Thomas Coburn

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, would you advise me when I have 10 minutes remaining?

Mr. COBURN. Let me say to the majority leader before he leaves, I want to thank him for his good-faith effort in working with us on this amendment. I appreciate the manner in which he has done that. I want everybody to know what my motivation is. This is not about a political vote. I know it seems that way, but that is further from the truth than anything that I know. This is about the U.S. Constitution. We have two agencies within the Federal Government that, through bureaucratic means, not a vote of Congress, have limited severely the second amendment rights of individuals in this country, both on National Park and Fish and Wildlife Service land. That is 190 million acres--190 million acres. So the motivation is for the Congress to decide when we are going to take away rights guaranteed under the Constitution. We have had a recent Supreme Court ruling that has upheld the second amendment in a strong fashion for what it really is, and this is reserved to citizens of this country. This is not about hunting. This is not about having a gun to go hunting. A lot of people are going to make statements about, this is going to increase poaching. It does not have anything to do with that. It will not affect that at all. In fact, on U.S. Forest Service land, the second amendment reigns as a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Under Bureau of Land Management land, the second amendment reigns. They do not have any significant increase in poaching versus the areas where we do not have guns. So the point is that people who are going to break the law are going to break the law. So we see no difference. The second point I would make is that this is about States rights. Senator Feinstein is going to come down and talk about this. But if California decides they do not want guns in their State parks, they do not have to have them. If they decide that, then this amendment would say they do not have to have them in the Federal parks. What it says is that we are going to allow the States the right to determine, under their gun laws, who can have a gun and where, as long as it passes the muster of the U.S. Constitution. So this amendment has two key points. One is to protect the second amendment; and if we are to choose to eliminate somebody's second amendment rights, the Congress ought to be onboard as affirmatively limiting those rights rather than bureaucrats. The second point is to say that States should reign supreme in terms of their parks and the national parks in their jurisdiction so that they have coverage over what their State gun laws would have in terms of application. Let me reveal data, talking about national parks, that I don't believe many people are aware of. The latest year for which we have statistics is 2006. There were 16 homicides, 41 rapes, and multiple attempted rapes, 92 robberies, 16 kidnappings, 333 aggravated assaults, and 5,094 other felony violations. We have 1 park ranger for every 100,000 visitors, and we have 1 park ranger for every 180,000 acres. What we know is that if in your State you have the right to carry on to public lands or if you have conceal carry laws, that ought to have application to your State, not to the Federal Government's predominance over your State. The numbers I cited only reflect what the Park Service has investigated. They do not reflect all the other offenses of the Drug Enforcement Agency, which are thousands. It doesn't reflect the Federal Bureau of Investigations or local law enforcement investigations in these areas. So even though parks are relatively safe, the fact is that oftentimes the best deterrent is for the criminal to know that if they have a gun, somebody else might also have a gun. As a physician, I hate what guns do. I don't want guns to be used. But the fact is, the second amendment to the Constitution is real. What we have is a situation before us where bureaucrats have said: We will take your rights away. It may be that the Congress says we should do that. But if we do it, it ought to be us doing it, not unelected bureaucrats through redtape fiat to truly limit your ability and your rights guaranteed under the Constitution. What does this amendment do? This amendment restores the second amendment rights as outlined in each individual State back to the national parks and Fish and Wildlife Service. It says if States want to change their laws with regard to those, they can. But it leaves it to the government at the closest level to the people rather than the one farthest away from the people. We will have a lot of claims that this will have an impact on poaching. It won't have any impact. But even if it does, tell me how poaching, the unauthorized killing of animals, is a higher value order than a right guaranteed under the Constitution. You can't find it. If we are that upside down in our country about guaranteed rights and the Bill of Rights and the underlying Constitution, then we are in a lot more severe trouble than most of us would recognize. What we also know is that on Forest Service lands, we see a certain amount of poaching, but we have a certain amount of poaching now on parklands. So we are not going to see a corresponding increase. And if we do, it is still illegal. This amendment doesn't apply to national monuments. It preserves States rights. That means no national monument does this amendment apply to. It preserves a State's right to do what it should do. In fact, it makes Congress responsible for the limiting of our rights under the Constitution rather than bureaucrats. The consequences of the rules that we have today are bizarre. Not long ago on the Blue Ridge Parkway, a gentleman was convicted who had a Virginia right to carry. But because he drove through the national park with his gun not broken down and not in his trunk, he was convicted of a violation of national park policy. He was traveling from one place in Virginia to another and went through a park, as he did that on the roadway. So he was found liable under a Federal law which was never intended by us and never intended under the Constitution. Yet he was compliant with his own State's gun laws. The whole purpose of this amendment is not a gotcha amendment. It is to say: Does the second amendment mean something? If we are going to limit it, it ought to be us who do it. Do States rights mean anything and should we have bureaucrats limiting individual rights versus the Congress? If it is going to happen, the Congress has to be the body that does it. For decades, regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats at the National Park Service, NPS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, have prohibited law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms on some Federal lands. The enactment of these rules pre-empted State laws, bypassed the authority of Congress, and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans guaranteed by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This legislation enables Congress to belatedly weigh in on this important matter. The Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act of 2009 would ensure State gun laws and citizens' constitutional rights are honored on Federal lands by prohibiting the Department of Interior from creating or enforcing any regulations prohibiting an individual, not otherwise prohibited by law, from possessing a firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges in compliance with and as permitted by State law. This legislation would prohibit Federal bureaucrats, activist judges, and special interest groups from infringing on the right for law- abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families in national parks and refuges. This legislation does not affect current hunting and poaching rules in national parks and refuges. This legislation is still needed. While the Department of the Interior, DOI, finalized regulations permitting the possession of firearms in national parks and refuges in accordance with State law over a 2-year time period, several anti-gun groups have successfully sued the Department of the Interior to prevent this rule from being implemented for the time being. An activist judge blocked the final gun-in-parks rule because the Bush administration did not conduct an environmental impact analysis of the rule change. Such an analysis was not conducted because the rule change neither authorized the discharging of conceal carry weapons, nor the poaching of animals. DOI decided not to appeal this ruling, and is, instead, conducting a lengthy environmental review before it makes a final determination on the rule change. Even if this rule, allowing visitors to carry concealed firearms in accordance with State law, is reinstated, future administrations or activist judges could repeal these regulations without congressional approval. Unelected bureaucrats and judges should not continue to have the ability to revoke a constitutional right of law-abiding Americans. Passing this legislation will help ensure that such a comprehensive gun ban may never again be enacted by unelected officials. Congressional leadership inappropriately blocked consideration of this measure repeatedly. Members of Congress have repeatedly attempted to bring up this measure for a clean, fair vote. Unfortunately, congressional leadership has gone to extreme lengths to avoid having a straight up-and-down vote on this measure. On December 19, 2007, Majority Leader Reid entered into the record the following unanimous consent agreement: Mr. REID. `Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 546, S. 2483, the energy lands bills, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, and that when considered, it be considered under the following limitations: that the only amendments in order be five related amendments to be offered by Senator Coburn; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. This agreement permitted five related amendments to an omnibus bill that included dozens of bills that modified National Park Service lands. The Parliamentarian ruled legislation allowing for firearm possession in national parks in accordance with State and Federal law was related and in compliance with Senator Reid's requirement. Instead of honoring this agreement, however, they majority leader pulled the entire bill from the floor and reintroduced a nearly identical measure to technically ``honor'' the unanimous consent agreement without allowing for a vote on related firearm legislation. Repeated attempts to bring this bill to the new bill were thwarted. Consequently, a version of this bill was included at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee markup along with a package of lands bill. This amendment was adopted as a stand-alone measure by an 18-5 vote with the understanding that this bill would be included with the package of lands bill approved during the same markup. Despite a letter signed by five Senators on the committee asking the chairman of the committee, ``to honor this agreement and the bipartisan will of the Committee by including S. 3499 in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008,'' this measure was excluded yet again. When Members of the House of Representatives were close to forcing consideration of the Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act as an amendment to this year's Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, almost identical to the 2008 bill, Democratic leadership in the House and Senate coordinated to pull the bill from the floor in the House and add the entire bill in the Senate as a replacement to a previously passed House bill on designating a battlefield as a historic site. While Democratic leadership in the Senate had already managed to block a vote on the Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act, by enacting this maneuver, the House leadership was also able to block any amendments from being considered in the House. Last attempts to add firearm legislation to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 proved unsuccessful. Gun bans on Federal property were enacted by unelected bureaucrats without the authority of Congress. In 1936 the National Park Service established regulations banning firearms in national parks. These regulations were updated in 1983 to allow for guns to be transported through national parks if they were unloaded and stored in the trunk of cars. In 1976 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service established similar regulations for Federal refuges. These regulations were last updated in 1981. Congress has never endorsed or debated these gun bans. Unfortunately, however, State laws permitting concealed carry of firearms were not recognized on Federal land managed by NPS and FWS. Americans on these lands could not possess a loaded firearm in or on a motor vehicle, a boat or vessel except in specific circumstances. Firearms could only be transported in or on a motor vehicle, boat or horse if they were rendered temporarily inoperable, or packed, stored or cased in a manner that prevented their ready use. The penalties for violating the gun prohibition included a fine of $5,000 and 6 months in prison. In addition to criminalizing law-abiding citizens for exercising their constitutional rights, these regulations exposed the great threat of bureaucrats overstepping their authority--a threat that still exists. These regulations and the corresponding penalties were established without any congressional mandate or legislative approval. It is troubling that Government bureaucrats, single-interest groups, and activist judges could take away the rights of law-abiding citizens guaranteed by the Federal Constitution on Federal property and without the consideration of the Federal representatives of the people. The Supreme Court recently ruled that a complete ban on firearms is unconstitutional, yet Federal bureaucrats have managed to completely ban firearms for over 70 years on all 83.6 million acres of national park lands and for over 30 years on all 90.79 million acres of FWS lands, except for hunting purposes. Recently, a judge also repealed the new regulations governing firearm possession in national parks and refuges on the grounds that no environmental review was completed prior to the promulgation of the rule. It is unclear how allowing conceal carry has a significant impact on the environment, or how the National Environmental Protection Act supersedes the second amendment rights of law-abiding Americans on more than 170 million acres of Federal lands. While the activist judge ruled administration officials ``abdicated their congressionally mandated obligation'' to evaluate environmental impacts and ``ignored, without sufficient explanation, substantial information in the administrative record concerning environmental impacts'' of the rule, she failed to consider the constitutional obligation to protect the right to bear arms. A handful of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and judges should not possess the ability to overstep the authority of the U.S. Congress, the Supreme Court, or the U.S. Constitution. ``There was no legislative process--[NPS and FWS] bureaucrats arbitrarily terminated this Constitutional right.'' Given the fact that a recent investigator general report of the FWS Office of Law Enforcement found that this agency has been unable to even account for firearms under their own management, it also seems inappropriate for these agencies to concern themselves with regulating the second amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It is clear that Congress should address this issue, and many in Congress have already expressed their opposition to these regulations, including 18 of the 23 members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in the 110th Congress who voted for this amendment-- including the current Secretary of the Interior. Fifty Senators, including 9 Democrats and 41 Republicans, also signed two letters to former Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne asking him to remove these regulations. Several additional Senators have indicated their support for allowing State laws to govern firearm possession on public lands and 25 Senators sponsored similar legislation last Congress. Even the Department of the Interior--the agency that oversaw the creation of these regulations--commented in 2008 that ``It's appropriate to look at updating these regulations, to bring them into conformity with state laws [on guns use]. Following the release of the final regulations, a spokesman for the Department of the Interior pointed out, ``This is the same basic approach adopted by the Bureau of Land Management and the United States Forest Service, both of which allow visitors to carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws. . . . Federal agencies have a responsibility to recognize the expertise of the states in this area, and Federal regulations should be developed and implemented in a manner that respects state prerogatives and authority.'' No other federal land agency has enacted anti-gun rules similar to the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service. As a spokesman for the Department of the Interior pointed out in a press release, both the Bureau of Land and Management and the U.S. Forest Service allow for the law of the State in which the Federal property is located to govern firearm possession. FS and the BLM have not experienced any difficulties as a result of allowing firearm possession. According to the BLM, ``Laws and reg[ulation]s pertaining to concealing and carrying firearms are within [states'] jurisdiction and we only enforce them on public land if we have state authority by way of a local agreement. The BLM has some regulations on the use of firearms that pertain to specific areas, such as recreation sites and other areas that may be closed to shooting (but that does not make it illegal to possess a firearm in those areas).'' If other land preservation agencies never had to enact regulations infringing on the second amendment--including one agency within the Department of the Interior--why did NPS and FWS, which are both within the Department of the Interior? This legislation will protect law-abiding citizens without threatening natural resources or wildlife. These anti-gun regulations were intended to ``ensure public safety and maximum protection of natural resources,'' according to Scot McElveen, the president of the Association of National Park Rangers. According to NPS and FWS, prohibiting citizens to carry legally owned and registered firearms was necessary to prevent the poaching of animals living on NPS and FWS lands. Anti-gun groups sued the Department of the Interior to repeal the implementation of the finalized rule change, claiming in part that overturning the gun ban will compromise the safety of humans and animals. The Department of Justice argued against the lawsuit, pointing out that the new rule ``does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.'' This legislation will likewise not enable or permit illegal hunting of animals on these lands. Other NPS and FWS regulations specifically governing illegal hunting will remain in place, ensuring that poaching will still be illegal. It will also not authorize the discharging of firearms or target practice in these natural reserves. Proponents of these extreme gun restrictions have also claimed that the unconstitutional regulations are a necessary law enforcement tool against poaching and other crimes. They reason that if guns are outlawed in parks and refuges, law enforcement can use the possession of a firearm to prosecute would-be poachers. In addition to the fact that the second amendment was not recognized by our founders to give law enforcement officers in national parks and refuges an additional tool to eliminate poaching, the fact that both BLM and FS have not ``required'' these additional regulations further proves these anti-gun regulations are unnecessary. As the former Department of the Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne points out, ``Since the [proposed federal regulations similarly] maintain existing prohibitions on poaching and target shooting, and carrying weapons in federal buildings, [it] would not cause a detrimental impact on visitor safety and resources.'' Crime rates on Federal lands are rising. National parks, while still generally safe for visitors, have seen an increase in crime. According to the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2006 there were 16 homicides, including one manslaughter charge, 41 rape cases, including two attempted rapes, 92 robberies, 16 kidnappings, and 333 aggravated assaults out of 5094 part I offenses. In national parks there were a total of 116,588 offenses. These offenses only include homicides and other crimes handled by national park and refuge law enforcement, but don't account for the homicides and crimes other law enforcement agencies processed--e.g. the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Drug Enforcement Agency, local law enforcement. Overriding State laws that give its residents the ability to defend themselves may increasingly place NPS and FWS visitors in unnecessary danger. NPS and FWS anti-gun regulations disarm individuals and leave them and their families vulnerable to crime on public lands. In a Seattle Times article titled ``Crime Slowly Creeps Into Parks, Forests,'' Captain John Klaasen of the U.S. Forest Service states, ``If you see [a crime] happening in the city, it happens in the forest.'' Whether it is meth labs hidden amid lush forests or car prowls at trailheads, park rangers and forest officers are seeing an increasing amount of criminal behavior. Following the grisly murders of four women at Yosemite National Park in 1999, Elaine Sevy with the National Park Service stated, ``You're not escaping society when you come to the parks. Understand that parks are a microcosm of society.'' For many criminals, parks and forests offer a safe haven. Consequently, visitors enjoying some of our Nation's natural treasures are increasingly vulnerable to harm and personal injury. According to a San Francisco Chronicle article, ``National Parks' Pot Farms Blamed on Cartels; Mexican Drug Lords Find it Easier to Grow in State Than Import;'' Hikers in national parks such as Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon are encountering a danger more hazardous than bears: illegal marijuana farms run by Mexican drug cartels and protected by booby traps and guards carrying AK-47s. . . . Park service officials said the drug cartels took extreme measures to protect their plants, which can be worth $4,000 each. Growers have been known to set up booby traps with shotguns. Guards armed with knives and military-style weapons have chased away hikers at gunpoint. In 2002, a visitor to Sequoia was briefly detained by a drug grower, who threatened to harm him if he told authorities the pot farm's secret location.'' A more recent news story also highlighted this dilemma. Special agent eradication teams heavily armed are needed to clear thousands of pot plants in State and national parks and other public lands. Many of the marijuana fields are located next to popular trails. However, ``The folks who are growing the marijuana are not your peace hippies from the 60s . . . These are armed members of the Mexican drug trafficking organizations, who utilize assault style weapons, assault rifles to protect their cash crops.'' A February 2005 report, ``Marijuana and Methamphetamine Trafficking on Federal Lands Threat Assessment,'' concluded that already high levels of cultivation of cannabis and methamphetamine production by Mexican drug-trafficking organizations are likely to increase. ``Cannabis cultivators and methamphetamine producers on federal lands often are armed, and cannabis grow sites and methamphetamine laboratories frequently are booby-trapped. Law enforcement officers have seized shotguns, handguns, automatic weapons, pipe bombs, grenades, and night vision equipment from drug producers and smugglers on federal lands.'' With one law enforcement officer for about every 110,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of national park land, park police may not always be close by and individuals may be left to defend themselves. While park rangers now use bullet-proof vests and automatic weapons to enforce the law, regular Americans in States where carry laws exist, are denied the opportunity for self-defense because of these NPS and FWS regulations. Drug and human smuggling across the U.S. Mexico border has made it impossible and dangerous for scientists to continue their research and for visitors to frequent ``well-marked but unofficial trails'' in a national park. ``Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument stopped granting most new research permits because of increasing smuggling activity. Scientists must sign a statement acknowledging that the National Park Service cannot guarantee their safety from ``potentially dangerous persons entering the park from Mexico.'' Lands managed by the Department of the Interior lands make up more than 39 percent of our border with Mexico. Mexican drug trafficking organizations smuggling operations rely on back routes and private roads through these lands to transport marijuana and methamphetamine. These drugs are primarily smuggled through NPS and FWS lands. A report by the National Parks Conservation Association in 2007 titled ``Perilous Parkland: Homeland Security and the National Parks'' detailed how over the past 2 years at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, ``park rangers have arrested and indicted 385 felony smugglers, seized 40,000 lbs. of marijuana, and intercepted 3,800 illegal aliens. The Border Patrol estimated that 500 people per day (180,000 per year) and 700,000 pounds of drugs entered the U.S. illegally through the monument in the year 2000.'' It is no wonder the law enforcement staff of 11 park rangers is encountering difficulties in managing a 330,000-acre park with numerous activities initiated by Mexican drug cartels. This park was ranked by the Fraternal Order of Police as the most dangerous national park in 2003. While two other parks on the Mexico- U.S. border were listed in top 10 most dangerous national parks in 2003, other parks included on this list were in States such as New Jersey, Florida, Virginia and Wyoming--Yellowstone National Park. The Government Accountability Office, in a report entitled a ``Actions Needed to Better Protect National Icons and Federal Office Buildings from Terrorism,'' additionally expressed concern with the ability of the Interior Department to maintain adequate security in the post-9/11 world of heightened alerts due to potential terrorist attacks. According to a survey by the National Park Service, safety concerns have played a significant role in the decreasing number of National Park visitors. Another result of this surge is that, ``National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents.'' According to the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, ``National Park Service commissioned law-enforcement officers were victims of assaults 111 times in 2004, nearly a third of which resulted in injury. This figure tops the 2003 total of 106 assaults and the 2002 total of 98.'' Because of this threat, rangers in higher crime areas often carry automatic weapons and wear bullet-proof vests. In a CBS News article titled ``Crime Rates Up in National Parks--More Rangers Find Themselves Battling Lawlessness,'' former executive director of the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police and 30-year park ranger, Randall Kendrick noted that ``The National Park Service has an astoundingly poor safety record for its officers . . . If anything, these assaults against park rangers are undercounted. If there is not a death or injury, pressures within a national park can cause the incident to be reported as being much more minor than it is in reality, and it is not unheard of for an assault to go unreported altogether. FWS refuges have also experienced significant crime and law enforcement concerns. The Cooperative Alliance for Refugee Enhancement released a report this past May that pointed out that refuges are also becoming increasingly dangerous to visitors. According to the report ``Restoring America's Wildlife Refuges,'' there is one law enforcement officer for every 555,000 acres of refuges. President of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and chairman of C.A.R.E., Evan Hirsche, said the following: A decrease in law enforcement has left the refuges vulnerable to criminal activity, including prostitution, torched cars and illegal immigrant camps along the Potomac River in suburban Washington, methamphetamine labs in Nevada and pot growing operations in Washington state. . . In some cases, we find that drug operations have set up shop in refuges. The C.A.R.E. report finds that, ``On many wildlife refuges, drugs are a serious problem. These aren't small-time marijuana gardens; drug operators on refuges frequently defend their plots with armed guards . . . A 2005 report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) detailed the urgent need for additional law enforcement to respond to commercial-scale drug production and trafficking, wildlife poaching, vandalism, assaults, and a host of other crimes. For example, according to C.A.R.E., because of staffing cuts, Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge located in Oklahoma, will now share one law enforcement officer with a refuge in Texas--one law enforcement officer for 200,000 annual visitors. While better prioritization of Federal funds may be needed to increase law enforcement efforts in our public parks, refuges, and forests, allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to possess guns provides responsible gun owners the ability to defend themselves in the event that other protection is not available. Gun regulations were confusing, burdensome and ineffective. The contradictory patchwork of Federal regulations within different agencies created the scenario where a law-abiding gun owner traveling from public land managed by BLM to an adjacent NPS or FWS unit was subject to a $5,000 fine and a 6 month prison sentence for violating Federal regulations. In many States, people have to pass through designated Federal lands every day. They should be able to do so without having to worry about which laws apply on what type of public land, if they are authorized to carry firearms under State law. A man driving along the Blue Ridge parkway in Virginia was stopped for failing to obey a stop sign by a national park ranger. Upon further inspection, the ranger found two loaded firearms in the car. The defendant was licensed to conceal carry under Virginia State law and did not know he was in violation of National Park Service regulations and had not observed any signs prohibiting the possession or transportation of loaded and operational firearms. The road he was on also serves as highway between routes 460 and 220 in the Roanoke area. The defendant was found guilty, even though he was in his car and permitted under State law to possess firearms because of an administrative rule. The bureaucrats seemingly well intended goal of ``protecting'' the public and natural resources holds the same flaws of other anti-gun efforts: It ensures that only criminals possess firearms and makes law abiding citizens subject to criminal penalties for exercising their constitutional rights. An editorial in the Colorado Spring Gazette pointed out that ``Armed law-abiding citizens aren't the source of violence, criminals are.'' Likewise, John Stossel commented that: [L]aws that make it difficult or impossible to carry a concealed handgun do deter one group of people: law-abiding citizens who might have used a gun to stop crime. Gun laws are laws against self-defense. Criminals have the initiative. They choose the time, place and manner of their crimes, and they tend to make choices that maximize their own, not their victims', success. So criminals don't attack people they know are armed, and anyone thinking of committing mass murder is likely to be attracted to a gun-free zone, such as schools and malls [or national parks]. If you are the target of a crime, only one other person besides the criminal is sure to be on the scene: you. There is no good substitute for self-responsibility. Individuals who are already willing to break the law to illegally hunt on public lands, after all, are no more likely to obey Federal regulations that disallow the use firearms on public lands. Federal law enforcement in parks and refuges is ineffective and incompetent. According to the inspector general of the Department of the Interior, NPS law enforcement agents and rangers are ineffectively managed by ``non-law enforcement managers.'' In a statement before the Senate Committee on Finance, inspector general Earl E. Devaney remarked that various superintendents of a number of dangerous parks opposed increasing law enforcement staff to combat rising crime levels for a variety of reasons. Some superintendents ordered rangers not to carry firearms because they thought it would ``offend park visitors.'' Other superintendents assigned law enforcement staff non-law enforcement work to prevent them from becoming ``too much like cops'' or because ``the public does not want park rangers with the same edge as FBI agents but instead what the public wants is the park ranger to be cut from the same cloth as a boy scout.'' One assistant Park Police chief sought to address safety concerns with the statement that terrorists ``are not incredibly sophisticated.'' According to the Washington Post, a February 2008 assessment of the U.S. Park Police by Mr. Devaney concluded that: The U.S. Park Police have failed to adequately protect [ ] national landmarks [ ] and are plagued by low morale, poor leadership and bad organization . . . The force is understaffed, insufficiently trained and woefully equipped . . . The International Association of Chiefs of Police also described law enforcement staffing at the Park Service as ``patently illogical and erratic.'' This legislation will enable law-abiding citizens to defend themselves in national parks and refuges. This legislation would not void State and local laws that prohibit the possession of fire arms and do not provide State residents with conceal and carry permits. National monuments would still be governed by U.S. law that prohibits the possession of firearms at Federal facilities, and visitors to national parks in States with no conceal and carry laws would be required to follow State law. This legislation, similarly to the recently implemented rule change, does, however, require the National Park Service and any other agency under the Department of the Interior to promulgate regulations regarding firearm possession that do not conflict with state and local laws--including conceal and carry laws. An aggressive black bear was shot and killed in the Denali National Park in Alaska. Luckily one of the three park employees threatened by this bear was authorized to carry a gun. ``An attempt to divert the bear with pepper spray was ineffective,'' and the bear was shot and killed. Typical Americans would not have been permitted to defend themselves with anything besides ``ineffective'' bear spray. A boy celebrating his tenth birthday in Tonto National Forest in Arizona was attacked by a rabid mountain lion. The lion made two attempts to attack the boy, but was shot both times by the boy's uncle with a pistol. The second shot killed the mountain lion. If this event had occurred in a national park or refuge, the uncle would not have been allowed to even have brought an unloaded pistol along with him. Additionally, a 38-year-old man hiking in British Colombia was attacked and mauled by a grizzly bear in June and would have been killed had he not managed to shoot the bear twice. Even though he was able to shoot the bear, he still needed 40 stitches and suffered a broken hand and multiple puncture wounds. In national parks and refuges, this story would have most likely ended tragically. The Washington Post also featured a two-part story recounting a double murder in 1981 and an attempted double murder earlier this year on the Appalachian Trail. Many of the 2,175 miles that make up this trail are under the jurisdiction of NPS. Adopting this amendment would ensure all law-abiding citizens would be able to protect themselves from rare, but dangerous, four- and two-legged predators on this trail and other NPS and FWS lands. By passing this bill, the Senate will be voting to increase the safety of families and discourage criminals from taking advantage of vulnerable families on Federal lands managed by the Department of the Interior. Congress will also finally ensure that elected representatives, instead of federal bureaucrats, determine second amendment policies in this instance. It is claimed that gun restrictions enacted by the National Park Service, NPS, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS, are different than those of Bureau of Land Management, BLM, and U.S. Forest Service lands, FS, because the roles of the agencies are different. The fact is all four agencies have generally similar responsibilities to manage and protect Federal properties and national resources. The NPS mandate is to ``[preserve] unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.'' The FWS mandate is to ``[work] with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.'' BLM's mission is to ``[sustain] the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.'' According to the FS Web site, ``the mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.'' Besides the fact that the missions of all four agencies are similar, because additional regulations prohibit the inappropriate use of firearms in nondesignated areas, allowing for State conceal and carry laws will not compromise these agency missions. Instead, by allowing for State firearm laws to be recognized, visitors will feel safer and more protected in areas where there is limited or no law enforcement. It is claimed that animals will be poached and not adequately protected if visitors are permitted to carry guns in Federal parks. The fact is that separate regulations already outlaw such behavior. This legislation will not void those regulations. This legislation is necessary to enable law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families--not to permit more hunting. Additionally, officials from FS also have poaching regulations and, just like FWS, also have the option of enforcing Federal Wildlife crimes under a criminal code called the Lacey Act. It is claimed that it would be impractical to enforce State-by-State conceal and carry laws on NPS lands. The fact is that both the BLM and the Forest Service have not expressed any difficulties or frustration in recognizing State laws. As it currently stands, the NPS does not enforce NPS regulations that void State concealed carry laws, except if violations are found inadvertently according to NPS congressional liaison. Even then, rangers will normally only give a warning to visitors that NPS regulations do not recognize State conceal and carry permits. This bill would actually simplify rules for national park and refuge visitors by requiring them to abide by State and local laws regardless of what type of Federal land they are visiting. Currently, visitors in some States may carry operational firearms in State parks, BLM and FS lands but not in national parks and refuges. It is claimed that recognizing concealed carry State permits would compromise the effectiveness of NPS law enforcement. The fact is that concealed carry permits exist for the protection of individuals--not law enforcement by regular citizens. Current police forces are spread far too thin as it is and are not sufficient. According to GAO, for every one law enforcement officer there are about 10,000 visitors and 118,000 acres of land. According to a report, FWS only employs one law enforcement officer for every 550,000 acres of national refuge land. Both FS and BLM do not believe their effectiveness has been compromised because State laws governing firearms are followed on their lands. Additionally, thousands of Americans with concealed carry permits in 48 States have not compromised the effectiveness of our law enforcement in States. Why should allowing concealed carry in national parks produce a different outcome? It is claimed that poaching has decreased as a result of these regulations. The fact is that according to CRS, there is no way of determining such a conclusion because poaching data is not maintained on a national basis throughout national parks and refuges for a variety of reasons. Attempts by both NPS and FWS to keep poaching statistics have not succeeded for a variety of reasons. Additionally, NPS, up until recently, did not even differentiate between different types of poaching when reporting any instances of poaching--including poaching archaeological relics, trees and plants, and animals. According to DOI's limited recordkeeping of poaching incidents, there has actually been a 10 percent increase in these incidents between 2003 and 2006--a jump from 365 incidents in 2003 to 405 in 2006. In contrast there were 16 homicides; including one manslaughter charge, 41 rape cases, including two attempted rapes, 92 robberies, 16 kidnappings, and 33 aggravated assaults out of 5094 part I offenses. It is claimed that hunting is already allowed in a number of specially designated areas. The fact is that this bill is not about hunting but concerns the right for Americans to protect themselves and their families from criminals and rabid and dangerous animals. This legislation will not overturn hunting regulations. It is claimed that 7 former NPS directors have spoken out against changing the current regulations along with organizations such as the Association of National Park Rangers, the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and the U.S. Park Rangers Lodge. This legislation directly contradicts the opinions of those most knowledgeable of law enforcement in national parks and refuges and thus should not be endorsed. The fact is that many of the concerns listed by these organizations have to do with poaching, not self-defense. The current situation in our national parks and refuges does not afford many visitors the benefits of adequate law enforcement protection--a fact that is emphasized by the increasing level of crime and violence experienced by law enforcement officers of these public lands. The Association of National Park Rangers has requested that Congress weigh in on these Federal regulations concerning the possession of firearms in these public lands. This amendment gives Congress, representing all Americans, instead of unelected bureaucrats the opportunity to do so. It is claimed that the regulatory process improperly did not include a full environmental impact study. The fact is that both the current and previous administrations agreed that this rule change does not significantly impact the ``environmental status quo, and . . . public health and safety.'' This bill does not authorize poaching or illegal gun use. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask unanimous consent that the time be divided equally.

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to reserve for me 10 minutes.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I have a cloture motion.

Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I send another amendment to the underlying bill to the desk.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded to ask a question of the Chair, a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. COBURN. It was my understanding the Senator was going to put down a substitute bill?

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, it is my understanding the substitute is open for amendment, is that correct?

Mr. COBURN. I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, let me relay my appreciation to both the chairman and the ranking member for this bill. It does a lot of things that needed to be done for a long time. I would also say it will not do anything unless the President puts in the right person who has the right character; that is, mean as all get out, thorough, and comprehensive in what they are going to do and plans on staying there for a long time. The other points I wanted to make, and I will be brief--really there are two. I have listened to all of this debate, not necessarily here but from my office. There is one thing that is missing in the debate. We have had the problem with contractors, and there is a problem with the Pentagon. But not once did I hear there is a problem with us. The real reason we have gotten into trouble to the degree we have is because we have not done the oversight. We have not done our job. So we are seeing a great response now by the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to do some of the right things. But had we been doing our job, much of what we see in terms of failed major procurement systems, lack of transparency, we could have had that transparency had we been doing the oversight. I will give you an example. Senator Carper and I did the transparency on the C-5 retrofit, and we had a supposed Nunn-McCurdy breach when, in fact, there was not a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The people wanted there to be a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The fact is, we could in fact cut down costs, create transparency, not just with the effects of what this bill is going to do, but if we are much more aggressive. The last point I will make is that there is no question that the earmarking process hampers us far more than it helps us in the Pentagon. When we see the amount of time that is spent on most projects versus oversight, the American taxpayers are getting shortchanged. They are just getting shortchanged. I hope people will recognize that although sometimes earmarks turn out to be fantastic, the vast majority of times they do not, and we spend staff time doing that rather than managing what is happening there today. Our No. 1 charge under the Constitution is the defense of this country, and we do not just spend $500 billion on that or $600 billion. When we add up everything we spend, it comes--if we count nuclear weapons maintenance and we count the research for nuclear warheads, if we count everything that goes through, we are about at $1 trillion. When we add everything else, that comes to that. And we are highly inefficient. I am very appreciative with what is happening within this bill. But I think the American public ought to recognize that the earmarking process in Congress has hurt the Defense Department because it has taken away from us doing our regular job. No. 2, Congress has hurt our procurement and our ability to defend ourselves because we are not doing the work we need to be doing, the oversight on a monthly basis on major programs. We cannot depend on IGs and the GAO. We have to ask them: Are you on time? Are you meeting the schedule we need to do this because we are putting one-third of our assets that we expend every year into defense? It is rich. And when we pay out $7, $8 billion for performance contracts that the performance contractor did not make, did not meet the requirements, but we pay it anyhow, we are the ones who allow that to happen. Finally, the last point I will make: Until we address the revolving door of working in the Pentagon and going to work for a contractor and how that impacts what people do in terms of procurement and major decisions, we are not going to solve this problem. Whether it is an ethical constraint or a positive statement of principles, somehow we have to address that issue because we cannot blame the people who are looking for their next job to be less than perfectly independent in this job if, in fact, it is going to affect their future. So we have not addressed that in this bill, but that is still one of the things that has to be addressed because it is problematic not only in terms of how well we do but what we get for what we actually pay out. Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member. I appreciate their work. I appreciate them taking our amendment. My hope is that when we combine what we have put forward with a--I cannot use the word I want to use on the Senate floor--but someone of significantly tough demeanor to ramrod this through there, that, in fact, we will see great savings, better performance, and better procurement for the American taxpayers. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to take a minute to briefly discuss my opposition to the nomination of Gil Kerlikowske to be Director of National Drug Control Policy. Chief Kerlikowske has had a long career in law enforcement, and he enjoys the support of many of his colleagues. However, the concerns I have about certain aspects of his record prevent me from being able to support his nomination to be Director of ONDCP. The principal purpose of ONDCP is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives for the nation's drug control program. The office has arguably never been more important, as the United States seeks to deal with the violent drug cartels whose influence has begun to cross into our borders. Yet Chief Kerlikowske has no experience with international drug interdiction, which is among my chief concerns with this nomination. Although I suppose my concerns about Chief Kerlikowske's lack of experience with international drug enforcement could be overcome by a strong record of domestic enforcement, I am afraid that Chief Kerlikowske lacks such a record. Instead, he has gained a reputation for being soft on marijuana enforcement, once stating that pursuing possession offenses was ``not a priority.'' Despite local attitudes on this issue, as the top law enforcement officer in Seattle, Chief Kerlikowske has an obligation to make all crime a priority. Chief Kerlikowske's lax record on marijuana enforcement has even led many pro-marijuana groups to endorse his nomination. In this country, marijuana remains a Schedule I drug and is known as the ``gateway drug,'' because it can lead to the abuse of more dangerous substances. For this reason, the next ONDCP Director must be a strong opponent of marijuana and all illegal drugs, as well as act as an aggressive enforcer of the laws regulating these harmful narcotics. I am concerned that Mr. Kerlikowske does not have such a record or reputation. I have other concerns about Chief Kerlikowske's record that I will not detail here. Those concerns include: his decision to withhold police from a riot that broke out in 2001, in which a 20-year-old college student was murdered; his direction for police not to check immigration status or take action on any such violations; and his record on gun control. With respect to the Second Amendment, at a time when facts about the influence of American guns in Mexican drug cartel violence are being distorted--often with the intent to restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens--it is crucial that we have leaders who are ready to defend those rights. I am concerned that Chief Kerlikowske will not be such a defender. In short, Chief Kerlikowske's lack of experience with international interdiction and his record of lax enforcement of domestic laws respecting drugs--particularly marijuana--and other crimes leaves me concerned that he is the wrong person to lead ONDCP at this crucial time. Therefore, I will oppose his nomination.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to waive the budget point of order, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment to the Reed amendment. What it says is we create a pilot study. We have 69,000 pieces of property we cannot get rid of. It represents $83 billion in assets to us as a government and to the American people. It is $83 billion we would not have. What we set up is a pilot program that manages 150 pieces of property a year to dispose of them. It gives 20 percent to the agency, 80 percent back to the Government. It creates a way, in a pilot project, for us to do real property reform. We have gone through and we have created 250 homeless shelters out of 30,000 properties at a cost of $300 million. We are spending over $8 billion a year just maintaining properties we do not want, do not need, yet we cannot get rid of. This is a simple, straightforward amendment that is common sense. There is no reason why we should not accept this amendment. With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. COBURN

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to take the Senator up on that offer as soon as I lose my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. Homeland Security.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I am going to spend a minute talking about the Kerry amendment. I am sitting over here listening to him. There is no question he is right on what should happen in terms of notifications on evictions. But we are about to make the same mistake we make all the time. That is a State issue. State laws apply, and we are going to pull that in and make it a Federal issue. Anybody who has any connection with Federal insurance, FHA, anything else, we are now going to start writing the laws on contract law in my State, in his State, and every other State. That is exactly how we got into the trouble we are in today. I hope the American people will look at how we got where we are. We got where we are because we are putting our nose into States' business. We think we have a nexus, no matter what the problem is, we ought to be solving it, which means why have State legislatures anymore? Why have Governors? Why not solve all the problems? Amendment No. 1042 Now to the amendment at hand. You cannot help but be discouraged about the Congress. We have all these grand ideas and new programs to expand the size and scope of the Federal Government, but we never want to pull it back in when it is not effective and when it is not working. So what do we do? We create a new program or we renew a new authorization, not looking at the facts, not looking at the downside consequences of it. What we do is just reauthorize it with a good goal in mind. Helping homeless people is great for us to do. The McKinney-Vento Act in the past has made a great contribution to 250 homeless shelters in this country. But nobody pays attention to the fact that we spent $300 million and went through 30,000 properties to fund 250 homeless shelters. The other thing that is not recognized is that we have all these pieces of property we cannot get rid of. It is actually 69,850 properties that the Federal Government owns that it is not using. Some of them need to be razed, but they are costing us billions every year to maintain because we have a bureaucracy that we cannot get through to sell the property. We have $89 billion of cash sitting there right now--right now, $89 billion. That is conservative appraisal values today on properties. We could put that money into the Federal Treasury. That is $89 billion we would not borrow against our grandchildren if, in fact, we had a commonsense, cogent way to dispose of excess Federal properties. All this amendment does is say let's create a pilot program for 5 years. Let's offset anything 100,000 square feet or less. Anything bigger let's go around it. We are not going to have 100,000-square-foot homeless shelters. And let's incentivize the agencies to get rid of their property by leaving 20 percent of the money they would get from selling those properties in the agency. The GAO says one of our biggest at-risk programs is our real property management. Peter Orszag testified in his hearings on confirmation that it is a giant problem. So now we come up with an amendment that is common sense. It is a pilot project. All it does is say let's test it on a limited number of properties for 5 years and see if we can't move some of this property, can't lower the cost of Government for the American people, and let's do it in a way that is smart. We have over 10,000 properties that need to be razed, need to be torn down, that we are expending tons of money to guard or protect or to maintain in a small fashion that is absolutely wasteful. Yet this body does not want to do that. It does not want to approach a commonsense program. This does not do anything to homeless people. This does not take any opportunities away from them. There is a very set guideline in here on how they get to perform against the properties under the pilot project. But we are going to claim--because the homeless groups that support McKinney-Vento are not happy with it, we are going to claim we cannot do anything. So we are not going to accept this amendment. They are going to raise a point of order because it costs $20 million. But when CBO scored it, they did not count any of the funds coming from the properties. It is a net gain of billions, and we are going to get a point of order. Why? Because we would rather satisfy completely an interest group than do what is best for the country as a whole. We would rather spend more money than save money. We would rather look good in one area than protect the future in the long term. One cannot read this amendment and not say it doesn't make common sense for us to be doing it. It is absolute common sense. What the American people know, better than we do, is there is not much of that up here; otherwise, we would have solved this problem 4 years ago when I started offering amendments on it. But we don't want to do it. We don't want to take on the established, connected lobbyists and interest groups that say: No, we don't want that to happen. We had an offer from the House to do five properties over 5 years. That was the offer from the House--5 out of 69,000 properties--69,000 pieces of property the Federal Government has that it wants to get rid of and we cannot do it because we are afraid we might miss one opportunity to put a piece of property in the hands of good people who want to do the right thing for those less fortunate. Yet we sit here and we deny common sense. If we sold $89 billion worth of properties, compound that interest over what we are borrowing right now over the next 5 years. Think about how that could offset some of our difficulties today. If we just did half of it, what would happen? The first thing the American people would say is, Hey, they are starting to get it. They are starting to understand what we are going through, making priorities. The risk of missing an opportunity for a homeless shelter versus getting rid of a high-risk problem that this Federal Government has-- not denying but maybe missing one opportunity as small compared to how it is going to impact the future homeless people in this country, who are going to be our grandkids who will never be able to afford to buy a home because we are strangling them with debt. It will be fine to challenge this on a point of order. I will make a motion to waive the point of order. We can have a vote in the Senate about whether we are going to take commonsense actions that actually help our kids and our grandkids at the same time we are helping the homeless or we are going to say: No, we are not going to do anything new. We are not going to do common sense. We are not going to apply what the ordinary man would do with their own money. We are just going to reject it. The fact that this is not even considered to be accepted in this bill is a statement about this body that is unbelievable. There is no legitimate complaint with this pilot program. The only complaint is, those who lobby on the other side do not want it or the only complaint is they are afraid we will not get everything we want if you do that. This Nation needs to learn right now; if we are going to get out of these problems, we are all going to have to sacrifice something. Everybody is going to have to sacrifice. That means we can't have everything we want. So the very idea that we won't address this issue at this time on housing, when we have a big, large, overburdening problem with real property in the Federal Government, says: What are we thinking about? Why does this not fit within the bounds of what we are supposed to be doing right now? Who are we going to hurt if we create a pilot program to get rid of properties over 100,000 square feet? How much money are we going to save just on maintenance every year? It has to be seen in the light of the whole picture, not just in the light of the homeless. If we fail to do that, we fail to think about the long- term benefits that will come from having common sense in real property reform. We ought to be doing this. We ought to be helping the next two generations. I am reminded that I did 27 townhall meetings while we were on break. And I will never forget, this guy came up to me and said: I don't care what you do to me, quit hurting my children. Quit hurting my children. Not accepting this amendment hurts everybody's kids. It is money we could save if we wanted to, but we won't because we don't have the backbone or the courage to do what is the best right thing for the country right now. I have no doubt we will do the politically expedient thing. We won't work on real property. We won't solve this big issue that costs us billions every year just in maintenance costs. We will do the easy thing. I will have more to say about this as it is challenged on the point of order, and also before the vote, but I hope my colleagues start becoming partisan for our kids, partisan for our children. We can help the homeless and help our kids too. We can help the homeless and create a better future for our kids, but we can't if we won't take a risk. So my challenge to my colleagues is to at least look at the amendment and say: If it was my money, what would I be doing? And the fact is, if it was your money, you wouldn't be sitting on $89 billion worth of property that is costing us billions every year to maintain, that we are not using, and that we can't get through the process to get rid of. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COBURN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. COBURN. I appreciate Senator Reed's understanding of our effort, but the question arises: We have 69,850 properties. This isn't a big pilot. It only allows 750 properties to be disposed of. Think about that--750. It is barely over 1 percent. It is going to be $800 million to $1 billion, and we are going to block everything--a pilot--because it is too big, too expansive--750 properties out of 69,850. We don't think we ought to attach that now? We put in extra provisions to make sure the homeless can have these, but most of them aren't good for anything. In fact, most of them will probably be razed. But the fact is, to say we can't do it--we have been saying we can't do it for 4\1/2\ years. Can't do it. Can't do it. When can we do it? And 750 properties to look at over a 5-year period is just 150 properties a year. How small does it need to be for us to have a pilot--out of 750, 150 properties a year? A total of 69,850. One hundred fifty, and we can't do that? And because we can't do that, that becomes a symbol for the rest of our failures. We can't sell 750 properties and protect the homeless while we do it and lower some of the burden of the excess real property this Government has. If we can't do that on this bill, a small number of properties, I am wondering what we can do. It confounds me. It doesn't fit with any sort of common sense. It doesn't fit with any reason. It doesn't fit with any long-term view of how do we get out of the mess we are in. What it fits with is that we don't want to do it because it is hard. We don't want to do it because somebody might yell, somebody might scream. But how do we do the best right thing--not the best thing, the best right thing--for the country? I can tell you that letting another year go by when we have 73,000 properties and $98 billion worth of money and $8 billion a year to maintain it isn't the best right thing. I am used to standing up and losing, but I am not going to stop putting forward ideas that we shouldn't be rejecting, that make a difference in the outcome for the future of this country. This doesn't have a liberal or conservative slant to it. It is just plain old, good old Oklahoma common sense, good old Connecticut common sense, good old Rhode Island common sense. The fact we would reject it says that our motives have to be somewhat suspect on the reasons we would reject it at this time, especially when we are in the trouble we are in. It is so discouraging to go home and hear people say, why are you doing what you are doing? Why aren't we fixing this? Why aren't we making the small steps that create a big step that create a yard that create a mile that secures the future? It is amazing to me that you can have a real objection to this amendment--not 150 properties a year. That isn't going to impact anybody except our kids in the long term, and it is going to impact them positively. But we are going to have a parochial reason why we might not do it? I think that is what I might have heard implied. A parochial protection? We are going to die of parochialism. It is going to kill us. Eighty-plus billion dollars sitting there and we could take and lower the impact of this tremendous downturn and make a difference. Yet we are going to say no. As they say in Oklahoma--go figure.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reed amendment be the pending amendment.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I call up my amendment to the Reed amendment.

Mr. COBURN. I appreciate the Senator's offer.