bureaucracy for ALS or spend $75 million to increase the pure research associated with that disease?

I wish to finish my statement first. But I will play fair and yield to the Senator when I am finished. So I will be here.

A large amount of resources is associated with the registry. We have registries, but they are not comprehensive. I identify with the families and the people who have ALS. I have had patients and some in my family who have had it. The hope is we would find a cure or a treatment to slow the progress of it. If we spend $75 million on a registry, which the CDC and NIH both say we don't need, that is $75 million we are not going to spend on research.

One of the things that didn't come up in the debate today is let's take this $10 billion and get rid of $10 billion worth of waste, and increase NIH from $29 billion to $39 billion a year. It would make a big difference in lots of diseases.

Let me talk about the Christopher and Dana Reeve bill. To want to help people who have suddenly become, or were for a long period of time, a paraplegic or a quadriplegic is a noble cause. According to HHS and CBO, the only thing this bill will do that is not already being done--the only thing it will do--is allow us to name some buildings and facilities after Christopher and Dana Reeve. I am not against additional research in those areas. But if we are going to do it, we ought to get rid of wasteful spending somewhere else. It is the same with ALS. If we are going to spend an additional $75 million, let's take it from some of the waste. I understand the difference in agreement I have with my colleague from Illinois in terms of authorization versus appropriations. But it is that very difference in agreement that got this country $10 trillion in debt, that helps account for the fact we are going to have the highest deficit in our history this year.

Common sense has to come back to Congress. We cannot keep authorizing bills and turn a blind eye to deauthorizing things that aren't working. We use a quaint little argument that it doesn't spend any money. No, it doesn't, until you appropriate it; but if you appropriate it for a new bill and you are still appropriating for the old--which we do--all you have done is grown the size of the Federal Government and made it less efficient and more imprudent.

I believe there is a case to be made that we ought to operate the Government finances the way families operate theirs. We ought to have to make hard choices. I know from the 109th Congress that this body doesn't like to do oversight. It doesn't like it. We don't like to do the job of making sure the money is spent well, that it has metrics on it. By the way, neither of these two bills has any metrics on it to

measure whether they are successful or accomplish anything. There is no way for us to know that we have made an actual improvement for the people under these two disease categories.

I think it is fair game for us to talk truthfully and very clearly about what the differences are, in terms of what the Senator from Illinois said. It is not about not wanting to help people; it is about wanting to help more people. Do you know what. We can do more research on ALS and more to help paraplegic and quadriplegic people, and more to help our kids and grandkids. The way we can do that is being very wise and frugal with the money that comes to Washington. Quite frankly, we are not doing that. So the debate isn't about setting up somebody who is injured and should have our care and attention. The debate isn't that somebody doesn't care or does care. The debate is how best to solve the problem: the status quo in Washington that doesn't solve the problem, continuing to do what we have always done--authorizing new spending and never getting rid of the old, never looking at it or fixing it.

I also put forward one other argument: If authorizations don't matter in terms of spending, then there should be no objections to my offering a deauthorization to other programs that don't matter. If authorizations don't matter, then if I deauthorize something else, that won't matter either.

So we have this wonderfully circular argument that says spending is only spending when we spend it, but if you want to decrease spending in an authorization bill by offsetting other authorizations, that is spending and you are cutting. You cannot have it both ways. It is about how do we live within our means? How do we, in fact, guarantee these great opportunities--and we still haven't spotted all the problems in front of us as a nation--how do we guarantee that they go on to the next couple of generations?

This isn't about paralyzed people or ALS; it is about changing the culture of the Senate and the Congress to start meeting the expectations of the American people. The expectations are that we will start thinking long term and start thinking about their kids. We need to get rid of the waste and be much more efficient in the programs we have. To do less than that is dishonest with those very people who we say we care about in this bill.

This bill is a $5 million museum in Poland. How many people in America think today, with a $600 billion deficit, and them struggling to buy gasoline and food, and milk at $4 a gallon--the same price as gas--that we ought to spend $5 million across the seas? I agree there is a good argument about our foreign policy in terms of our involvement with Iraq. That is fair game--building museums, forgiving debt, sending another $24 million to the U.N., which won't tell us a penny of anything they spent, or where they spend it, because we cannot see it, and we are already spending $5.6 billion there a year.

This is a real debate. I hope the debate stays at the level that doesn't accuse anybody of not supporting what is in the best interests of every American. The question is, how do we do that? What we have heard on the floor today is that if you voted against this bill, you don't care about women with depression. I have delivered 4,000 babies. I have treated postpartum depression. The flippant way we talk about that--this is a serious disease that is being treated. There are multiple programs out there.

I will also make a final point, and then I will yield to my friend from Illinois. Under the Health, Education, Labor, Pension parts in this bill, on only two out of six bills I had a hold on. There was the Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act. I didn't have a hold. It has never been offered. The Vision Care For Kids Act; I didn't have a hold on that. It has never been offered. On prenatal and postnatally diagnosed conditions, I am a sponsor of that. The Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act, I never held that bill, not once. Under the judiciary bills, the Mentally Ill Offender Treatment Crime Reduction Act, I never held it. The Drug Endangered Kids Act, I never held it. The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act, I never held it. Enhancing Effective Prosecution of Child Pornography Act, I never held it, not once. National Sea Grant College Program Amendments I never held. Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, I never held it.

So what is it about wanting to work to meet the needs of everybody having input? The question is, can we do things better or do we have to keep doing them the old way? Does it have to be that if you read the bill and if you have concerns, do you let them go and say it doesn't matter? That is how we got into the energy crisis we are in, and the housing crisis.

I don't believe we can let things go anymore. We have to look at them, and if we think they ought to be fixed, we ought to have the courage to say they ought to be fixed or paid for.

With that, I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

If the Senator will yield for a second.

I write a letter the day I hold it to the committee and the majority leader and minority leader and the sponsors. They know what I am holding. I will make one point to you. Most of the bills we hold at first are held so we can read them. It is a strange thing. We ought to read the bills before we say let them go.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois. I thank him for his debating skills and his heartfelt positions.

I guess the first thing I would say is the Appropriations Committee spends $875 billion every year that is not authorized. The Senator from Illinois knows that.

The second thing I would say is there is no ability to amend any of these bills in the appropriations process, unless you are on the Appropriations Committee. So if you are not on the subcommittee, you can't amend it. If you are not on the main committee, you can't amend it.

Last year, we couldn't amend anything because the omnibus bill came to the floor without any ability to amend it. So we haven't had any opportunity to amend it. It is whatever the appropriators say goes. There is no amendment with that.

I am not going to get into the debate. I am as disgusted with Republican spending priorities as the Senator from Illinois is. I will correct the record on real accounting principles. We had 1 year, and 1 year only, of a true surplus, 1999. The rest of the years we didn't have a surplus, if you count what we borrowed from Social Security.

I would not defend any of the spending of this President or this Congress, but I will make it known the President cannot spend the first penny until Congress passes the bills. I note that over the last 18 months, his party has not been in charge. A different party has been in charge. The bills that have gone to him have been controlled by the majority party.

Look, both of us admit that our children are in tall weeds right now if we don't start doing something about our fiscal situation.

The final point I will make is most of these bills would take less than an hour. Every one of them I have communicated on and I am happy to see on the floor. Give me the right to offer one significant amendment and one amendment for every billion dollars. I will debate it for 15 minutes, have two votes, and we will be done with the bills.

Nobody is withholding anybody's right to vote for a bill. The majority leader can put any bill he wants on the floor at any time, with my agreement to never try to dilatate, never try to spread it out, to only bring pertinent amendments that are germane and do that in a very short period of time. He knows that. The Senator from Illinois has known that. That has been the way I work. I don't play the games of political position to spin something.

My hope is--and I have a great relationship with the Senator from Illinois. I value his friendship. He is not ``just my friend,'' he is a friend. It is not the collegial statement of the body, it is Dick Durbin is my friend. My hope is that when Dick Durbin and I can pass three significant bills out of our subcommittee that make a real difference in the world of human rights, that if we can do that, then certainly the Senate can come together on energy and all these other bills. My hope is we will do that.

I do not want to delay our staff or the Presiding Officer any longer.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object, was there a formal objection, Mr. President?

I object.

Mr. President, I wanted to spend a few minutes. I have been a Senator for almost 4 years. I think my life experiences I bring to the body are somewhat different than a lot of others. I have some observations on what is happening to us. I hope the American people will pay attention because this week the Senate has failed--miserably failed. We just passed a housing bill that fixes only short-term problems and doesn't fix the long-term problems associated with housing and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We just did that because we are in a crisis. You have to do it. The Secretary of the Treasury came to the Presiding Officer's conference, he came to ours, and he talked about why this is important for them to have the flexibility to establish confidence in the mortgage markets. We had a great opportunity to not only address that confidence and make sure it was there so people have the proper expectations that they can get a mortgage--and a reasonable one--but we did other things that failed to fix the ultimate problem.

As you play out this bill, if you look at the negative long-run end of it, the

American taxpayers have the potential to be on the hook for $3.9 trillion. There are some Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms in there. This body has known for 15 years they needed to be there. We didn't do anything about putting those reforms in there until it became a crisis.

The point I am making is, why are we waiting for crises? Once the crises get here, why do we bend to the political wills of the short term rather than address the long-term structural problems that are out there?

So there is no question we have helped a lot of people with the bill we passed, but you have to ask the question, What is this going to do to everybody else who pays their mortgage and anybody who wants to get a mortgage in the future and continues to keep their commitments? What we have done is raise the interest rates. We have raised the cost on anybody who purchases a home in this country for the next 15 years.

What else have we done? We have put $3.9 billion out in CDBG funds to buy homes that have already been foreclosed from the banks--from the banks--the very people who created part of this mess we just bailed out with $3.9 billion of our grandchildren's money.

So here we go, we are saying we are fixing the problem, but we are working on it only when it is in crisis. Then, when we have the political momentum to do what is right and fix the long term and the short term, what do we do? We run because we are more interested in our political futures, in our political careers than we are the opportunities and potential employment opportunities and lifestyles for our children and grandchildren.

Just as my colleagues have been talking about energy, the Senator from Tennessee very well knows that the time to address the problems we are talking about right now in terms of more production was 15 years ago. Now the Senate sits stuck because we are worried about the political fallout of perhaps having amendments to drill where the oil is and that might not fit one political party's agenda. But I will tell you what, it fits the American people's agenda. So we have this debate and this division that is becoming partisan. It is all on the basis of how do we look good in November. I want to tell you, none of us look good to the American people, because we are not fixing the problems on a timely basis. We are not allowing the historical precedents of this body, which is debate and amendments, to mold and create legislation that adequately reflects the risks and problems that future generations are going to encounter.

We are working on energy here, and the big cloud hanging over the room that nobody wants to talk about is carbon and global warming. Let's take a minute and say I am wrong and that global warming and carbon is a tremendous problem for this country. Everybody who believes that--and I don't dishonor their belief--knows if we started today doing everything we could do, it will take us 30 years to get off of carbon-based fuels. Everybody agrees with that. What are we going to do between now and the next 30 years? How are we going to address the problem?

This year, American taxpayers sent $700 billion of their money--a large portion of it--to countries that would like to see us done in. We are going to continue to do that until such time as we have a cogent energy policy, regardless of global warming or carbon problems. It is at least going to take 30 years. So we ought to take that out of the realm and say: How do we quit giving away our fortune, our future, and our assets to other people? Even if we all agreed on global warming, we can all agree it will take a long time to transition away from carbon- based fuels. Why would we not have a debate on every possible way in which we can find more American energy, American resources, American security, and use less foreign resources?

I noted on the floor on Monday that our national security is at extreme risk today. There is a historical precedent. When the Egyptians took over the Suez Canal, the British and French had a great amount of debt. We owned most of it. We were adamantly opposed to them attacking Egypt to bring back the Suez Canal under their control. We didn't fire the first shot against the French and English. Do you know what we told them? We said: If you do this, we are going to put your debt onto the market. We will wreck your economy. We will create inflation and create a decreased standard of living. So you dare not do this. Do you know what. They knew it would happen and that we would do that. Consequently, a war was averted.

Think now, with China owning a trillion dollars of our debt, and another trillion dollars in the Middle East. What happens if they don't like our foreign policy and they decide to dump our debt onto the market? How much national security do we have?

So the debate about energy is not just about the $2,400 that is killing every American family, which represents the amount of money they are paying additionally this year that they didn't have to pay last year for energy. It is making them make choices they have never had to make before, making them make sacrifices they have never had to make before; and it is because of us, because we failed them, because we didn't solve this problem 15 years ago. But it also puts at risk the security--not just financial but the national security and freedom and liberty for them, their children, and the generations that follow.

So the idea that we would not utilize every potential resource America has to solve this energy crisis, the fact we will not be allowed and are not allowed to have a true debate with true amendments that bring that forth to the American public, says we are highly dysfunctional, and that it is all about the next election, and it is never about the good and long-term interests of the country.

That has to stop in this body. It has to stop. It doesn't matter if it is a Democrat or a Republican. It has to stop for future generations of this country. We need to quit worrying about whether we get reelected and start working on what is in the best long-term interests of this country.

Finally, I want to make a comment about this. The majority leader filed cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill he calls--I don't remember what it is called. It is 8 percent of the bills we have passed by unanimous consent, which he wrapped up into one bill, and on which he is not going to allow amendments. Again, it is the same procedure. We are going to grow the Government, create 36 new programs, and spend $11.3 billion. We are going to do that without the ability to amend those bills.

Half of those bills, I agree, we ought to do. What I don't agree with--which is part of the problem in terms of our future--is we should not get rid of the waste in the rest of the Federal Government so we are able to pay to do good things. Documented by the GAO, the Congressional Research Service, the various inspectors general, and the Congressional Budget Office is that we have $300 billion worth of waste or fraud in the Federal Government every year. Now we are going to put a bill on the floor that is going to grow the Government more, and not one of them attacks any of that waste.

That is wrong procedurally, but let me tell you what is really wrong with it. It ignores the very process every family in this country has to go through. If they want to do something new, they don't have the ability to charge it to somebody else. They have to make a discernible, very careful calculation about what their priorities are, and they have to decide what they are going to give up if they are going to do something new. It is amazing to me that this body is so averse to getting rid of waste. I understand it, and I know what it is about. Politicians are averse to offending anybody. What we better have is politicians who are willing to offend this generation so that the next two generations can inhabit and receive and welcome the liberty our Founders intended for us to have.

So we are going to have $11 billion on the floor sometime next week, and we are going to talk about subhuman primate transfer and the War of 1812 Commission, but we are not going to work to solve the energy problems of the people in this country. We are going to talk about doing things the CDC and the NIH already have the power to do, but it doesn't look good because we cannot have a press release or press conference and say we didn't do something for a lobbyist's special interest.

We are not going to create nuclear generation or go after the oil shale, and we are not going to go off the coast to find, in an environmentally friendly way, resources that will lessen that $700 billion of our Treasury we ship out of the country every year. Instead, we are going to do things that politically look good. If you oppose them, you might politically look bad. But we are not going to address the real issues in front of the country, as a whole.

It is an amazement to me that when the figures were released, they reflected 9 percent of the people have confidence in the Senate. I wonder where those people are. If they are paying attention to this place, they could not have any confidence in it, because we are not addressing the real issues that are, in fact, impacting America today, American families today but, more importantly, national security today and tomorrow, and the wealth, health, and well-being of future generations.

When I heard the majority leader today say he had, in fact, made an offer to where we could offer amendments of any type on the Energy bill, I felt sorry for him, because what happened is he put himself in a hole because of politics. You see, there is a group of people in this country--and they are in the minority now--who don't think we ought to drill anywhere; that we should not explore on land or off land; that we should not use coal at all, even if we can do it cleanly; and that we should not expand wind or solar. And to address that political component, the majority leader has put himself in a box. He won't be hurt by it. He has the toughest job in this body, so my hat is off to him because it is difficult. Who is going to be hurt is every American. Every American. The stubborn resistance to not allow amendments to allow us to get rid of this $700 billion we are paying out, to create a transformed platform where we can become at least somewhat more energy independent, that we, in fact, lower the risk for our national security through some increased energy independence, is a tragedy we will all pay a great deal for.

It is time for a rethink in this country. It is time for a rethink in this body. It is time for the partisanship to go out. It is time to think not about our next election, not about who is going to be President, not how you position a political party, but how in fact you do the work the American people need us to do to secure their future, and do it in a way that says I am willing to give up my Senate seat to do what is best for this country in the long run. Anything less than that from us is cowardice.

I will paraphrase Martin Luther King, when he talked about how people make decisions. He said vanity asks the question, ``Is it popular?'' Cowardice asks the question, ``Is it expedient?'' But conscience asks the question, ``Is it right?''

We are asking the wrong questions in this body. We are putting the wrong questions before the American people. We need to get back to conscience--not expediency, not vanity, and not popularity. We need to be about the country's business. My great regret is we are about politicians' business and not about this country's business.

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. President, I listened very carefully to the majority's leader remarks on the 83 supposed filibusters. I take great issue with that point. The process of filing cloture when a bill is filed and then filing cloture on the actual bill 30 hours thereafter has taken away from the Senate tradition. At 5:15 tonight, I have an hour reserved to go through and talk about many of these issues.

I wanted to take issue with the Emmett Till bill the majority leader mentioned. I actually support us spending money for that bill. What I don't support, and I don't think most Americans support, is the over $100 million worth of waste every year in the Justice Department that has been documented by the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, as well as the Government Accountability Office.

The majority leader voted against an amendment when this bill was part of another bill less than a year and a half ago to take $1.36 million out of waste in the Justice Department to pay for the Emmett Till bill. I met with Mr. Alvin Sykes. He is a hero of mine in terms of his fastidiousness and his commitment to accomplish a goal. And he is right.

But the overall point is: Will we continue to grow the Government at the same time we have tremendous waste within the Government? The issue we are going to have over the majority leader's growth-in-Government, spend-

more-money bill is about whether we will do the same thing that families have to do, which is make tough choices and prioritize.

It is easy to find $1.36 million in the Justice Department of all the waste that is there. However, we refuse to do that. The majority leader refuses to do that. He refuses to get rid of programs that are not working and instead adds more programs.

This is a good program. I am totally for the intent of this legislation. What I am not for is sacrificing the future of America's children by us not doing our job, by us not making the hard choices and eliminating waste, eliminating duplication, eliminating fraud, and pass another authorization bill that will be spent when we have that kind of waste.

So the point is not whether we should go after civil rights violations from the fifties and sixties. The point is will we do what the American people expect us to do?

The majority leader claims this is a 99-to-1 issue. It is not. The real issue is that 91 percent of the American people don't have confidence in what we are doing. We ought to be a lot more worried about that, when we do not do what is expected of us--eliminate waste, eliminate fraud, eliminate abuse--and instead pass billions of dollars in more legislation.

I will spend some time at 5:15 p.m. delineating the potential bill the majority leader is going to bring up on bills on which I and 56 other Senators have holds. But it is inaccurate and undeniably in error to say I am opposed to the Emmett Till Justice Act. I am not. I am for it. I just believe we ought to do two good things instead of one good thing and one bad thing.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I believe under the unanimous consent, I have an hour to speak. I ask unanimous consent that I be allotted an hour to speak.

I want to spend a little bit of time this evening talking about motivations, talking about a realistic assessment of where we are and then merge those two things with some of the actions that myself and others in the Senate are doing.

One of the things we all know but we do not like to talk about is the significant, unsustainable course our country is on. Numbers can be really boring, but they are not boring when you apply what is going to happen to our children and grandchildren.

This first chart I have in the Chamber shows Government spending as a percentage of GDP. It has gone higher than that at times of war in the past. But here is where we are today at 2008. We are right around 20 percent. These are not my numbers. These are Government Accountability Office--these are the Medicare and Social Security trustee numbers. If we do not start doing something about wasteful Washington spending, about reform of waste, about elimination of fraud, about duplication of programs--2 or 3 or 20 doing the same thing, none of them doing it efficiently--what is going to happen to us under our current policy is that by 2038 we are going to have 35 percent of our GDP spent by the Government.

Well, what does that really mean? What happens to us when 35 percent of everything we produce comes to the Government and the Government deals it back out? Well, what it really means is less liberty. What it really means is less freedom. Because what it does is it takes the resources of Americans out of their pockets and out of their families and transfers it to a government bureaucracy that then mandates how dollars will be spent.

These numbers are not disputable. Nobody will dispute this is the roadmap we are on. As shown on this chart, this is where we are going. What happens is, the results of that become a markedly lower standard of living for our children and grandchildren. As we look at that, we see other things that are happening to us that are very harmful. As a matter of fact, they are affecting us greatly right now.

The debt held by the public--that is debt that is exclusive of the money we have stolen from Social Security, from Federal employees' retirement funds,

from the Inland Waterways Trust Fund, and from about 60 other trust funds the Government continually steals excess money from and spends but does not recognize the debt--that is exclusive of all this. This is the debt that is out there that people have actually bought: T-bills or Treasury notes or Treasury bonds. About a third to 40 percent is now held by foreign governments.

If you think this cannot impact us as a nation, we need to think about what happened when France and England started to take the Suez Canal back from the Egyptians, and because we owned the majority of France's and England's debt, we said: If you do this, we will put your debt on the market. We will collapse your economy. So, consequently, two allies of ours did not do a very foolish thing and, through the economic power we had of owning their debt, we accomplished very powerful foreign policy objectives.

Well, the reverse of that is about to be true for our country when we have $300 billion to $500 billion sitting in China today, when we have $300 billion to $500 billion sitting in the Middle East. What would happen if they decide to dump our debt? So by being less than fiscally proper, by not being frugal, what we have done is put our foreign policy at risk by having a larger and larger percentage of our debt held by foreign sovereign governments.

As you can see by this chart, what is happening is, in 2008, we are at about 20 percent of our GDP being held by the public. But another 20 percent is internal in terms of what we have stolen. As that rises, the risk to our children, the risk to our Nation, the risk to us for an effective foreign policy--because we are now leveraged by what someone might do with our debt--starts impacting us in a tremendous way.

The other trend that is not sustainable and even more worrisome is the makeup of our GDP as a percentage of the Government, the things we really have not fixed or have not addressed. If you look at our total revenues, which are estimated to be around 20 percent, if they stay historically at that level, how much we take from the Americans--which we are not going to if we are going to maintain the programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security--but if you leave them there and then you look at the growth of Government that is mandated just on demography alone, just on the fact that the baby boomers--my age--are growing old, what we see is that Social Security rises, Medicare rises, Medicaid rises, but net interest becomes over 50 percent of everything we pay out. Notice all the other functions of Government actually decline. The things that make a difference in your life every day actually get squeezed down.

So we are on an unsustainable course. There is no question we are on an unsustainable course, and we have before us today--the majority leader spoke about introducing a bill. I want to spend a little bit of time talking about the bill. We have not seen the bill. We are guessing what is in the bill--but a bill that is going to spend between $25 billion and $50 billion more, is going to create over 77 new programs, is going to grow these numbers even more.

That bill is coming about because myself and several other Senators have refused to allow those bills to go without debate on this floor and without the ability to amend them. Now, some of them are very good things we ought to be about. But we should not be about it until we are going to inculcate and act as Senators the same way every other family in this country has to act; that is, by making a decision based on priorities. If people get to take a vacation this year, they are taking that vacation because they have scrimped somewhere else to be able to afford the fuel, to be able to afford the cost. They have made a decision within their family budget that what they are doing is a priority compared to the other priorities. Well, the American public is not surprised we refuse to make priorities here. We just go on and pass bills.

Now, you will hear the argument over the next 10 days to 2 weeks, as we debate this bill, that these are just authorizations, that it is not money that is actually spent until it is appropriated. But if you go to the Web site of all of the Senators who are supporting these bills, they have already sent out press releases bragging about what they have done. They intend to spend the money.

So one of three things comes about from that. One is they plan on authorizing it and spending the money; two is they are just gaming their constituency, they are planning on passing the bill but never spending the money, which is highly unlikely, or three is they just want on the bill so they can get a positive parochial benefit and do not really care whether the money gets spent.

Well, this is one Senator who really cares whether the money gets spent. And a lot of these bills we should spend money on. But some of the bills, to pay for them, we ought to get rid of the programs in those agencies that are either duplicative of what we are doing and eliminate the ones that are not working or we ought to pay for any new programs the same way a family does. They get rid of the things they do not think are important.

But to pass somewhere between $25 billion and $50 billion worth of new authorizations for spending and not eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and duplication means we think we are above the American people. Do you know what. The American people already figured that out because the latest survey on whether they think Congress is doing a good or excellent job is only 9 percent of the people in this country. And they are right; we are not. We are totally ignoring the things that every other person in this country has to do in terms of making decisions on how they live.

The debate on this bill is going to be about priorities and choices.

Also, this bill is going to be coming at a time when the No. 1 issue facing Americans is being able to afford enough money to put gas in the car to go to work. I would put forward that we should not spend any time growing the Government in any way or authorizing any new expenditures until we have a comprehensive, totally inclusive energy policy that is going to work for this country for the next 30 years. The reason that is important is our national security is now at risk because we are energy dependent, we are energy insecure.

You heard the majority whip talk about lands that were bid on but are not drilled on. It is the Willie Sutton phenomenon. He robbed banks because that is where the money is. People drill where the oil is. If there is not a high chance of getting oil, they do not drill there.

Every available offshore rig in this country right now is either in repair or drilling. Every other working rig is either under contract or under repair or is out for contract. It would be surprising to most people where we get most of our oil drilling rigs today. Most people do not realize China produces most of them. We have lost our technologic advantage in terms of being competitive just on oil drilling rigs.

The other thing that is disappointing is, we cannot have a debate about priorities in the Senate because we hide behind the fact that this is just an authorization. But the point is, if we think it is important enough to authorize it and we think it is a priority, we ought to think it is important enough to spend the money on. In fact, everybody thinks that except when they get on the Senate floor to debate the fact that they do not want to do the hard work of getting rid of waste, of get getting rid of fraud, of getting rid of abuse, of getting rid of duplication.

For most of the bills that are going to be in here, my staff and I have offered legitimate spending offsets to them. But that is foreign. That is new. We have not always done it that way.

Well, I refer to this chart and this other chart as evidence that we better start doing things a little differently. We better start deauthorizing programs that do not work. We ought to start getting rid of programs that are wasteful. We ought to start fine-tuning the programs that do work but are highly inefficient. And we ought to get rid of programs that are designed to be defrauded and abused.

The Senate is an interesting place by historical standards. By historical standards, this is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. In the 110th Congress, 890 bills have passed--890. Fifty of them have had debate. Only 50 have had debate. And for

most of those, the debate has been extremely limited and shortened through the power of the majority leader, by a technical process of filling the tree, 14 times, where no amendments were available except those of the majority leader, or by granting amendments that were only approved by him and limiting the total time of debate. Well, there is an interesting historical record that I will go through in a minute. But it lessens what our Founders intended for the Senate to be.

From 1912 to 1972, only five times in the U.S. Senate was cloture invoked. That means the decision was made by the U.S. Senate to limit debate. Our Founders believed the whole purpose of the majority of the Senate was to be the reasoned body, to stand away from emotion, to stand away from the pressured responses of an election every 2 years, and have an open and vigorous debate on every issue.

Two things happened from that. One is Members of the Senate became much better informed. The second thing that happens when we have vigorous open debate is the American people learn something about what is going on. So if we have passed 890 bills this year and 840 of them passed by this procedure called unanimous consent, you didn't hear any debate, there were no amendments offered, there was no vote taken on those bills. What a loss for the American people.

Now, granted, 72 of them were naming post offices, but what a loss, that we don't have and utilize the tools of the Senate to inform the American people about what we are working on.

There are two things that can come from that. One is, if we are doing a unanimous consent--a procedure where a bill passes and nobody raises an objection to it. It is a process where everybody says: I think this is a bill we ought to do. I think this is a bill we ought to not amend, and I don't think we should vote on it.

So there have been 840 times or 850 times in the 110th Congress when we have said we don't need to do that. So the American people have no idea what we have passed, what the import of it is, because there has been no debate. What the majority leader hopes to bring to the floor is a bill consisting of 40 bills that says: Wait a minute. There are some of us who think we ought to debate these. There are some of us who think we ought to amend these. And there are some of us who think we ought to vote; that we ought to be recorded on how we stand on an issue.

One of the things that has been put out in this debate by unelected staff members is that I have blocked the bills from coming to the Senate floor. Well, everyone in this body knows that isn't true. An individual Senator can't block a bill from coming to the Senate floor. The majority leader has the right to bring any bill to the floor any time he wants.

What the staff members are saying is we want to bring a bill, but we don't want to debate it. We don't want to vote on it. We don't want to have it amended. We don't want the American people to know what we would rather do in secret, what we would rather pass without the American people knowing the details about our business.

So is it any wonder that only 9 percent of the American public has any significant confidence in the Congress to put forward their interests? We are going to be doing this at a time when the No. 1 issue in this country is energy security and energy prices, but we are going to put a bill on the Senate floor that grows the Government, that creates 70 new programs, and spends somewhere between $25 billion and $50 billion.

I would tell my colleagues that most people sitting down to their dinner table think we have our priorities messed up, and they are right. We do.

The other thing that is concerning is our Founders made the House of Representatives very much different from the Senate. The Senate was designed to make sure the rights of the minority were always ever present in terms of debate and amendment. Earlier today the majority leader said we had filibustered--my particular party had filibustered-- 83 times. That is an inaccurate statement.

A filibuster is when someone says: I want to continue talking and I want to continue debating and I want to continue amending--to the point where you try not to pass a bill. The difference between what the majority leader claims and actual truth is, what the minority is asking for is we would just like to be able to amend bills and not have to go to the majority leader, who has now become the ``Rules chairman'' of the ``House,'' and says only with our approval can we offer an amendment to a bill. It undermines the total tradition of the Senate, but more importantly than that, it undermines truth and transparency in this country because, if you stifle debate, what you do is lose the benefit of the 100 Senators who are here who come from diverse backgrounds with vast and different experiences to have that input into the debate.

So as we become the ``House of Representatives,'' where we don't allow amendments, where we don't allow an open amendment process--and I am not talking about political ``gotcha'' amendments; I am talking about real amendments to change real bills based on the facts of that bill, and I am talking about pertinent amendments--we are doing great damage to the institution of the Senate.

I have also heard some of my colleagues complain that it is somehow undemocratic for one Senator to stand against 99 Senators. I would not be living up to my oath if I acceded on conscience to do what I thought was wrong for the very people of Oklahoma who sent me here, not to represent just their interests but to pay attention to what our oath says, which is to uphold and fulfill the Constitution of the United States. It is interesting that in that Constitution, there is a section called the Enumerated Powers Act. It is very straightforward. It is very clear in terms of what it spells out, the rules under which the Congress is to operate.

I have introduced, along with my colleague--several other colleagues in the Senate but also my colleague, John Shadegg, in the House--the Enumerated Powers Act. This act says we should fulfill article I, section 8. I wish to read that into the Record for a minute because I think as American families across this country and American workers and people struggle to meet either health care bills, food bills, or energy bills, the answer is that the Congress has gotten totally off course.

Here is what our Constitution says:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,

Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for

the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform

throughout the United States. . . .

The Congress shall have the power to:

[B]orrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the

several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform

Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United

States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign

Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the

Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by

securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the

exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the

high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and

make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money

to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land

and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the

Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel

Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the

Militia. . . .

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever,

over such District. . . .

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for

carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers. . . .

The 10th amendment to the Constitution says anything that is not listed right there is exclusively and absolutely the right of the States. That is how we got here. We have abandoned what the Constitution has taught us is our responsibility.

I will tell my colleagues, my guesstimate of the 40 bills that are going to be bound in this omnibus grow-the-government, spend-more-money bill, half

of those bills will violate the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Then we wonder how is it that we are bankrupting our children, how is it that we are undercutting their standard of living for the future, how is it that we have gotten to the point where we are at risk based on the loans that we have taken out to foreign sovereign governments?

What we have missed is what is not controversial to the American people, which is that we should be living within our means because they have to live within their means. This bill is about not living within our means. It is going to be about a lot of other things--a lot of which I support--but mostly the bill is going to be about not living within our means, about growing the Government, spending more money, reaching into areas that are rightly the States' requirements because we have the power to do it.

I wish to make one other point that I think in my lifetime--I am 60 years old, and I have seen a great shift in the legislative bodies in this country. That shift is this: When you take your oath to be a U.S. Senator or Congressman, you take the oath to support and defend and uphold the Constitution of these United States. Nowhere in that oath does it mention your State. What has happened as we have evolved such great power to the Federal Government, the Members of Congress have become parochial. They have decided that in their wisdom, we should be about sending stuff home. We should be about violating the enumerated powers. One is because it feels good to help people--there is no question about that--but No. 2 is it has to do with being liked and getting reelected. It has everything to do with getting reelected.

So what it has become, as opposed to what our Founders envisioned was a national legislature whose goal was long-term thinking to the benefit and the trust and the security for the Nation as a whole, it has devolved into a parochial legislature which spends half of its time trying to fix problems in individual States or communities that violate the enumerated powers listed in our own Constitution.

So we find ourselves with the following facts. If you are born today, if you are born today and end up in a nice swaddling in your mother's arms, here is what you face: Your parents are going to have to raise you, they are going to have to try to afford your college education, which is going to be impossible in 20 years. The reason it is going to be impossible is because we have, out of this red line, put $400,000 of obligations on every child that is born in this country today and every day forward because we continue to grow the Government. We continue to violate the enumerated powers. We continue to refuse to make hard choices about priorities because someone might get upset.

The interesting thing is the American people get it. You can see that in their level of confidence in this body. Ninety-one percent of the American people say: We don't get it. You are not working on what we want you to work on. You are not fixing the problems we think you should be fixing. It is because we are fixing what is best for the politicians, not what is best for the country.

Let me give you a few examples of what I suspect will be in this bill. You as an American can decide if you think it is a priority for us right now, knowing that we are going to have at least a $600 billion deficit this year; we are going to borrow at least $600 billion from the Chinese and the Middle East. That is $2,000 for every man, woman, and child in this country.

Here is the first one. Ice age, floods, National Geographic Trail Designation Act. That has to be a priority for us right now, when Americans cannot afford gasoline to get to work. It only costs $14.5 million over the next 5 years, but it has to be a priority for us, it has to be something that has to happen right now. Why does it have to happen? It is because somebody will look good back home, not because it is a priority for the Nation--and it is certainly not a priority for our children.

So do we need to do that now. Or do we intend to pass the bill, not fund it, and say we did something? Either one of them is dishonorable.

Next is the Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial Commission Act. That will create a commission to celebrate the bicentennial and creation of the National Anthem. I don't think there is a problem with doing that. I think we ought to recognize the 200th anniversary of that. The question is, Should we spend $4 million doing it, when you can probably spend $100,000 doing it? Only in Washington does it take $4 million to have a party, to recognize a celebration. That is totally out of touch with the American taxpayers and the priorities they have to make.

How about the Captive Primate Safety Act? It will add nonhuman primates to the list of species that are prohibited from being brought into the country for commerce. That commerce has to do with the scientific integrity and discovery and the utilization of subhuman primates because they are the best way we know to test things before we test them on us. But we are going to limit that. We are only going to spend $17 million doing that--only $17 million.

There is $1.5 billion for the National Capital Transportation Amendment Act. That is Metro. I think we ought to help Metro. But before we help Metro, we ought to demand some accountability and efficiency. They have gotten a billion dollars in Federal grants over the last 3, 4 years. Yet the problems that plague that institution haven't been fixed. They are not addressed in this bill. There is no accountability, no transparency. You cannot see where they are spending the money. There is nobody held accountable for the failure of the retrofit on the old rail cars that were retrofitted and now are not working.

The other question American taxpayers ought to ask is: Why should every other taxpayer in the country pay for the rail transportation of the best paid people in the country, the Federal workforce? Should the average family who makes $33,000 in Oklahoma pay for the transportation to work of families who average $75,000 and are commuting on Metro? Inherently, there is something not quite right with that. Yet that will be in this package--$1.5 billion. We don't have the money, so not only are we going to have to subsidize it now, but we are going to charge it to our kids.

I would say this bill the majority leader is going to bring up isn't going to fit with the priorities of the American people. There are some good things in it. But contrast that with the fact that we have an energy crisis, that we have families who now, compared to a year ago, are spending at least $2,000 more for energy. I would think the only thing we ought to be working on, the only thing the American people think we ought to be working on would be solving that problem in a comprehensive way. Instead, we are not; we are going to grow that and spend more. We are not going to do long-term solutions for our energy insecurity that puts our Nation at risk in terms of our national security.

Even a cursory look at the history of the Senate shows that the majority leader's decision to construct an omnibus bill to get around true debate and true amendment objections to the broken hotline process violates the tradition of full and open debate and amendment. Following the Revolutionary War, the Founders created a system that protected the people from tyranny. The checks and balances provision was extended to the legislative branch, between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Framers created the House of Representatives to pass legislation quickly. But the Senate was designed for the opposite purpose. It is supposed to be hard to pass a law up here because it has such a major effect on every American. It needs the cooling in the ``coffee cup saucer.'' It needs to be thought about, debated, discussed, and it needs to be open toward the American people to where they can see it.

James Madison said:

The use of the Senate is consistent in its proceedings with

more coolness, more wisdom than the popular branch of

government. Its hallmark would not be the majoritism of the

House, but the emphasis on the rights of individual Senators

to consider and impact legislation.

Impacting legislation is offering amendments. You cannot impact it unless you have the ability to amend it. By wrapping several dozen controversial bills into one omnibus, what the majority leader is attempting to do is

override the best traditions of the Senate. But more important, it is to shortchange the American people about what we are doing.

Since we have already passed 850 bills that you have no knowledge of, because they didn't have debate and amendments and they didn't have votes, why is it we should let another 40 bills come through without full debate and full amendments?

There are two examples in history on how the Senate has operated as intended as a bulwark against hasty decisions and bad policy. First was the 1805 impeachment trial of Justice Samuel Chase, and the second was the 1869 impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson. In order for the Senate to function as intended, it took courageous Senators to stand on principle in the face of adversity. In 1804, President Thomas Jefferson won reelection by a landslide, and his party then was known as the Republican Party--it is now the Democratic Party. They ended up with overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate. Only the judicial branch remained in control of the opposition party, the Federalist Party. The President, buoyed by strong public support, sought to impeach Federalist judges on the basis of their political stances and a variety of court opinions, leading Jefferson's Republicans to target Justice Chase as one of the most outspoken judges--in other words, to intimidate the judicial branch.

With the distance of history, we can see clearly that Chase's conviction would have undermined the independence of the courts. It would have said we would not have a three-part government, each a careful balance to control the others. That would have gone out the window. In the House, Justice Chase was impeached 73 to 32. All of Jefferson's Republicans voted for it. In the Senate, votes from 23 of the 34 Senators were necessary for conviction, and 25 of those Senators were Jefferson's Republicans. Conviction seemed sure. Yet following a week-long trial in the Senate, 18 voted against conviction, while 16 voted for it. They were five votes short to remove Justice Chase.

Following the ordeal, Vice President Aaron Burr made the following observation:

The Senate is a sanctuary, a citadel of law, of order, and

of liberty, and it is here in this exalted refuge--here if

anywhere--will resistance be made to the storms of political

frenzy and the silent arts of corruption.

I hope my colleagues will consider that last phrase, ``the silent arts of corruption.'' When the American people look at this body, that is precisely what many Americans see. If any process was in the category of the silent art of corruption, the secretive hotline process, where bills come through with unanimous consent, fits that definition well.

In 1869, in the trial of President Andrew Johnson, a similar matter unfolded. In the years following the Civil War, there was severe strife between the President and Congress over the best way to handle the rejoining of the South with the Union. The Congress, dominated by Members who were determined to humble the Confederacy, was pitted against the President, who was more interested in reconciliation than revenge. After 4 years of battling with President Johnson, the House overwhelmingly voted to impeach him. Every Republican had voted for impeachment. This was a different group of Republicans--the Lincoln Republicans. In the Senate, 36 votes were required for conviction and 41 Senators were Republicans. Once again, conviction seemed sure. However, a group of seven Republicans saw between the momentary chaos and understood the consequences of impeaching Johnson. After it was revealed that the group of seven Republicans planned on voting against removal, a surge of public outrage was thrown down on the Senators. One Senator from Iowa, James Grimes, received so many physical threats that he suffered a stroke 2 days prior to the vote. Nevertheless, all 7 Senators remained resolute and voted not guilty, making the final tally 35 to 19, 1 short for conviction of impeachment.

Both these examples, dealing with impeachment and not legislation specifically, call attention to how the Senate was designed to slow down bad policy. I believe what the majority leader is doing is bad policy, in terms of combining a multitude of bills--1,700 pages of bills that very few offices know the extent of--into one bill, and trumping all minority rights, which are a sacred and central feature of the Senate that should not be violated.

Our Founders constantly warned about the tyranny of the majority. Madison called the Senate a necessary fence against the majority party, and the primary tool given to the minority was the informal principle of unlimited debate. Between 1917 and 1962, cloture--a motion to stop debate--only happened five times in this body--only five times. Eighty- three times now the majority leader has filed cloture. Why has he done that? He doesn't want the debate. He does not want the debate. Opposite the best traditions of the Senate, the majority leader has filed cloture 83 times.

One last point and I will finish. A hold on a bill is not blocking a bill from coming to the Senate floor. The rights are very clear of the majority leader. The majority leader can bring any bill to the floor anytime he wants. No Senator can stop it. So if you are holding a bill because you are saying I don't agree with a unanimous consent, which means I don't agree that we should not debate, I don't agree that we should not amend, and I don't agree that the public should not have a recorded vote on this bill, that does nothing to stop the bill from coming to the floor. What stops the bill from coming to the floor is the priorities of the majority, not the priorities of any other Senator.

Debate, full, open, honest debate is great for this country. The hotline process with unanimous consent, passing bills in secret the American people don't know about, are not informed about, are not debated in the Senate, are not voted on in the Senate, goes against the tradition of the Senate. But it also robs us of freedom because the knowledge of what we do is as important as what we do. Without that knowledge by the American people, we are not the cooling saucer of thought, debate, calmness, and reason.

The hold, which I have exercised, is the last check against the abusive hotline process. It may be that 70 or 80 Senators want to pass a bill, and that is great. Let's put it on the floor. Let's debate the bill. Let's have options to amend the bill and make people vote on commonsense items such as priorities, getting rid of waste, doing what every American has to do every day, and let's have that debate in front of the American people.

There are 76 programs that are being held currently by a number of Senators. It comes to $70 billion of new spending. I have yet to have somebody from Oklahoma or any other State in the country tell me that with a $700 billion deficit this year, with $10 trillion in debt, with $1.4 billion in new debt a day and spending $1 million a minute in debt, that we ought to put $70 billion more on the backs of the American families. It may be that we need to put 70, but we need to take another 70 off.

So the debate about the bill the majority leader will introduce is going to be a good debate. It will not stop the process. The rules are very clear. We will have a debate. The question will be: Will we have a debate that is open to true amendments, that is a full debate, and that will take the time to make sure every one of these 40 bills is thoroughly vetted with the American public?

The final issues I wish to talk about are some of the bills that are in here.

We reformed the National Institutes of Health last year. We said: Let's get politics out of it. Let's let peer-reviewed science tell us how we spend the money to the greatest benefit to help the greatest number of people. As soon as we passed that bill, we had five or six or seven new bills coming to tell them exactly where to spend the money because we could look good with constituencies, and yet we violated the very bill we passed that said we ought to let science guide us to make good decisions, make the priorities that are out there that help the most number of people with the greatest benefit in terms of science.

There are going to be several bills in the one bill for that. I will gladly and readily defend my opposition to those bills. One is because they do not accomplish what they say they do. And No. 2 is they hurt other people by taking away limited resources, by placing them in a category that somebody else

says is more important than what the science would say we can do best.

There is the Emmett Till unsolved civil rights bill. I agree we ought to pass that bill, but I don't think we ought to add that money to our grandkids. I think we ought to get rid of the waste, fraud, abuse, and excesses at the Department of Justice and pay for it. It is a legitimate Federal role. It fits with the enumerated powers. Those were Federal laws violated in the fifties and sixties. But to pass that bill and not get rid of wasteful programs and not get rid of waste says we are only doing half the job. It is easier doing it that way. You don't make anybody mad or upset with you. But you don't do the best thing for our children and our grandchildren, and you certainly don't do the best thing for our country.

It is interesting. I have sent two letters to the prime author of that bill. He has not had the courtesy to answer me once. He held a press conference that impugned I was a racist because I would not let that bill go through.

The fact is, the statements are: You can't work and negotiate bills. We have offered amendments to pay for the bill, with which Mr. Sykes, the main supporter of this bill, agrees. What has happened is it is take it or leave it, no debate, no amendment, no working in the Senate to the best tradition of the body.

So we have this statement made by Senator Harry Reid that you can't work with Coburn. I tell you, PEPFAR was a great bill. This Senate passed it. We were critical in terms of negotiating that bill. The Second Chance Act, which makes sure that we work against recidivism on prisoners throughout this country, we worked hard and changed that bill. On the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, we negotiated well and got a great bill for every American so the insurance company can no longer discriminate against you if you have a genetic tendency and they cannot raise your premium. We have done a ton of things, but it is on the small bills which require people to work that we have not been able to accomplish that.

I look forward to the next 2 weeks. I look forward to the weekend. Congress is about to go on vacation. Most Americans today with gas prices cannot go on vacation. And we are going to get a debate this weekend on these 40 bills. We probably won't have done anything significant yet about energy. So we are going to be debating spending $25 billion, $50 billion, maybe even $70 billion more, creating 50, 60, 70 new programs, and you are still going to be paying $4.10 for your gasoline with no hope 10 years from now that things are going to be any different because we have our priorities wrong. We would rather look good to special interests and pass bills in the dark of night than debate them on the floor and put the priorities that should be in front of this country out there--energy, health care, Social Security reform, $300 billion worth of waste in the Federal Government every year. Nobody is doing a thing about it. Half the agencies will not even comply with the improper payments law. We have $3 billion a year spent at the Pentagon maintaining properties they don't want, but the Congress won't pass a true real property reform because it is held up by a homeless act, most of which none of the buildings are capable of being utilized by homeless individuals.

What I say to my colleagues is let's have a debate. Let's see the rumble in America that thinks whether we are doing the right things, the right priorities. Do they want us to go down this road where we strangle the lifeblood economically from our children, we take away their ability to own a home, we take away their ability to get a college education, or should we be about real priorities? And if we are going to spend new money, shouldn't we be about getting rid of some of the $300 billion that is wasted every year right now?

I don't have to take a poll about that one. That is a 90-plus-percent factor with the American people. It is only in the Senate that we don't get it, that we would rather spend time growing the Government and spending more money than fixing the real problems of this Nation.

I look forward to the debate. I am excited about this weekend. My hope is we will have an open amendment process, one that does justice to the greatest traditions of the Senate but, more importantly, one that does justice to the American family and their children to come.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I have in my hand the bill Senator Reid just filed. There is no CBO score with this, and I object to the introduction of this bill.

Mr. President, today I join my colleagues in calling for up-or-down votes for the President's judicial nominees. I supported the decision not to attend the Judiciary Committee's Executive Business Meeting this morning because the committee does not appear to be serious about its responsibility to process nominees. Today's agenda contained no nominees, and no hearings have been scheduled for the many qualified individuals who await them. One of our highest constitutional responsibilities in the Senate is the consideration of judicial nominees. If the Judiciary Committee agenda does not include nominees, there is little point in attending its meetings. I hope the chairman will take note of Republicans' absence and schedule nominees for both hearings and markup without further delay.

Now I would like to take a minute to respond to a comment made by the majority leader this morning. He said, ``I can't ever remember going home and somebody . . . saying, `Could you guys do some more judges? We need to take care of this judges problem.' ''

For the record, I would like to say that I have not had the same experience with my constituents in Oklahoma. In fact, I frequently hear from them regarding their interest in judicial nominations. Here are just a few examples:

Lou Baber, from Oklahoma City, writes: ``I am incensed by the U.S. Senate's lack of action on the federal judicial nominees President Bush has proposed for seats on district and appeals courts. . . . I hope you will take action in the coming weeks on an issue that has already seriously damaged the Senate's reputation.''

Samantha Jones, from Claremore, writes: ``Please . . . vote for . . . judicial nominees in the confirmation process. They deserve fair treatment . . . we need good judges.''

Peggy Low, of Yukon, writes: ``Will you please press the other senators to give the judicial nominees an up-or-down vote, pronto? That is their job and [it is] so overdue.''

Barbara Tipton, of Chandler, writes: ``Please push to have the judicial nominees come to the full Senate for a vote.''

John and Pam Rawlins, of Ponca City, write: ``I want to applaud and thank Senator Coburn for bold[ly] standing up for the many judicial nominees that are blocked in the Senate. KEEP IT UP! That is what you are elected to do. We in Oklahoma understand this and [are] 1000 percent behind you.''

As I said, there are just a few of the many letters I have received from home about this issue. I will ask that they be printed in the Record.

As demonstrated by the statements I just read, my constituents understand what some in this body do not: The

issue is not about getting more judges, it is about confirming quality judges who will uphold the Constitution. Isn't this our clear constitutional responsibility?

Part of the reason I decided to run for the Senate was my desire to see judicial nominees receive an up-or-down vote and my desire to restore a restrained judiciary, bound by our Constitution, laws and treaties. Too often fundamental liberties and important decisions are taken away from the American people by judicial fiat. The Constitution gives the American people, through their elected officials, the right of self-determination by allowing legislative bodies closest to the people decide the important issues of the day.

You don't have to look far to find examples of judges overriding the people's will--one recent example affected my home state of Oklahoma. Last month, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for the rape of a child. The majority assumed a ``national consensus'' that the death penalty for child rape was unconstitutional and then substituted its own independent judgment for that of the people and the law, declaring it inconsistent with ``evolving standards of decency.'' Yet Oklahoma, along with five other States, had laws permitting the death penalty for such offenses. Congress had even adopted the penalty, a fact somehow overlooked by the Court. One decision by five unelected judges struck those laws down.

Americans are right to be outraged by this kind of judicial activism. Oklahomans chose to protect their children by allowing the death penalty for anyone convicted twice of rape, sodomy or lewd molestation involving children under 14. Now, because a handful of judges halfway across the country declared the state's decision to be inconsistent with so-called ``evolving standards of decency,'' their sound judgment has been overruled.

Given this example and many others like it, it is clear that Americans are concerned about the Senate's treatment of judicial nominees. If further evidence is needed to prove the point, a recent Rasmussen poll shed light on the issue. It found that, by a 69 percent to 20 percent margin, voters believe that judges should interpret the law as it is written. Sixty-one percent say they trust voters more than judges or elected officials to decide important decisions facing the country.

The obstruction that has occurred in the 110th Congress is unacceptable. It is time to break this stalemate and confirm more of the President's highly qualified nominees.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

First of all, let me thank Senator Biden and Senator Lugar for their hard work, and the staffs especially, as well as the White House, in working with us to accomplish what I think--and I believe others think--were significant policy changes that will make a real difference for people in other countries. There is no question about it.

I never approached, in any of my negotiations with the White House or either of the staffs, the cost of this bill, and I am concerned about that. We all should be concerned. The $50 billion, we are going to authorize it, and this is one that is going to get spent. This money is going to be appropriated. Everybody knows that. The question, then, becomes, where is it going to come from?

Although I think this is our most successful foreign policy initiative in my lifetime--I was born after the Marshall Plan started or thereabouts--I think this is the most effective thing we have done to build American prestige, esteem, and respect and thankfulness that we have done in my lifetime. When we look at the 2 million people who are now vibrant and vigorous and not wasting, who don't have a secondary disease such as Senator Brown talked about, what it does is it gives them hope, but it ought to give us hope. So I am extremely appreciative of the very cooperative attitude.

It has been said in recent days that you can't work with me. You can't negotiate with Tom Coburn. Well, I will tell my colleagues we negotiated a pretty good fix to a pretty good bill that is going to make a lot of difference in a lot of people's lives. Talking about the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act, people said it couldn't work, but we passed that bill, didn't we? We fixed it. We made it to where it met all sides and all comers, and we did something great.

I wish to spend a very short amount of time talking about priorities. I think this bill is a priority for our country--making a real difference.

How are we going to afford to appropriate this $50 billion? The only way we are going to afford to really do it and do it effectively and not charge the $50 billion to Joe Biden's grandchildren or Tom Coburn's grandchildren or Dick Lugar's grandchildren is if we go about making harder choices about the waste, fraud, and abuse that is in our present system. If you add up what the IGs say, what the GAO says, what the CBO says, and what the CRS says, we have $300 billion every year that is wasted. It is either wasted or defrauded.

So my challenge as we finish this bill, which is going to pass--and it is the right thing to do; you heard me say it; it is the right thing to do--is we only have half our work done, because if we walk away after the commitment of saying we are going to make a difference in Africans' lives and we don't make a difference in our grandchildren's lives by getting rid of the waste that can pay for this so that there is no additional debt, we will have failed. So that is my plea to the Members of this body.

Jim DeMint made a good plea. He showed you what is getting ready to happen to us. He is right. We have precarious financial markets today. We have a credit crisis. We have a housing crisis. We have a debt crisis. We have a trade deficit crisis. Those things are fixable, but we have to fix them with the same kind of zeal, the same kind of community that we did on this bill.

So my challenge to the chairman and the ranking member is, as we appropriate this money--and we know it is going to happen--let's start making the same hard choices we made as we negotiated this bill about the waste and abuse and fraud--$80 billion worth of waste and fraud in Medicare alone. Let's do it. Let's don't just give it lip service; let's leave a legacy for the next generation so they can not only be

proud about what we have done as great humanitarians by helping people with a deadly infectious disease, but let's leave the same legacy to our grandchildren by being responsible. That means we are going to have to take some heat because anything we get rid of that is not efficient and not effective, somebody likes, somebody benefits from.

So my plea to the Members of this body as we pass this is let's do the second half of the job. Let's get rid of the waste, fraud, and abuse. There is $70 billion worth of waste and fraud in the Pentagon. There is $30 billion worth of contracting fraud. There is $24 billion worth of IT waste every year out of $64 billion we spend on IT. So we can do it. My challenge to us--and my thanks to the chairman and the ranking member--is let's finish the job when we get down to appropriating. Let's really do our homework. Let's give America not only lower gas prices, let's give them lower costs for their kids and grandkids in the future.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Reserving the right to object, and I ask the indulgence of the Senator from Oregon for just a moment?

Caroline Pryce Walker was known to me. I attended her funeral. Her mother is a dear friend of mine in the House. So there are personal connections with my position on this bill.

This body, as well as the House, less than a year ago, reformed NIH. We did some very important things. One of the things we did was take out of the hands of politicians the direction that gives us the best opportunity to cure cancer. We put it back in the hands of peer- reviewed scientific study, which we know will accomplish much more than when we put our hands on it.

There are problems with this bill. One is that it has a registry at the CDC. There are already two registries now at NEH. There is no way to fix that, so the American taxpayer is going to get to pay for two.

The second thing is, as we direct $30 million to this outside of what they are already doing, that means $30 million isn't going to be available for childhood or juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, isn't going to be available for juvenile diabetes--where there might be greater hopes of saving more children and making greater impact.

I have great reservations when we start making the decisions on where the scientific inquiry ought to go and it is not connected at all with real science or peer-reviewed science. However, there are changes in this bill and Deborah Pryce has been a great contributor to the body in the House. I have held her in my arms as she has cried over this lost young child and, with reservation, I will not object to this bill. But I must say we are going down the wrong path. We are penny-wise and pound-foolish because we want to do what is emotionally pleasing but scientifically stupid. We are going in this direction.

I am going to allow this. I will not object. I will not object on this bill so this bill will be a great last accomplishment for Deborah Pryce. It will be a fitting tribute to her daughter and all the other children. But I will tell you, we will get less, not more, by doing this in terms of the research and the benefit for the children who have childhood cancer in this country.

I yield the floor.