Bill Frist

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Democratic leader, the Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from consideration of S. 139, the Climate Stewardship Act of 2002, and the Senate then proceed to its consideration; that the measure be considered on the following limitations: That there be a total of 6 hours of debate on the bill and substitute amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled between the proponents and opponents; that the only amendment in order be a McCain- Lieberman substitute amendment, as specified in the debate time limitation; that upon the use or yielding back of all time, the Senate proceed to a vote on adoption of the amendment; that upon disposition of the amendment, the bill, as amended, if amended, be read the third time, and without further intervening action or debate the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.

Mr. FRIST. A discussion of what we have just done will take place later in the evening. The unanimous consent request means that Senator Baucus and Senator Dodd will have their statements followed by a series of stacked votes. We will have at least three rollcall stacked votes, and then we will have some judge votes; we will be in consultation as to how many judge votes there will be. The plans will be to have a series of at least three rollcall stacked votes tonight.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I now ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the sequence be limited to 10-minute votes; further, that it be in order to ask for the yeas and nays on passage of the next two bills with one show of hands.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have worked very hard over the course of this week to address the people's business with the schedule that was set out weeks ago to address energy in a focused way, a way that would allow for debate and amendment, and bring to conclusion the debate on a bill that is important to every American listening to me now--every American. The President initially called for an Energy bill over 2 years ago and laid down a policy 3 months ago, and the House of Representatives has acted in delivering such a bill. As the distinguished assistant leader has mentioned, we have now spent 18 days debating energy policy. That is longer than any other bill this year and, in truth, as we all know in this body, we have been debating energy policy now for 3 years. It is true that during the last Congress, we spent 7 weeks on an Energy bill, and the other side of the aisle comes forward and says: We spent 7 weeks last year, so we are going to have to spend 7 weeks or 8 weeks or more time on this Energy bill. I appreciate their concern because I, too, want to make sure we address these issues thoroughly. But what we have is just obstruction, flat out obstruction of our commitment to answer to the American people when they ask: Where is our national energy policy? The distinguished Democratic leader said: Now we have politics injected. I do believe that statement is disingenuous when he throws the politics on our side and, at the same time, we have a commitment-- and I have said again and again and under the able leadership of our managers, I know they are committed to addressing this bill and bringing it forward to the American people who do and will continue to suffer under skyrocketing natural gas prices. I say that because now--and I said it last night after conversations we had both on and off the floor--it is clear that we were not going to be able to finish the Energy bill this week. We do not have the amendments. We do not have the amendments, and we have had a difficult time getting an accurate list of amendments. When I talk to the managers, they may say we have one or two amendments on a particular issue, and then as I talk to other colleagues and they say: No, we have 7, 8, 9, 10 amendments. It is that lack of pulling together that I am most disheartened about in addressing the Nation's business. It comes to obstruction, and I do think at this point in time the Democrats are bringing progress on this critically important issue of energy to a screeching halt. The fact is, we are ready to go today and we are ready to go tomorrow, and, if they are willing, we are ready to go the next day on the people's business on this Energy bill, and basically they are saying no. They are hiding under the allegation: Oh, it is judges you are bringing forward--and I will comment on that point, but they are hiding behind that issue because they do not want a bill. They say: We want a bill. I say: Let's get a bill. They say: We want a bill but it is going to be sometime off in the future. As the former majority leader said, and as the leader on the Democratic side said, it is tough scheduling. It is not impossible but it is tough scheduling. But one thing that the Republican leadership does have to demand is that people are working in good faith to complete bills in a timely way. I am beginning to lose faith in the other side of the aisle because they are obstructing--flat out obstruction. The fact is, whether they are in a cornfield in Iowa or whether they are in a cornfield in South Dakota or in the mountains of New England, Americans want us to pass an Energy bill, not at some vague time in the future but right now, an Energy bill--this is what the American people understand--that will bring down the soaring cost of energy while ensuring an adequate supply. And that is what they are being denied by this obstruction by the Democrats. It has gotten to where we are hearing this term--it was used earlier today--with ``ism'' on it, obstructionism, that we are seeing so much obstruction today from the other side of the aisle, whether it is bioshield, which we are trying to bring to the floor, or whether it is the judges. All we are trying to do is get them to the floor and have that debate and discuss them. We can't even bring them to the floor to talk about them. I come back on energy for one second. People are willing to watch this obstruction go forward and not continue to push and do not continue to push when we are trying to stay on the Energy bill today and tomorrow, and they say: No, we can't do it; we throw up our hands; why don't we just go home? That is not in the Nation's interest. I plead with the other side of the aisle, let's not obstruct. Let's debate energy over the course of the day and into tonight. If there are so many amendments on the other side--remember, on the other side-- let's address them one by one. It is simply not acceptable not to address the amendments. I believe it is a dereliction of our duties. We are here to pass a bill. We are ready to pass a bill. We are waiting for those amendments, and the Democrats are obstructing. Earlier this morning the minority leader did talk about the virtues of the Energy bill and gave the rhetoric, and I appreciate the rhetoric and the platitudes, but it is offensive, at least to our side of the aisle, when at the same time we are talking these platitudes both here and around the Nation in our own States and then we see the same side of the aisle, the other side of the aisle, obstruct in a steady, consistent pattern. Americans are waking up finally to this consistent pattern of obstruction, whether it is on the judges or whether it is on the Energy bill which we have before us. I have mentioned to the leadership on the other side of the aisle-- they talk about judges; quit bringing up judges at this point--I said: Let's just not do judges today. Let's put them aside. Can we finish the Energy bill this week? Again the answer was: No, no, we are not ready to finish the Energy bill this week. So I think in this call of crying politics from the other side of the aisle, the Democratic leadership really is showing their own hand. They talk about energy but do not deliver. It is not just about the Energy bill itself--and we have touched upon the judicial nominees this morning, which again all we are asking for is a simple up-or-down vote on these nominees when I have asked consent. It is not to debate these judges now, although people come out of the woodwork for that. It is just to get consent that at some time in the future we will have the opportunity to talk about these judges and give every Senator their right--and that is through advise and consent--to have an up-or-down vote. The Democrats--and I come back to the word--obstruct our opportunity to advise and consent. That is all we are asking in terms of the judges. Obstruction--again, people do not see all that is going on. They see what is on the floor. But right now the obstruction does fall over to other fields--fields such as bioshield. We have worked very hard to address an issue which does have an impact on national security, and we cannot get consent to bring resolution to a very important initiative that provides over $6 billion over 10 years to purchase new countermeasures, whether it is on the biological entities, such as botulinum, anthrax, or plague, a bill that expands research and development so that we will be best prepared in the event terrorists use these agents against us. It is legislation that protects us all, but it is being obstructed. The economy, energy, the judiciary, it is obstruction again and again. I do not fully understand why. I think we can all only speculate. We do have the Presidential election cycle that is approaching. The outside interest groups may be holding sway. I do not know. It may be obstruction for its own sake. It is not in the best interest of the American people. The American people want us to progress. They want us to move America forward, whether it is on any of the issues I have talked about today, and all they hear is obstruction. I do want to share with my colleagues once again, and those people who are listening, and to remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the judicial nominees, the requests we have made would not mandate in any way consideration of those nominees right now or during the Energy bill. That is not the purpose. That is not the way the request was put forth. Those consents to be able to bring them up at some time in the future, not on the Energy bill, were objected to by the other side of the aisle. The consents would have allowed votes on the nominations at some time in September or October, and the requests were made, lest my colleagues forget, for 4 hours to debate these judicial nominees sometime in the future, and they said no. Then I said, these are Presidential nominations that come to us. We are to give advice and consent. Can we bring them up and debate them in an orderly fashion for 8 hours at some time in the future--not on the Energy bill but sometime in the future? And they said no. Then I asked consent if we could, sometime in the future, debate these judicial nominees for 10 hours. Object, object. We did schedule cloture votes this week, and they were simply that, 20-minute cloture votes. Why? Because they objected to bringing these judges up and having adequate debate in September or October. What alternative does one have but to file a cloture vote to bring them up? That is a 20-minute vote. I very specifically came to this floor and said that those 20-minute votes could be expected in between other Energy amendment votes, 20 to 25 minutes. All the requests for debate time on those cloture votes have come from the other side of the aisle, not our side of the aisle. I further remind my colleagues that we tried on numerous occasions to reach consent to have a filing deadline on Energy amendments last week. Again, objection from the other side of the aisle. I mentioned earlier the problem the managers are having is getting their arms around the amendments that we are waiting for the other side to offer. Yet they are not materializing. So if there is any question of the commitment to finishing this bill, I think it is clear which side of the aisle is pressing for it and which side of the aisle is not pressing forward. It leads me to the conclusion that we want an Energy bill, a good Energy bill, for the American people, consistent with appropriate production, conservation, use of renewable fuels, and tax incentives, to make sure that our energy supply is appropriate. We want that type of Energy bill worse and are willing to fight for it longer and harder than the other side of the aisle. It was the Democratic side of the aisle that refused to grant consent--that is, obstruct--to have the debate on the electricity title. It was the Democratic side of the aisle who refused to enumerate the number of second-degree amendments that would be offered. I made it crystal clear 6 weeks ago that we were going to be going to this bill on this Monday to work Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, to complete this bill. Yet, on Monday, the Democratic side of the aisle refused to grant consent to have that debate on the electricity amendment. That refusal really did not rob us, but it meant we could not use Monday as productively as we should have used it. Again, that lack of participation makes it very difficult to achieve what is in the best interest of the American people. The chairman of the committee, the manager, Senator Domenici, earlier this morning indicated there are amendments on the other side of the aisle. There is only so much we can do. We cannot really reach over to the other side of the aisle and pull those amendments out of their pockets or wherever they are. They have to offer those amendments for us to consider them. So we have to sit and wait for those amendments to come forward so that the Senate can work its business on this Energy bill. As has been said, we are prepared to have amendments offered. I think it is important that we use today and tomorrow to focus on Energy. I think we should be able to reach some sort of time agreement to bring this bill to completion. I think we need to be working toward voting on the issues as we go forward, and I plead with the other side that we stay on Energy, we stay focused, and we bring this bill to completion as we go forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I appreciate the advice and counsel of the distinguished Democratic leader. He and I do have the opportunity to talk which, indeed, I appreciate very sincerely. As we all know, we have heard from three majority leaders commenting on the schedule--the former majority leader, Senator Lott, myself, and the distinguished Democratic leader. We have a challenging week, remaining week with a lot to do. We have important issues before the Senate, critically important issues. I am delighted we have expressed that commitment to address issues, first and foremost energy. That is our number one priority. Everything else is secondary. I said we would have these cloture votes this week on the judges for 20 minutes and time demands have made that expand for hours, like last night. I am not accusing anyone of trying to delay the bill by talking on these judges, but remember my initial consent was we want to talk on these judges and we want to do it sometime in the future. Just give us consent to do that. That is what has been denied. Chile and Singapore was mentioned. Before we leave, whether it is Friday or Saturday, the Chile and Singapore trade agreements are important. I don't want to focus on those because I want to stay on energy and keep driving on energy. I have the distinguished manager, the chairman of the committee, with me. I know he will keep driving ahead. I am delighted we will do that. It is important. We have the supplemental, something we absolutely have to deal with. We can deal with that tomorrow and hopefully that can be done and wrapped up in a very short period of time. Last night, to clarify, I did file a Frist amendment which includes the text of S. 14 as reported by the Energy Committee. It includes the ethanol amendment already adopted by the Senate, it includes the Bond- Levin CAFE amendment, it includes the Domenici electricity substitute, and the Finance Committee-reported energy tax title. That is the amendment I put forward. As I said earlier in the day, to facilitate the amendments which I hope the Democrats will bring forward if they have them, I will gladly withdraw the first and second-degree amendments to offer them, to allow them the opportunity to offer their amendments to push this debate forward. I would be glad to enter into time agreements on their respective amendments in order to move forward. I will not withdraw this cloture vote tomorrow. The more I hear the other side mention ``politics,'' the more I realize how important it is we have a cloture vote to see who is serious about finishing this bill and who is not tomorrow. We will gladly have discussions so we can consider amendments. The Democratic leadership wants a bill. I know they want a bill. It is really a matter of, is it some time off in the future or now. The Democratic leader made a suggestion that is one I think is important because we need to move ahead, we need to act today--not just talk and talk about politics and talk about obstructionism, with rhetoric and no action. I want a bill. I want a bill that is good, that is fair to the American people, and that addresses the issues of supply and the soaring costs which we feel. It is incumbent upon us to act. The Democratic leader mentioned last year's bill was passed with a bipartisan vote and suggested bringing that up. Let's do that. Let's pass that bill if it is the great bill he says. We would be willing to do that. I will turn to the manager of this bill and the chairman, but if we have the opportunity to take that bill up, as suggested by the Democratic leader, let's do it and pass it today and then we can move on.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will be happy to follow the assistant leader very shortly.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending motion and all amendments be withdrawn and the bill be returned to the calendar; further, that the two scheduled cloture votes be vitiated.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the majority leader does so modify. Calendar No. 305 would be a 10-minute vote; 306 would be a ten-minute vote, and the remaining three, 307, 314, and 315 would be en bloc and a voice vote.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, once we conclude action on the judges, we will be finished voting for the evening. Those Members who want to speak on the supplemental appropriations bill will have the opportunity to do so. I understand that bill will be passed by voice vote. We will be in session tomorrow to clear any remaining legislative or executive items. Following Friday's session, the Senate will adjourn for the August recess until Tuesday, September 2. No rollcall votes will occur that day, and I will have more to say about the schedule when we return tomorrow.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session and to consecutive votes on the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 305, 306, 307, 314, and 315. I further ask unanimous consent that following the votes, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the unanimous consent does mean that we will have five consecutive votes on the district judges.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we have three short unanimous consent requests. Senator Baucus will be taking the floor shortly. I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Baucus's statement and Senator Dodd's statement on free trade, the Senate then proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 85, H.R. 6, the House-passed Energy bill, provided that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4 from the 107th Congress as passed by the Senate be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill then be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no intervening action or debate; further, that following that vote, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 7 to 6.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we will debate the cloture motion relating to the Pryor nomination until 10 a.m. Following the debate relating to the Pryor nomination, the Senate will proceed to the cloture vote. Therefore, the first vote in today's session will occur at approximately 10 a.m. Following the cloture vote, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. Last night I filed a cloture motion relative to the pending Energy legislation. As I said last night, that cloture motion was filed to give us a chance to finish the bill prior to the August recess. If we have any hope of passing a bill which would establish a national energy policy, then the Senate must invoke cloture. In the interim, I know the chairman will certainly work with Members toward consent agreements to allow consideration of any additional amendments. It is our hope to continue to process Senators' amendments prior to the cloture vote. Let me reiterate again that our commitment remains on this side of the aisle to finish this Energy bill. Cloture votes on judicial nominees will not and should not detract us from the ultimate goal of concluding our work on this bill. I hope today that we can renew our efforts, have Members come forward with their amendments, debate those amendments, and then have the Senate work its will on the issues. I yield the floor.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the vote on the passage of the Energy bill, all debate time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 2739, the Singapore bill, to be followed by a vote on passage of H.R. 2738, the Chile free-trade legislation.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes in this series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. FRIST

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

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, obviously we have not had the progress we had hoped for on the Energy bill over the course of the last several days. I know that Senators have indicated they still have amendments to the electricity amendment. And it is clear to me there is not a definite sign as to when we might finish that issue. Members have the ability to slow down this bill. With the lengthy amendment list that is before us, there are many options to do that. After numerous discussions today, it is clear to me we are not on a course to complete this bill over the next couple of days. It is important to do. I set out several weeks ago--actually 2 months ago--stating that the objective would be to work aggressively over the course of this final week, having had the bill before us in May, spending a number of days before this week on this bill. In spite of that commitment on my part to plow ahead, it appears to me now--Wednesday night at 10 o'clock--that the writing is on the wall: We are not going to be able to complete the bill. Having said that, I think it is important that Members have an opportunity to really prove their commitment to this underlying bill. Again and again, I have heard: Yes, we want to pass a comprehensive national energy policy. Although I hear that, and I express this willingness--and I think that is probably right--it is important, before we leave for this August recess, to see what that commitment really represents. Thus, I will shortly file cloture, and the Senate will have the opportunity to go on record for completing a bill which will accomplish just that--establishing a national energy policy. Mr. President, in that regard, I now ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments in order for me to offer an amendment.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send to the desk a motion to commit the pending legislation with instructions.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. I have talked to both the Democratic leader and the chairman, and we agree after the cloture vote to go to the bill to work through the amendments. I am very hopeful over the course of the morning and over the course of the day that we will be able to make substantial progress on this important bill.

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that at a time determined by the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of Calendar No. 169, the nomination of Carolyn Kuhl, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; further, that there be 4 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form, and that following that debate, the Senate proceed to a vote on the confirmation of the nomination, with no intervening action or debate; finally, I ask consent that following that vote, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. FRIST. I would ask if the request were modified to 10 or 12 hours, would it be agreed to?

Mr. FRIST

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess under the previous order.