[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 114 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9962-S9980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE,
AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Continued
Amendments Nos. 1650, As Modified, 1653, and 1704
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers'
amendments that I now send to the desk be considered and agreed to, en
bloc. These noncontroversial amendments have been cleared on both sides
of the aisle.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:
amendment no. 1650, as modified
(Purpose: To make funds available to implement the Harmful Algal Bloom
and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004)
On page 170, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 304. Of the amounts made available under the heading
``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' and the
subheading ``operations, research, and facilities'',
sufficient funds may be provided to implement the Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (title I of
Public Law 108-456; 16 U.S.C. 1451 note).
amendment no. 1653
(Purpose: To increase funding for child abuse training programs for
judicial personnel and practitioners)
On page 133, line 11, strike ``$2,287,000'' and insert
``$5,287,000''.
amendment no. 1704
(Purpose: To extend the term of the National Prison Rape Elimination
Commission)
On page 142, after line 3, insert the following:
Sec. __. Section 7(d)(3)(A) of the Prison Rape Elimination
Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 15606) is amended by striking ``2
years'' and inserting ``3 years''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Amendment No. 1687, As Modified
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendments be set aside. I call up amendment No. 1687, and I send a
modification to the desk for immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 1687), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide funding for interoperable communications equipment
grants)
On page 190, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
Sec. 522. (a) There are appropriated out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2006, $5,000,000,000 for interoperable
communications equipment grants under State and local
programs administered by the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness of the Department of
Homeland Security.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
Levin, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, and Boxer be added as cosponsors of
this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, all of America is hurting with the
Katrina victims and their families. We are finding ways to help, to
reach out, to make a difference in these critical weeks following the
hurricane and the horrible disaster. Americans are donating record
amounts of money, time, and supplies to help those displaced by the
hurricane. The most important thing to do now is to save life, to
provide shelter, food, and medical care for the people affected by this
tragedy.
As is happening in many States, last week two jetliners arrived in
Michigan with the first group of 289 hurricane evacuees. Troops and
volunteers at our Battle Creek Air National Guard base are providing
clean shelter, food, and clothing to all of these Americans. Last
Friday, 46 more Americans were welcomed into Michigan, and we expect
many more in the coming weeks.
We also have several Michigan State police teams, and more than 500
members of the Michigan National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi
assisting with relief efforts.
There are stories about people all across our great Nation who are
answering the call to help the men and women who have been displaced
and hurt by the hurricane. In Michigan, families and businesses are
working together to help the victims. Michigan-based Whirlpool, for
example, is donating $1 million in cash and products for Hurricane
Katrina relief efforts.
On Friday, the State of Michigan held a statewide on-air fundraiser
where Michiganians generously donated time and dollars for Red Cross
hurricane relief efforts.
There are so many individual stories of heroism and generosity rising
from the depth of this catastrophe, both in the States affected by the
hurricane and in communities such as mine all across America. These are
important stories right now--saving lives, finding shelter, food, and
medical care, and raising money to help hurricane victims. But there is
another story to tell here as well. It is about the Federal Government
and our responsibility to all Americans to be prepared not only for
this kind of disaster but for a coordinated response to help save lives
and prevent chaos.
We all watched in horror the images of families trapped in New
Orleans after the hurricane; mothers with babies and young children
stranded on highway overpasses, making their desperate pleas for help;
families clinging to the roof of their flooded home, waving the shirts
off their backs for help; senior citizens trapped in flooded nursing
homes without food, water, and medical care. An estimated 55,000 people
were stranded in the New Orleans Superdome and convention center, left
for days--left for days--without food, water, and working bathrooms,
waiting to be rescued. Thousands of people sat outside the Superdome in
the heat and the filth for days waiting for convoys of buses which were
slow to arrive because of FEMA's lack of planning and poor
communication.
How could this happen in the United States of America, the greatest
country on Earth? How could this happen? How could we allow stranded
people to die without getting them water and food and medical care?
In this time immediately following this disaster, we have an
obligation to correct the mistakes on crisis response. We need to
address how the Federal Government could have better handled the
response to Hurricane Katrina and what should have been done to prevent
the disorder and death that followed this tragedy. It is absolutely
critical that local communities have the tools they need to
communicate, coordinate, and respond effectively when disaster hits.
They did not have that in New Orleans and the other places that were
hit, where the police departments in three nearby parishes were on
different radio systems. They did not have enough satellite phones.
They had ground and cell phone lines that were taken out with this
storm. The communications systems they did have, like most in local
communities across the Nation, were not interoperable. They were not
connected. They didn't work together. Police officers called Senator
Landrieu's office, and I am sure Senator Vitter's office as well,
because they could not reach commanders on the ground in New Orleans.
In the absence of communication with other emergency responders due
to the lack of interoperability, power, or dying batteries, responders
shared satellite phones that were in short supply.
According to Aaron Broussard, president of the Jefferson Parish, FEMA
[[Page S9963]]
came in, and, without warning, cut the emergency communication lines
for local law enforcement and hooked up their own. Local law
enforcement and first responders were left without any way to
communicate with each other.
This collapse in communications was not just a local and State
problem. FEMA, who is supposed to be coordinating the Federal response
and helping rescue evacuees, was working in the dark. In several
interviews, former FEMA Director Brown admitted that FEMA learned about
25,000 hungry, and in some cases dying, people trapped in the New
Orleans convention center from listening to news reports. Even he
conceded that emergency assistance and delivery problems were caused by
``the total lack of communication''--the inability to hear and have
good intelligence on the ground. We knew before Katrina hit that too
many of our police and fire and emergency medical services and
transportation officials cannot communicate with each other, and our
local departments are not able to link their communications with State
and Federal emergency response agencies.
The September 11 attack highlighted the interoperability crisis when
New York police and firefighters, while on different radio systems,
couldn't communicate when we had police officers and firefighters
running in the buildings that they should have been running out of
because they weren't able to communicate with the others on floors
above them to know what was happening. Over 50 different public safety
organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
reported to the Pentagon, but they could not talk to each other. The
result of this lack of connectedness in communications is nothing short
of chaos.
This past Sunday, Thomas Kean, the former Republican Governor of New
Jersey, an esteemed cochair of the 9/11 Commission, said that the
Federal Government's response was similar to September 11, including
first responders not being able to talk to each other and a lack of
command and control. The Commission's cochair, Lee Hamilton, also told
CNN that ``he has had an uneasy feeling for a long time that the
government simply was not acting with a sense of crisis, with a sense
of urgency.'' Now I hope and pray we have that sense of urgency.
A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of
our cities do not have interoperable capability between police, fire,
and emergency medical services, and 60 percent of our cities do not
have that same capability with the State emergency operations centers.
Majority Leader Frist spoke in the Senate last week about seeing this
problem firsthand in the gulf coast, how people were working without
functioning radios and could not communicate from one end of the
airport terminal to the other, much less to another building or another
part of town.
Almost half of the cities surveyed said that a lack of interoperable
communications had made response to an incident within the last year
difficult. The most startling finding was that over 80 percent of
cities do not have interoperable communications with the Department of
Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Heaven forbid, if there
is another natural disaster or terrorist attack soon, our communities
will not be able to communicate with FEMA or the Department of Homeland
Security.
Michigan first responders have told me, as I have said before in the
Senate, that they have to watch the cable news to get notifications of
raised alert levels because they are not able to be contacted by the
Department of Homeland Security. As I mentioned before, FEMA found out
about the 25,000 people trapped in the New Orleans convention center
from watching the news reports.
Last Sunday was the fourth anniversary, as we all know, of the
horrendous attacks on September 11, and this is the State of our
Federal communications and emergency response system? We can do better.
It is time to have a sense of urgency and do better.
They are only beginning the process of recovering the bodies of the
Katrina victims in the gulf coast. Some of these victims lost their
lives because of the hurricane. How many lost their lives because of
the poor disaster response and the total lack of communications? How
many lost their lives because they were left without food or water for
days, without any hope of aid, and no ability to communicate? How many
lost their lives because they were trapped in their homes, in churches,
and highway overpasses waiting to be rescued? How many lost their lives
because they were elderly and sick or dying and stranded without
medical care or medicine? How many of these lives would have been saved
if FEMA had been able to communicate with local first responders and
hospitals and get good information on where to send help first, what
was most urgent? FEMA failed these victim and their families. There is
a wide understanding of that. This is unconscionable in terms of the
lack of infrastructure and communications. The lack of communications
is a crisis, and we are putting our communities in danger. We need to
address this now. We all need to address it, together.
Two months ago in the Senate, I offered an amendment to provide $5
billion for interoperable communications equipment grants for first
responders to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The amendment,
unfortunately, was defeated. Why? Many stated it was a local
responsibility to pay for this equipment. But how is communication,
connecting all across the country--local, State, and Federal--to
respond to a national emergency or regional emergency, how is this a
local responsibility when we have seen what happened?
I know none of my colleagues believe rebuilding from the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina is a local responsibility alone or that somehow
helping those who have lost their homes, lost so much, that somehow
that is a local responsibility alone. We understand we have a
responsibility, together, to help these Americans, and everyone is
coming together to do that. No one in the Senate is saying it is a
local responsibility to rebuild the gulf coast.
After September 11, we came together. The terrorists did not just
attack New York and Washington, DC; they attacked the entire country.
We responded by coming together and having a Federal response. Why is
it, then, that communications equipment that would allow local, State,
and Federal first responders to coordinate and work as a team has been
considered a local responsibility? I hope that will no longer be the
case. Coordinated communications would decrease the loss of life and
the devastation of a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina and in
the case of terrorism could very well prevent an attack.
That is why I am again offering my amendment. My amendment provides
$5 billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first
responders to provide a strong Federal commitment to address this
problem.
Estimates from the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office place the
cost of equipping America's first responders with interoperable
communication in excess of $15 billion. In November 2003, the CBO
testified before Congress that there is insufficient funding in place
to solve the Nation's interoperability problem and that it would cost
over $15 billion to move us in the direction of solving the problem.
This $5 billion provides a strong Federal commitment toward the goal. I
hope we will make that commitment to do that investment this year, next
year, and the year after, and complete this issue and get it right,
solve this problem. There is no time to wait. We need to act now. We
should have acted before. I am hopeful we will come together now and
act.
The Federal Government has not made a significant commitment to solve
this problem up to this point. In previous years, tiny amounts of money
have been allocated to interoperability projects on a very small scale.
Obviously, it has been not enough to get the job done. According to the
Department of Homeland Security, since September 11 the Department of
Homeland Security has spent only $280 million directly on interoperable
communications. None of these funds have been provided to help State
and local emergency responders purchase the equipment they need so they
can talk with each other.
Nearly 4 years after September 11, 2001, the top request for support
I receive each year from communities in Michigan is for communications
equipment and connectedness, the ability to
[[Page S9964]]
talk with each other. In Michigan, we still have police departments
that cannot talk to the fire department, the sheriff who cannot talk to
the local community, and those who are not able to talk with Homeland
Security or State authorities.
We in government failed the people of the gulf coast because we did
not address this sooner. Now we need to provide the resources to make
sure the communications equipment works, it is interoperable, and that
they can get the job done in the future to save lives and respond--
whether it is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
This shock and horror of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will live
with us forever. We salute the heroes of this disaster, and our prayers
are with the victims.
The American people, as they always do, rose to the challenge and are
helping out all across this great country. I again am so proud of all
we are doing in the great State of Michigan. We have to step up and
show leadership and do our part, do what we can and should do but only
we can do, and that is to make sure that across the country we have
done the job to put together the communications infrastructure to make
sure in case of emergency all of our citizens--State, local, Federal
officials--can talk to each other, can respond with efficiency and
effectiveness, and can do what needs to be done to save lives and save
communities. We have the power to do that.
I ask support for my amendment and urge all of my colleagues to
support this effort to get this done. We need a sense of urgency. If we
do not feel it now, I don't know when we will. I hope we will get this
done.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to amending
the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill for the purposes of
providing additional grant money to fund interoperable communications
for our first responders.
I compliment my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, for
bringing this up and helping us to address, in an expeditious fashion,
some very dire needs that exist out there among those on whom we depend
the most.
In many instances, whether it is a natural disaster or any kind of an
emergency circumstance, we find our first responders, without a doubt,
are those who come to our aid first and foremost.
Without a doubt, in this age of technology and advanced
communications, there is no excuse for us, as a nation, to not be able
to provide to our first responders and to all of our Government
assistance agencies the kind of communication that keeps us connected.
This past week, I visited some evacuees from Katrina in my home State
of Arkansas. Our people in Arkansas are our greatest asset. I have
always said that. Watching the Governor, he moved quickly to put people
into place and to put systems into place to find available beds at
everything from church camps to gymnasiums and other places, to move
quickly to put into place something the Red Cross could respond to and
so that evacuees could get to a place where they could begin to find
some comfort and to be able to relax a little bit from the unbelievable
experiences they have been going through.
I found, in one of these evacuee camps, the Red Cross had gone in and
had taken a lot of the registry information of individuals so they
could help reconnect them with their families and make sure they could
make available the information that they were safe and where they were
located. They did this for a tremendous number of evacuees, only to
find that when FEMA finally arrived in Arkansas, several days later,
their communication systems were not compatible. So we had to get
volunteers from the local school to come in and reenter all of the
information about these evacuees so they could also get their presence,
through the FEMA modes of communication, out to all the different
outlets where, hopefully, they could reconnect with their families.
We are in a day and age where communication should be easier than we
are making it. There is no doubt there is technology that is more
advanced than what we are providing in cases of emergency and
particularly to our first responders.
A little over 4 years ago, this Nation confronted an attack like no
other. We remembered, on September 11 of this year, September 11 of
2001. It was a day none of us will ever forget. That day showed us our
weaknesses as well as our strengths. We vowed, at that time, to learn
from our mistakes, great and small. One of the issues we learned we
needed to address was the ability of our first responders, whether they
be Federal, State, or local, to communicate with one another in an
emergency situation in order that they all may do the best job possible
for those whom they are trying to serve.
Four years have passed since we, as a nation, became painfully aware
of the need to address this deficiency in our communication systems.
With twin boys who are 9 years old, who are quickly getting into lots
of different types of activities--whether it is baseball or soccer,
whether it is the chess club or learning how to play a musical
instrument--I continually tell them: Just do your best. Just do your
best. All anyone can ask of you is to do your best. Then you can be
confident you have given your all and that you have done your best. And
as you continue to try to do your best, you will always improve.
Think of how our first responders must feel when they know, with a
little bit of today's technology, they could be doing better, they
could be doing their best. They could be doing their best saving lives,
reuniting families, bringing to people the kind of help and aid they
have been trained to bring. There is no greater, more horrific feeling
than to know you are capable of providing something such as that and
yet are handicapped in being able to do your very best.
We recently had our first wide-scale test of what progress we have
made with respect to this problem in communication. The results have
been less than stellar. It is painfully clear we have not made the
strides we must if we are to have the American people's confidence that
their Government maintains a basic level of competence in times of
emergency.
Emergency responders from my home State, the State of Arkansas,
rushed to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina hit. Being a neighbor to
the north, we wanted to do all we possibly could do to help our
neighbors in their time of need. When they arrived, they found they
could not communicate properly with officials in the area. They lost
precious time which could have been better spent getting help to
victims, saving lives, rescuing individuals, doing their very best.
In considering whether to support this amendment, I asked myself a
simple question: Are the communications tools that our brave first
responders have at their disposal the best we have to offer? The answer
is clearly no. We as a nation, we as a people, we, as a human race,
with the good minds that God has given us, have produced technology
that can assist them in doing their very best as responders in
emergency situations. We can do better. With this amendment, we will
give our first responders the ability to respond, using the skills,
using the talents they have developed, using the very courage that is
in their hearts and in their minds to help their fellow man.
I have seen what happens when we put our minds to correcting similar
communications problems. We have an example in our own State of
Arkansas called Justice Exchange. It is an innovative program that
allows law enforcement officials to check the records of people they
have arrested from around the country. It started with a small grant we
were able to get for our Sheriffs' Association in the State of
Arkansas. Working with computer operators and technology, we were able
to design a system that was compatible, Web-based, so we could, in
turn, share it with other States, other law enforcement agencies across
the Nation.
A great example: A deputy in one of our counties southwest of Little
Rock picked up a man on a traffic violation,
[[Page S9965]]
but he had a little bit of a suspicion. He held him, detained him for a
while, and tried to look him up on the computer. The name did not
produce anything. So he asked one of the other deputies to go back and
see if he could get a real name from this gentleman. In building that
trust, he got a real name. He put it in the computer and found out that
individual was wanted for two counts of murder--two counts of murder--
in New Jersey or one of the other east coast States.
The fact is, in communicating, in building a system where people can
share information and work together, such as in our law enforcement, we
can solve so many of these problems.
This is not technology that is brand new. Much of it has been here
for the last decade, to be able to connect and to use compatible
software and compatible technology so these groups can communicate.
I think this amendment represents a very important step toward
helping our first responders save lives. I believe it is the best
reason to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to
recognize the opportunity we have to say, after the horrific natural
disaster that occurred in the Gulf Coast, we have learned enough to
know our first responders need our help. They need current-day
technology to be able to do the very best they are trained to do.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1665
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that is
pending on this appropriations bill, and I wanted to speak to that
amendment in the hope that we will be able to get a vote on that
amendment at some point soon.
The amendment deals with trade, and because this appropriations bill
deals with funding for the Department of Commerce and also the U.S.
Trade Representative, this is the right place to propose that
amendment.
Let me begin by talking for a moment about what is happening in
trade. As you know, we have the largest trade deficit in the history of
our country by far. It continues to grow and grow and grow and grow.
This trade deficit is dangerous. It is irresponsible for us to continue
to run these kinds of trade deficits. Yet nearly every day in this
country, 7 days a week, all year long, we are importing about $2
billion more than we are exporting. We are importing a substantial
amount of product--yes, energy and food but shirts and shoes and
trinkets and trousers--from every part of the world, and the fact is we
are exporting American jobs.
Let me describe a couple of those jobs, and then I am going to
describe what my amendment does.
A young woman named Natasha Humphries did what we are supposed to do
in this country. She did everything American workers are supposed to do
to compete in this global economy. She got a degree from Stanford
University in 1996. She went to work for Apple Computer. She continued
to acquire all kinds of new skills in high tech through classes and
seminars. And she moved down to become a senior software testing
engineer at palmOne, the company that makes the well-known hand held
computing device called Palm Pilot. I want to show you the last message
that this young woman left on her Palm Pilot. Natasha Humphries left
this message on her Palm Pilot:
My job has gone to India.
She lost her job. Natasha Humphries got fired and the company moved
all those jobs to India. Oh, there is one more thing. Natasha was
required by her company to train the Indian workers who took her job.
And so the company, searching for lower priced labor, fires American
workers and moves their jobs to India. That was 2002 that palmOne's
management decided to move all their product testing to India and China
where they can pay $2 an hour and less. They learned that some of those
workers were not quite as productive as the American workers, but they
decided to make a change, so that the workers in India were more
productive, by sending American engineers to India. And so they sent
American workers to India, trained the Indian engineers and then came
back and fired the American workers. And so Natasha was laid off August
2003, along with 40 percent of her U.S. coworkers. She sued palmOne for
wrongful termination. She also filed a reverse discrimination case.
Then she found herself on the unemployment line struggling to cover
health care costs for her 6-year-old son who has sickle cell anemia. So
this is a message from this Stanford graduate, this engineer:
My job has gone to India.
It could have been a message repeated 1.5 million times. Oh, not by
anybody who wears a blue suit, though, who is in the Senate; nobody who
wears suspenders and smokes cigars and wears blue suits and in big
business or politics ever loses their jobs. It is the other folks who
lose their jobs.
Let me describe a few. You recognize this. Fruit of the Loom. You
know Fruit of the Loom; they had advertised with the folks who wear
grape outfits, red grapes, apples, the fruit folks, catchy little
commercials on television, except that Fruit of the Loom has now left
America. If you are wearing Fruit of the Loom shorts today, you are
wearing Chinese shorts or Mexican shorts. Or you are wearing Chinese T-
shirts or Mexican T-shirts. Yes, it is clever and cute, except that
3,200 people who worked for Fruit of the Loom in the United States of
America don't work for them anymore because these shirts and shorts and
the things that Fruit of the Loom makes are gone. They are gone in
search of 30-cent-an-hour labor.
I will not speak at great length about Huffy bicycles because I have
spoken at great length about Huffy bicycles so often, except to say
this. This is a new decal between the handlebars and the fenders, and
you will see it is a decal of the globe. That used to be an American
flag when American workers produced them, but the American workers made
11 dollars an hour plus, so all those jobs went to China.
Now Huffy pays its workers 33 cents an hour, 7 days a week, 12 to 14
hours a day and, by the way, there is no more American flag on this
bike. It is a globe. Oh, they still call Huffy an American brand. It is
just not made in America, and all the American workers who used to make
it lost their jobs.
You remember the television commercials about the Maytag repairman
really struggling to stay awake because you don't repair a Maytag.
Well, 1,600 Maytag U.S. jobs have gone to Mexico and Korea.
Big Blue, IBM. It is interesting, the paper trail from IBM; 13,000
IBM workers in Europe and the United States went to India where they
hired more than 14,000 workers, and if you look at the internal
documents, IBM said, Oh, by the way, we do not want to suggest to our
employees this is offshoring or outsourcing; never use those words.
The last thing they wrote to their employees was: This has nothing to
do with your performance. Oh, no, it is never personal, is it? It has
nothing to do with your performance that you are losing your job.
Trade deal after trade deal, trade agreement after trade agreement,
through Democratic and Republican administrations, have been
incompetent, fundamentally incompetent in standing up for the economic
interests of this country. Who on Earth is going to stand up for the
interests of American workers?
People say: But you don't understand, Senator Dorgan, this is the way
of the future; this is a global economy. It is global all right. We
galloped along toward the global economy, but the rules have not kept
pace. So we are now able to go to the big box stores and buy products
that were made by sweat labor of people who all too often are earning
20, 30, 40 cents an hour, maybe $1 an hour, and no benefits, working 6
days a week, 7 days a week. And we say to the American workers, that is
what you should compete with?
We have been through a trade agreement called GATT, a trade agreement
with the United States and Canada, one with the United States and
Canada and Mexico called NAFTA, a trade agreement called CAFTA, the
Central American Free Trade Agreement. We have been through all these
free-trade agreements. Every trade agreement we
[[Page S9966]]
approved--I should say without my vote in support--has resulted in a
larger trade deficit for this country.
Why is that the case? They are negotiated incompetently by American
negotiators who do not stand up for the economic interests of this
country. They feel they have nothing to protect.
Right now we have something called the Doha round. Have you been to
Doha recently? I suspect not. There is a reason they do these trade
rounds in far, out of the way places. In Doha, they are negotiating new
trade agreements behind closed doors, in secret. Does anybody here know
what those trade agreements are, what might be in them? We know this:
There are 100 separate proposals in this round of trade negotiations,
100 separate proposals by other countries that would weaken the
remedies in American trade law to protect our interests.
We also know our trade negotiators have said everything is on the
table, meaning they are willing to negotiate away, if necessary, the
protections in our trade laws. These are the laws that allow us to
impose countervailing duties on other countries that wish to sell
unfairly subsidized products into our marketplace and destroy a
domestic industry. They are willing to negotiate away our antidumping
laws that would allow another country to dump products into our country
at below cost and destroy an American industry or business and jobs.
Why would American negotiators be willing to put that on the table?
Are they not willing to stand up for this country's economic interests,
for this country's jobs, good jobs?
The amendment I have offered is very simple, painfully simple.
Interestingly enough, the White House has issued a veto warning should
my amendment prevail in the Senate today.
My amendment is very simple. My amendment says no funds in this act
funding the U.S. Trade Representative's office and the Commerce
Department may be used to be involved in negotiations that will weaken
America's protections in trade law, the protections that exist--
countervailing duties, antidumping--nothing shall be done or can be
done using these funds in this act to weaken America's trade laws to
protect our economic interests.
For that, we get a letter from Secretary Gutierrez and Rob Portman,
the U.S. Trade Representative, saying they strongly oppose this
amendment. We heard all morning the administration will recommend a
veto if this is adopted.
Let me give a bit of background. On May 14, 2002, 61 Senators voted
for an amendment that Senators Dayton, Craig, and I cosponsored. That
amendment said that any trade agreement that weakened U.S. trade laws,
especially remedies that protect our country against unfair trade,
could not be considered by the Senate under fast-track rules. Sixty-one
Senators voted for that amendment. It is essentially the same as the
amendment I am offering today.
The question is, Are you going to stand up for the economic interests
of this country?
I don't even know where to start or stop when I talk about trade
because the pain of bad trade agreements is not a pain inflicted on
those who are privileged, and that includes all of us because we have
not lost our jobs. But no country will long remain a world economic
power if it does not have a strong, vibrant manufacturing base. The
manufacturing jobs traditionally and historically in this country have
been the jobs that pay well, the jobs that have good benefits.
It is interesting, when we take a look at the changes from 30, 35, 40
years ago, the largest corporation in our country was General Motors.
They paid good wages, they paid very substantial benefits, and most
people who went to work for General Motors worked there for a lifetime.
Now the largest American corporation, I am told, is Wal-Mart. Their
wages are not so hot, do not have many benefits for a lot of their
workers, the average wage is $17,000 a year, and their turnover is
about 70 percent. If those figures are wrong, perhaps someone can
correct me.
The point I am making simply is this: Times have changed. Those who
control the economic levers in this country--bigger and bigger
enterprises--have decided that it is in their interest to find the
lowest cost labor in the world with the least nuisance attached to that
labor. That is the nuisance of not being able to hire children, the
nuisance of not being able to pollute the rivers or pollute the air. If
they can find labor under those circumstances, employ it, and then
produce the shirts, socks, shoes, trinkets, and toys, and ship them to
the American marketplace, have them sit on the store shelf in Los
Angeles, Fargo, Denver, Tampa, or New York and have the consumers buy
those products, that somehow everyone will be better off. That is as
flawed a set of economic assumptions as I have seen in my studies of
economics. This is not working, and yet everyone insists it is.
Let me put up the chart that shows our trade deficits. I went to a
small school, I told my colleagues before, a high school senior class
of nine in a small farming community. I was in the top five, and that
qualified me for the Senate from back home. But I was smart enough
coming from that school to understand what this is. This is a barrel
full of trouble--deep, deep, and deeper Federal trade deficits every
single year. This is running in the wrong direction and hurting our
country.
Does anybody seem to care much at all? Is the President paying any
attention to this? Does Congress pay much attention to this? Nobody.
No, we all have to pretend this is working well, like this is good for
our country. We put on our pressed blue suits every morning and talk
about how wonderful all of this is.
Maybe if the politicians' jobs were at stake, maybe if some CEOs'
jobs were at stake they would have a different view.
Let me give a couple examples of what concerns me. I have talked at
great length about unfair trade. I could give you a good many examples.
One example: We are now negotiating with Korea. Let me talk about
automobile trade with Korea.
Last year, we took from Korea about 680,000 automobiles into our
marketplace for the American consumer to purchase; 680,000 Korean cars
came here from Korea. Guess how many American cars we sold in Korea--
3,800. That is right, 680,000 coming in this direction, and we sold
3,800 cars in Korea. Is that because they don't want American cars in
Korea? No, it is because the Koreans don't want cars sold in Korea
coming from the United States, and they have all kinds of policies and
interesting devices to try to shut down the sale of U.S. automobiles to
Korea; otherwise, what would explain that dramatic imbalance?
That is how out of whack our trade policy is. Let me describe to you
another example of this incompetence. This country did a bilateral
trade agreement with China just a few years ago. The agreement said
that after a phase-in, any U.S. cars we would sell in China would bear
a tariff of 25 percent. Any Chinese cars they would sell in America
would bear a tariff of 2.5 percent. So our negotiators sat down with a
country with whom we had a trade deficit of somewhere around $100
billion a year and said: With respect to automobiles, you can charge a
tariff that is 10 times higher than that which we will charge on
bilateral automobile trade.
That is just incompetence, in my judgment, and a failure to stand up
for this country's economic interests.
Oh, yes, this is a footnote: China is ramping up a very significant
automobile industry. General Motors, as a matter of fact, has sued an
enterprise in China called Chery, C-h-e-r-y, one letter away from
``Chevy.'' By the way, General Motors sued them for stealing production
line blueprints for a car called QQ. And China is moving very rapidly
to develop an automobile industry, a robust industry, and one that will
be an export industry.
Mark my words, Chinese cars will be sold in this country because our
negotiators agreed to a proposition that they could impose a tariff 10
times higher on U.S. cars sold in China than we would impose on Chinese
cars sold in the United States.
I would like to find the name of the negotiator who agreed to that
because that person was not standing up for American workers, American
business, or America's economic future.
I talked about cars from Korea, and a bilateral agreement on
automobile trade from China. I could talk about dozens and dozens of
similar circumstances. The list goes on and on.
[[Page S9967]]
The letter I received from the White House with respect to this
amendment is a letter that says:
By taking off the negotiating table any agreements that
would lead to changes in U.S. trade remedy law, the amendment
would prevent us from negotiating agreements to improve
protections against foreign unfair trade practices.
What a lot of rubbish. Does anybody really think that they are going
to negotiate an improvement to protections for this country in trade? I
don't think so. They don't intend to negotiate improvements. What is
going to happen is, they will put the antidumping and countervailing
duty laws on the table for negotiating. They have said they are willing
to put them on the table, and they will get negotiated away.
These negotiations are not about any strengthening of our trade
protections. I know ``protection'' is a dirty word among those who
stand on the street corners in robes and chant free trade, but we do
have to protect our interests when another company decides to dump into
our country products that are produced at a much higher cost than they
are willing to be sold in this country because they want to destroy a
domestic industry. We have to protect ourselves in that circumstance.
The Commerce Secretary and Mr. Portman, the trade ambassador, are
saying this amendment would prevent them from improving protections.
Please. Our foreign trading partners don't come to the negotiating
table looking to strengthen America's trade protections. They come to
weaken them. And our negotiators are all too willing to trade away our
trade laws.
No one wants to address this trade crisis. The President has been
busy gassing up Air Force One trying to privatize Social Security the
last 9 months or so.
What I think we ought to do is stare this problem straight in the
eye, just stare this problem straight in the eye and say: This is a
problem for our country. This is about America's future. It is about
economic growth. It is about opportunity and jobs for our kids. But
nobody wants to do much of that anymore.
Oh, we can compete, they say. Go to school, get a little better
educational resume, and we can compete. I just described the
circumstance of a young woman who competed, and her last message on her
Palm Pilot, as that young engineer from Stanford lost her job was: My
job is going to China.
This is not a tough choice, it seems to me. This amendment I have
offered is very straightforward. It will, I am sure, not be the subject
of substantial debate. I would love to have a debate on the floor of
the Senate about this issue. I do not expect to have much of a debate
because those who support all of this trade strategy that has begun to
weaken this country, the trade strategy that has produced choking trade
deficits, they don't talk much about it publicly; they just vote for
all of this nonsense.
My hope is we will have a vote on this.
My guess is that at some point in the future, we are going to look
back and we are going to say, What on Earth happened in this country?
It is not as if we didn't have notice. There has been a lot of
discussion these days: Did we have notice? Were we prepared? Did we
take action?
Let me talk about this crisis, about the loss of American jobs, a lot
of them. Ask yourself, Did we have notice about this? In the last 10
years, did we have notice that company after company after company did
not say the Pledge of Allegiance in the boardroom anymore because they
are not American companies, they are international enterprises
responsible to their stockholders, believing if they can find 30-cent-
an-hour labor in Indonesia or India or Sri Lanka or China or
Bangladesh, that is where they ought to produce and they ought to do
that at the expense of American jobs? My guess is somebody is going to
look back at some point soon and say, What on Earth were we thinking,
sleeping through this problem, deciding that once we had lifted
ourselves up as a country, once we had lifted America up as a country,
with minimum wage, safe workplaces, the right to organize, the right to
understand you should not pollute the air and the water as you produce,
all of those things we did that made this a better place in which to
live and all those things we did that grew a middle class in America--
that once we decided that, that we ought not to protect it? We are
going to say, Why didn't we decide to protect that? Instead of pushing
us down, that our goal would have been to pull the others up? Yet that
has not been the case. That has not been the strategy. Our strategy is,
if companies can find cheaper labor, then you just get rid of American
workers.
I wish to make this point. We have a century of history about these
issues that many people, especially those who debate this trade issue,
want to forget. I mentioned this morning, and I probably should not
have, a man named James Fyler. I said James Fyler died of lead
poisoning--he was shot 55 times. I should not make light of that at
all. James Fyler was a hero. He died being shot 55 times because on
April 20, 1914, he was out demonstrating with other workers in coal
mines, demanding fairness for workers, demanding the right for workers
to organize, demanding to lift themselves up for that. He gave his life
for that. Think of what people have given of themselves in a century to
build what we built in this country: an understanding that workers have
rights, an understanding that we have obligations to each other.
James Fyler is dead. But what he and others built is an understanding
about the freedom to organize--something very important. I could give
you names of people who are sitting in prison right now in China who
decided to organize their workforce. They were prosecuted, and they are
sitting in prison in China because you can't organize a workforce
there. It doesn't matter what they do to you as a workforce, they have
a right to do that to you, and if you try to organize, you go to
prison. First you get fired, and if you are lucky that is all that
happens. Otherwise you go to prison. All of this somehow seems
forgotten when you pole-vault over all these issues.
Because no one else is here to speak, I wish to make this point a
little differently. I know it is somewhat off of this specific topic,
but it relates to it. I was asked some while ago by a young high school
kid: What is the best speech you have ever heard?
You know, I heard a lot of great speeches at various venues, but one
of the memorable speeches I told him about was a speech in the House of
Representatives to a joint session of the Congress, a speech at which
the House and Senate are seated and they normally receive a message
from the President, in most cases the State of the Union. On this date,
perhaps 15 years ago now, I was seated in the House Chamber when the
Speaker was announced by the doorkeeper to the joint session of
Congress. He walked to the front of the room. He was kind of a chubby
fellow, about 5 foot 8, handlebar mustache, and the applause waved over
him for a long period of time. And then he began to speak. His speech
was so unbelievably powerful.
He described something we knew from our history books at that moment.
He described a Saturday morning in a shipyard in Gdansk, Poland. He
said he had been an unemployed electrician and had been fired from the
job because he was leading a strike against the Communist government
for the right of laborers to be free to organize. On that Saturday
morning, he was beaten severely with clubs and fists and, bleeding, he
was taken to the edge of the shipyard, hoisted to the top of the
barbed-wire fence, and thrown over the shipyard fence into the dirt. He
told us he lay in the dirt facedown, bleeding, wondering what to do
next.
Our history books tell us what he did next. He pulled himself back
up, and he climbed right back over the fence into that shipyard. Ten
years later, this unemployed electrician was introduced to a joint
session of Congress as the President of his country. His name was Lech
Walesa.
He said to us this. He said: The Communists in Poland had all the
guns. We had none. The Communists had all the bullets. We had none. We
were armed only with an idea--that people ought to be in control of
their own destiny. Workers ought to have the right to organize. He
said: Ideas are more powerful than guns.
This common man with uncommon courage--no diplomat, no scholar, no
military general, no politician, an unemployed electrician--became
President of his country on the power of an
[[Page S9968]]
idea, an idea that this country has embraced for well over a century,
an idea that seems somehow to be diminished these days by those who
believe it doesn't matter what workers are used. Workers are like
wrenches--use them, discard them when you are done. Find a wrench on
the other side of the globe that is this much less expensive and
somehow it will benefit a consumer on this side of the globe, that
somehow none of this matters because it is not interconnected. They are
dead wrong in a manner that is hurting this country and will hurt this
country's future. I want things to be better in other countries, but I
want our country to take care of things here at home first and then
aspire to help others to lift themselves up. But it is important that
our first obligation is to take care of things here in this country.
These trade negotiators and these trade agreements are trade agreements
that I believe have undermined the economic strength of our country.
Once again, I would love to spend 2 hours someday on the floor
debating trade issues with my colleagues, but that likely will not
happen. That is because while there are plenty of votes for fast track
and plenty of votes for trade agreements, and it doesn't matter what
they contain, there are not many people who want to debate specifics of
bilateral trade with China or Korea or Europe or Japan. I would love to
talk about beef and Japan. I would love to talk about trade sanctions
we have taken against the Europeans. Oh man, are we tough. I talk about
our trade negotiators having no backbone or spine or willingness to
stand up. We took action against the Europeans when we got upset. We
decided to slap duties on truffles, Roquefort cheese, and goose liver.
That is going to make our trade partners quake in their boots. My God,
you are going to put tariffs on truffles and goose liver.
When will this country's trade negotiators and its politicians have
the backbone to stand up for the economic interests of that which we
have built--a country that produces good jobs that pay well and have
benefits, a country that produces that without having to apologize for
it but that decides it is good for our country to have good jobs that
pay well with good benefits?
Mr. President, I spoke far longer than I intended. This amendment is
an amendment that I have offered. It is germane. It will require a
vote. My hope is that enough of my colleagues, sufficient numbers of my
colleagues will vote to support this and we will send another very
strong message to our trade negotiators.
I have said earlier that this has happened through Democrat and
Republican administrations. Nothing has changed. I would like to see it
changed, and I would like to see it changed now. Perhaps with this
amendment we can take a first step in making that change.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly. Later on, we are
going to have a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Biden for a
billion-dollar expansion of the COPS Program. That proposal is put in
the context of Katrina and the effects of Katrina on the Gulf States.
I have come to the Chamber a number of times in the last days,
talking about how we put forward an orderly process in addressing the
issue of trying to restore and rehabilitate and help the people who
have been impacted by Katrina. The leader, much to his credit, has
begun and initiated that process, using the strength of the authorizing
committees that have jurisdiction.
What I do not think we want to do is end up with a haphazard,
rifleshot ``I have a good idea; let's come to the floor and offer an
amendment'' approach to this because we are talking literally of tens,
potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. We have already spent $60
billion and aggressively stepped forward as a Congress to do that. It
was appropriate, and the leader again needs to be congratulated for his
initiative when he moved $10 billion when we were essentially on break
as a Senate and then got up the additional $50 billion last week.
But as we move down the road, we need to put coherence and
thoughtfulness into the money we are spending so the American people
know those dollars are going to the people who need them and that they
are going to help a region that has been dramatically impacted in a way
that is effective so the American people can feel their tax dollars are
being used aggressively to support these folks who have been so
overwhelmed by this catastrophe and that their tax dollars are not
being wasted or misdirected or put into another program or some program
that just happens to be a project of interest to a Member of the
Congress but is not necessarily an immediate issue relative to Katrina.
Regrettably, the proposal by Senator Biden falls into that second
category. It is an idea which the Senator has come to the floor with
many times. In fact, every time this appropriations bill comes to the
floor, the Senator from Delaware proposes an expansion of the COPS
Program.
I had the good fortune to chair the subcommittee for many years. I
dealt with the Senator on this issue for many years. For many years, he
made the same proposal, and there was no Katrina, there was no
disaster, but the proposal was brought forward. Once again, the
proposal is being brought forward to continue a program, the COPS
Program. When President Clinton set it up, he said: We are going to
have a COPS Program. We are going to put 100,000 cops on the street,
and then the program is going to end. That is exactly what he said when
he set it up. I was here then, too.
We set it up and we funded it, myself and Senator Hollings at the
time--Senator Hollings was chairman; I was chairman. He was chairman
and I was chairman. We funded it until we got to 100,000--in fact,
until we got to 110,000 police officers on the street. Then we said:
All right, we have met the goals of this program. Let's, in a unique
act, at least a unique act for the Federal Government, agree we have
done what we said we would do and stop the program, phase it out. We
have come close to doing that. Now we have a program focusing on
putting police officers in school systems that need assistance. That is
what is left of the COPS Program to the extent it is initiated.
But to restart this program and say we need to put another $1 billion
into it in the name of Katrina is simply not the best way to legislate.
It is arbitrary, probably haphazard. Who knows whether that will be a
decision that is tied into what the final needs are of the region. Yes,
there will be needs, obviously, for assistance to law enforcement in
that region, but the original $60 billion put in there--plus, a lot of
that is clearly going to flow to first responders--police, fire,
medical--because that is what FEMA does. So to suddenly throw this
out--this is an idea we have to throw into the Katrina mix--is not a
good way to legislate. It is especially not a good way to legislate in
the context of what we know is going to be a huge effort by us as a
Congress to address Katrina and where we know under the leadership of
Senator Frist we are developing a process where the authorizing
committees take a look at what should be done and could be done and
they put forward those ideas in an orderly way and prompt way, that
should be enforced, and then we can get relief out to these people who
have been impacted so dramatically. But it isn't just some idea of some
Senator who happens to have a project which he has always supported and
which he feels is a good project.
At some point, as chairman of the Budget Committee or maybe some
other Senator as a member of the Appropriations Committee, a point of
order will lie against this amendment because it is outside the budget
and it is outside the appropriations bill. It should not be brought
forward in this manner.
What we need to do in addressing the issue of what police needs are
in that region and law enforcement needs are in that region is do it in
the context of an overall solution, which is moving through this Senate
rather rapidly--already $60 billion in the pipeline--but which is done
in concert with the authorizing committee, in concert with the
leadership, and in concert, obviously, with the administration.
At the correct time, I think we will have some more discussion on
this bill.
I wanted to lay down at least a few guidelines here because if we
continue on this course, we are going to be waking up 2 or 3 months
from now and we
[[Page S9969]]
will have probably 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 new programs or programs which
have been expanded with no orderly, constructive, thoughtful process
behind them other than the fact that somebody had a good idea and came
to the floor and said: Let's spend money on that. That isn't going to
help people in that region. That will not make sense to them. What will
make sense to them will be to get money to them through an orderly
manner, with effective leadership. That is being done--granted, not as
quickly as it should have been, but it is being done now.
We should continue the process of making sure we set priorities and
do this in a manner which allows for the money to go where it can be
most effectively used, where the American taxpayers know their dollars
are being used to help the people who have been impacted by this
hurricane and not simply assist in setting up a program which some
Senator feels is a nice idea or a good idea or wants to continue.
I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur
at 4:30 today on the motion to waive with respect to the Biden
amendment, No. 161, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior
to the vote; provided further that there be 15 minutes equally divided
for debate prior to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will begin voting. As
most people know, we are on a very important piece of legislation, the
Commerce-Science-Justice appropriations bill. We have been on it for
several days.
As I look through the amendments coming forward, indeed, the
amendments we are considering over the course of the afternoon and
evening, it is clear we have a challenge. The challenge is to be able
to comprehensively address the bill with debate and amendments but at
the same time not open up the bill to lots of legislation which in many
ways are rifleshots that are related to Katrina or that people are
attempting to relate to Katrina.
I say that in part because it is important we address the underlying
legislation which does have some Katrina-related aspects to it. Looking
at our response to Katrina, I believe there is a right and wrong way to
address that natural disaster. We have tried to act and I believe we
have acted in this Senate in a very responsive way in terms of having
an emergency session with the initial $10 billion, having another
supplemental for $51.8 billion from two nights ago, authorizing the
affected courts to meet appropriately outside their jurisdiction,
announcing a joint committee we are still working on in terms of the
composition to look at what went right and what went wrong, passing
legislation last night on the national flood insurance program. We are
working very aggressively to respond in an appropriate way.
What I fear and what simply cannot happen is to have individuals
focus on the underlying bill and bring in Katrina-related responses
when we are doing our very best and in a bipartisan way using the
committee structure, using the authorizing committees to address
comprehensively, rapidly, the emergency that is playing out before us.
Once we complete the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, we will move it
immediately to conference with the House and get the bill to the
President for his signature prior to the beginning of the new fiscal
year, which is 17 days away. That is why I want to stay on the
appropriations process and do the appropriations related to the
underlying bills and not use Katrina to try to pull in other
amendments.
Pending to this bill are a whole bunch of amendments. There is a
whole long list of amendments the manager and ranking member are
working with, offered by my colleagues, many from both sides of the
aisle, but from the other side of the aisle predominantly, that
ostensibly are for Katrina but which increase funding and authorize new
major governmental programs. This is not the place for that.
I pledge to work with both sides of the aisle, with the leadership on
the other side, to have that appropriate authorizing language addressed
but through the appropriate committees and not on these appropriations
bills. I observe that while Katrina is the reason that is given for a
lot of these amendments, as we look through them, in many instances
they simply increase funding for an existing program, regardless of
whether it provides assistance or help directly or even indirectly to
the victims of Katrina. I argue that the Biden amendment falls under
that category by increasing the COPS Program another $1 billion with no
specific targeting to those who are directly affected.
I say this after having over the last 10 days directed this Senate,
directed and signed by law over $60 billion in immediate assistance to
those who are affected by Katrina. In conjunction with the
administration and those directly involved in the recovery and
rebuilding effort in the United States, we have a lot more we are going
to have to do in the coming days, weeks, and months. But this is not
the appropriate bill to be adding spending that has not been vetted
through the various committees of jurisdiction.
In our leadership office we have set up an assessment team and look
forward to working with the Democratic leadership in doing the same
thing so we can give focus to consider the emergency responses we need
to consider and also the longer rebuilding and reconstruction responses
that have arisen and which we will respond to in a comprehensive,
expeditious way with regard to Katrina. That sort of mechanism will
facilitate and will better coordinate, rather than having individual
amendments come to the Senate that are in many cases authorizing or
increasing spending for preexisting programs, without looking at it in
a more comprehensive way.
We owe that to the people affected by the tragedy as well as allowing
a reasonable, efficient operation in the Senate. I will oppose
amendments on the bill that have not gone through a vetting of the
issues. I promise we will be moving forward on a whole range of these
issues that are targeted and an appropriate response to Katrina.
The manager has spoken directly to this, as well, and I believe the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget has.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: Do we have a vote set?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a vote at 4:40.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak--I hope to
finish in 5 minutes, but if I don't, I ask consent I be allowed to
complete my statement before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the consternation of the
distinguished majority leader. I spend a lot of time with him. It is
hard to manage this unwieldy body. I understand that. I try to help as
I can. Sometimes I am not as much help as he would like.
Take, for example, this bill. We have been working on this bill and I
am convinced the end is in sight for this bill. I don't know the exact
number. There are probably five or six Katrina-related amendments on
this bill. They are good amendments if they relate to spending on
Katrina for the victims, education, housing, medical. We should vote on
those. If there is a problem with them, work with our managers.
For example, we tried to accept the amendment related to medical that
came over from the House. We cannot do that. Even on Public Radio this
morning--not actually a bastion of democratic liberality--Public Radio
had an example of what the bill passed
[[Page S9970]]
in the House would do or not do. They give an example of a woman who is
from Louisiana who was sent to the Astrodome, 55 years old, heart
condition, diabetes. Under the House provision we have now, she could
not get help. Under our provision, she could. We are trying to help the
people who got hurt, and there are a lot of people who got hurt.
I agree we need to do more on these appropriations bills. We should
not have a big omnibus bill. I was happy to see the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi, the senior Senator from Mississippi, the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, say he did not want an
omnibus bill. I congratulate him.
However, I say to my friend, and I have said this privately and I
will say it publicly to the distinguished majority leader, we have to
get conferences done on the appropriations bills. I, along with Senator
Domenici, have done the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee
for many years. We have never had figures like this. We cannot go to
conference. The House refuses to sit down and talk to us. We have to
work this out. Among other things in the Energy and Water
appropriations bill, we fund the Corps of Engineers. We are going to go
this year on some kind of a continuing resolution and not take care of
the Corps of Engineers and the other matters within the confines of
that subcommittee? We should not do that.
We have not done anything with Homeland Security. If there was ever a
time in the history of this country where we could have a civilized
conference between the House and the Senate and take care of the
Homeland Security appropriations bills, this should be the time. Let's
get that done. That should not be an omnibus.
Foreign operations bill, my Energy and Water Subcommittee, July,
August--it has been there for 60 days and we have not done anything. I
spoke to the distinguished majority leader a few minutes ago and he
suggested three of his top staff people and my top staff people see
what we can do to focus on some of the things on Katrina. We can never
get to the victims of Katrina unless we have floor time to do it--
whether they come from committees or amendments offered by Members from
the floor.
So I would hope we could finish the bill before us, the Commerce
bill. We should do that. There is an amendment dealing with COPS. We
would have to waive the budget on that one. We know it takes 60 votes
to do that. I understand there is one on small business they are about
ready to work out. There is a possibility that can be worked out. So I
would hope there wouldn't be a cloture motion filed on this bill. I
think we are about to finish it. But I cannot control that.
I want the Record to be spread with this: We are willing to work
late, early--it does not matter--toward what we think needs to be done
to help the gulf victims.
I would also say we have lived up to our bargain on Judge Roberts. We
made a commitment to those involved that we would do our utmost to
finish this by the beginning of the October term in the Court. I think
we are along the road to doing that. We have not in any way thrown up
any roadblocks. We have tried to cooperate.
We realize we are in the minority, but we realize we are also in the
Senate that is a body governed by rules that give the minority the
power to do a lot of things. We are going to continue to do a lot of
things to see if we can move this along.
But I say to the distinguished majority leader, we will be as helpful
as we can. Hopefully, we can work more together than apart. I think
that would be good for the country. I think the country is looking for
some good bipartisanship.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the distinguished Democratic leader
yield for a question?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished floor manager
of the bill.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, is the distinguished Democratic leader
aware we have amendments that require votes--and that would help us--
but we have seven that are not Katrina related? So while the
negotiations are going on, on Katrina, is the distinguished Democratic
leader aware that we do have seven votes, but we do not have a time for
those votes? Also, we have about five votes on Katrina. So if we could
dispose of the non-Katrina amendments, is the Democratic leader aware
of the number of amendments?
Mr. REID. I am aware of the non-Katrina amendments. As I indicated,
some of those I think, with the two managers, can be worked out. The
others will not be able to be worked out. They will go the way of
amendments that are not able to be brought before the Senate.
I think the point of the distinguished Senator is we can finish this
bill fairly quickly.
Ms. MIKULSKI. If we have votes.
Mr. REID. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I appreciate the importance of ensuring
that the gulf region has all of the resources necessary to fully
recover. My home State of Alabama was directly affected by Hurricane
Katrina, perhaps not to the extent of a lot of areas in Mississippi and
Louisiana, but still affected. So I can safely say I have more than a
passing interest in ensuring that all response and recovery missions
are fully funded here in the Senate.
In the last few weeks, I have spent considerable time viewing the
damage in the region, in Alabama and Mississippi. I plan to go to
Louisiana this weekend. While I believe it is critical the Congress act
swiftly to ensure emergency funding is available for hurricane-related
recovery efforts, I do not believe the Commerce-Justice-Science bill,
which is before the Senate now, is the appropriate place to do that.
I believe it will be some time before we have a true understanding of
the actual damages and recovery needs in the region. We have already
acted, and we will continue to act in the Senate on both sides of the
aisle to make sure the victims have everything they need to be made
whole, to be back on their feet, make no mistake about it.
But I believe it is important we maintain our current track and allow
the recovery effort to continue, step by step, which it is doing. The
funding we approved last week will allow the effort to move forward. I
believe we must monitor that effort closely to ensure we have the
necessary resources we keep talking about. At the same time, I believe
we must allow the damage assessments to move forward to truly address
the needs of those in the gulf region, including my people in Alabama,
the people in Mississippi, and the people in Louisiana.
Adding emergency funding to a regular spending bill, such as this CJS
bill, frankly, is not the way I believe we should do business. We need
to approach the hurricane funding needs in a coordinated manner--I
believe we have been doing a lot of this--not in an ad hoc way,
throwing add-ons on a bill that is not even the main disaster recovery
bill.
I am going to be standing on the floor making sure, the best I can,
we pass the necessary funding for these victims, including, as I said,
the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, you can be sure of
that, but not on this bill today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my dear friend, the senior Senator
from Alabama, I agree that we need to make sure that money goes to the
people who need it. That is what we are trying to do. We have not had
the ability to bring Katrina amendments to the floor and act on them.
That is what we need to do.
It is not as if we were working in a vacuum. We have a model we know
works. After 9/11, we worked in a bipartisan fashion and created
legislation that was unique. But most important to the families of the
3,000-plus people who got killed, plus the fact there were billions of
dollars in damages, we did $20 billion worth within a matter of days to
get relief to the people of New York, the people of Virginia.
So we know how to effectively address issues of concern. We have done
that in the past. We relied then on committees to produce legislation
through the regular process. I believe that is what I heard the
majority leader say. We are willing to do that. But in following
through on that, we have to be able to have some time on the floor to
debate and vote on those issues. That is what we need to do.
[[Page S9971]]
Although there are a few exceptions to this, for the most part, the
majority has not followed this process, and we have not been permitted
an opportunity to address these issues on the Senate floor. We have
been trying for 2 weeks to do that.
So let's empower every one of our chairmen and ranking members to sit
down together and see what the committees can produce to address the
needs of the survivors in the communities hit by this catastrophe. And
then let's commit to give them the floor time to deal with their
legislation. We badly need to do that.
Yes, we have had two emergency supplemental appropriations bills for
more than $60 billion, but a lot of that money cannot go to the people
who need it because it is illegal. We want to refine the law so we can
get people the money they need.
I apologize to everyone. I know there is a vote pending. I have said
enough. I hope I made my point.
Amendment No. 1661
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for debate has expired.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has not had a
chance to speak on his amendment. I think we agreed he would get some
wrap-up time. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be
granted 2 minutes and I be granted 2 minutes in response and to make a
point of order on his amendment.
Is that agreeable?
Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by asking unanimous consent
that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are decimating the COPS program.
Chairman Sensenbrenner, in the House, is no fan of the program. He
asked for a study to be done by GAO. It concluded: Use of the COPS
grants resulted in less crime, use of COPS grants resulted in more
community policing, use of COPS grants resulted in more officers on the
streets. This is a time when we need more officers on the streets, not
fewer officers on the streets.
The idea we are going to deal with natural disasters as well as
terrorist attacks by using special forces soldiers and not cops on the
street seems to me to be a little silly. We need more cops on the
streets.
There are 8,000 applications pending. The bill would allow for 25 of
those applications to be filled. This is a mistake.
One of my colleagues--it may be the chairman of the committee; I am
not sure--said we have to prove we can end a program. Why do we end a
program that is working, and working so well, in the interests of the
country?
My time is probably up. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for the
courtesy of allowing me to take a few minutes to speak to my amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Senator Biden's
amendment to add over $1 billion to the COPS Program. I am troubled by
this amendment because it would declare these funds an emergency,
siphoning away much needed funds that should go directly to the
hurricane effort. The definition of an emergency includes situations
that are necessary, or vital, sudden, urgent, and unforeseen. This
amendment does not fit those characteristics.
I must also oppose this amendment because it lacks an offset. As a
senior member of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Finance
Committee, I believe that we owe it to the taxpayers to be fiscally
responsible with their tax dollars. Congress passed a budget, and we
should stick by it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has been offered in the
past, and it is a reflection of the support of the Senator from
Delaware for this program. But we have to remember this program was
created in 1994 by President Clinton, with a clear statement it would
end after 100,000 police officers were put on the streets.
Under this program, we have already spent over $12 billion. We put
have put 118,000 police officers on the streets. This amendment would
simply continue the program. Quite honestly, this is a program that
should be phased out or just focused on police officers in schools. It
is not a program that should be continued, and it certainly should not
be continued in the context of the hurricane and the disaster in the
Gulf States because it would have a marginal impact on that region.
So, Mr. President, pursuant to section 402(b)(5) of House Concurrent
Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I raise a point
of order against the emergency designation provisions contained in the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House Concurrent
Resolution 95, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2006, I move to waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for
purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Corzine), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]
YEAS--41
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--56
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--3
Corzine
Rockefeller
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 56.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the spending in this amendment would cause
the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b)
allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and
sustained. The amendment falls.
Mr. SHELBY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S9972]]
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to speak in favor
of an amendment offered by Senator Dayton, which I am pleased to
cosponsor along with many others, that would increase funding for
Justice assistance grants by $275,000.
Justice assistance grants, as the Senate knows, incorporate what used
to be called the Byrne grants and the Local Law Enforcement Program
grants and are used to fund a number of important law enforcement
initiatives, among which include multijurisdictional task forces.
I wish to speak briefly about that side of this important amendment
because as the Senate may know, I have done a lot of work on the
subject of fighting methamphetamine. Earlier in the debate on this
bill, the Senate adopted an amendment which consisted of legislation
that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced, the Combat Meth Act,
which was a comprehensive antimethamphetamine program designed to put
the Federal Government squarely and aggressively on the side of local
law enforcement which is fighting this terrible drug. And it is a
terrible drug. It is the worst single drug threat that I have
confronted in my 20 years in public life.
Methamphetamine is seriously addictive, maybe more so than any other
drug of which I am aware. It is almost instantly addictive for a lot of
people. It changes the physical nature of the brain. Even if you get
off methamphetamine, which is difficult, and I will speak more on that
in a moment, that will not necessarily fix the damage because it can
change the structure of the brain. It tends to make the people using it
more aggressive rather than less aggressive. Some drugs tend to make
people more passive, and as bad as they are, at least it doesn't cause
them to go out and attack other people, but methamphetamine does.
In addition, there is no known treatment for methamphetamine. There
is no methadone for methamphetamine. So we sponsored, and the Senate
adopted, a measure which had been cosponsored by more than 40 other
Senators to help the Federal Government get aggressively into the
business of fighting methamphetamine. It was a series of grant programs
along with legislation that would put pseudoephedrine, the precursor
drug for methamphetamine, behind pharmacy counters. I think that was
very important, and I said at the time I was grateful to the bill
managers for working with us on that issue.
One of the worst things about methamphetamine is that the drug is not
just used in our neighborhoods and sold in our neighborhoods, it is
made in our neighborhoods. It is made in local labs that can operate
out of a cabin, out of a house, in a kitchen, in a van while it is
being driven around, on the side of a road, or in the woods in a
country area.
The process by which methamphetamine is made is literally toxic. The
chemicals in it are chemicals that should not go anywhere near the
human body, but they do.
These labs have cropped up all over States such as Missouri. It is
like a cancer that spread throughout our States in the Midwest and now
in other States as well. It is a terrible problem in the South and in
the West and the Southwest. I do not think there is a State in the
country which is not experiencing growing problems with it.
The National Association of Counties surveyed its members. The No. 1
problem reported more often than any others was methamphetamine. Not
the No. 1 law enforcement problem, the No. 1 problem because the drug
causes terrible social service problems and health care problems, and
it is also overwhelming local budgets, in particular law enforcement
budgets.
Think of the situation when you have a sheriff's department in a
county with maybe 6 or 10 deputies, or a bigger county with 20 or 25
deputies: With all the jobs that local law enforcement has to do--
security for the county fair, domestic violence issues, all the typical
work they have to perform--and then you superimpose on that 10 or 15 or
20 methamphetamine labs in the county, it is very difficult to track
down those labs. It is difficult to break them down. These deputies
have to get trained in environmental chemistry to break these labs
down.
It is an enormous burden on local budgets. One of the ways we can
help our sheriffs, our local law enforcement officers in dealing with
these meth labs is multijurisdictional task forces where they are able
to get grants from the Federal Government, band together in regional
task forces, and use that manpower efficiently to help go after labs.
That is what the Dayton amendment is designed to support, and that is
the big reason I am so strongly supportive of it.
The amendment would move funding for these programs back to where
they were in fiscal year 2003. It is a substantial increase, but I can
assure you, Mr. President, based on my experience with this issue, it
certainly is no more than is needed. If we don't get ahead of this
methamphetamine problem, if we don't start winning it--I would not say
we are winning it now. We have heroic efforts by local law enforcement,
but they are telling us we are not gaining yet--if we don't start
winning, we will have increasing costs in terms of effect on kids,
neighborhoods, jobs, costs that would dwarf what this amendment would
add to the bill.
This amendment is offset. This drug is destroying lives all over
States such as Missouri, all over the country. We can do something
about it--not by the Federal Government taking this over but by the
Government assisting local law enforcement in efforts that they are
telling us are going to work. That is why this amendment is so
important.
I appreciate the managers working with Senator Dayton and the other
cosponsors, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for
a provision in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations act that
will make significant headway in the fight against methamphetamine or
meth manufacture and use.
The Talent-Feinstein amendment incorporating the provisions of the
Combat Meth Act into this bill is the culmination of several months of
bipartisan collaboration. The provision takes aim at the biggest
problem faced by law enforcement in dealing with meth choking off the
supply of essential materials needed to manufacture the drug.
Meth is of particular concern to me and to the entire Tennessee
delegation because Tennessee has been plagued by a growing number of
meth labs--ad hoc laboratories in backwoods shacks, out-of-the-way
hotel rooms, and just about anywhere else you can cram in a supply of
hot plates, glassware, and noxious chemicals necessary to make meth. In
2004, Tennessee ranked second in the Nation in the number of meth lab
seizures, according to data from the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. The Drug Enforcement Agency calculates that Tennessee accounts
for 75 percent of the meth lab seizures in the Southeast. My colleagues
in Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and many other States can cite related
alarming statistics.
What is of particular concern about these meth labs is that they are
appearing in places where drug production and abuse has not been a
significant problem. In Tennessee, the largest numbers of seizures of
meth labs have occurred in rural counties such as Monroe, Marion,
Warren, and Coffee. These areas are often not fully prepared to cope
with the demands of seizing such labs and cleaning up the aftermath.
The Talent-Feinstein amendment is a critical step in dealing with the
meth problem. Others will have already praised various aspects of this
bill, but I would like to particularly congratulate the Judiciary
Committee for producing a bill that does not undermine State and local
efforts to combat this problem. Law enforcement begins at home, and by
crafting legislation that directs a Federal response that supports
State and local law enforcement rather than preempt it, the Senate has
upheld the principles of federalism that are at the core of our system
of government.
This legislative step is only one part of a comprehensive strategy to
combat this addictive drug. The problems presented by meth are myriad
and many are unique. Meth production and use targets a different
demographic of users than other drugs. Production of meth creates a
toxic stew of chemical byproducts that can contaminate a lab site for
years to come. Precursor chemicals used in meth production can
[[Page S9973]]
come from a wide variety of sources. Hospitals and child welfare
agencies are overwhelmed by burn victims and abuse cases from homes
where meth is made. The court system is inundated with cases involving
drug crime, and the inability to provide more individual attention
prevents people from getting treatment that might discourage
recidivism.
We also need to remember that while combating meth has risen to the
top of the agenda thanks to media and government attention, this
country is still threatened by the illegal use of a variety of drugs.
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million
Americans ages 12 and older reported using an illicit drug the month
before the survey was conducted. Of those, 12.1 million reported using
marijuana in the past month; 1.7 million reported using cocaine; and
1.3 million reported using hallucinogens such as LSD, PCP, and Ecstasy.
Meth use has not yet risen to these levels, but if left unchecked the
meth problem could soon rise to similar levels.
So as we focus on meth, we must also recognize that even if we are
successful in our efforts to curb meth use and production, millions of
Americans are threatened by addiction to other, just as dangerous
drugs, and the next big drug is probably simmering in a beaker or
growing in a field right now.
The Bush administration is confronting the drug problem head on in
this country. In 2005, the Office of National Drug Control Policy
reported that there has been a 17-percent reduction in youth drug use
in the last 3 years thanks in part to Federal and State efforts to
bolster enforcement and increase awareness of the dangers of drugs.
Attorney General Gonzales recently visited Nashville with HHS Secretary
Mike Leavitt and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John
Walters to announce new measures to support State and local governments
in combating the meth problem.
I commend my colleagues for their work on the Combat Meth Act, and I
look forward to more such efforts in our mission to eliminate the
scourge of illegal drugs from our communities.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Interoperable Communications for Public Safety Officials
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have watched the news coverage, along
with so many Americans, during these past 2 weeks and have been shocked
and saddened by the devastation in the gulf coast region. It continues
to amaze me that an act of nature can bring about such destruction and
ruin the lives of so many.
My deepest sympathies and prayers go out to the residents of Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi, and I know that as a country we will come
together, as we are, to assist these residents and help them rebuild
their lives. In my home State of Arizona, I am proud to report that
valley residents have welcomed over 1,000 residents of New Orleans.
This was a tragedy of great proportions that caught local, State, and
Federal officials unprepared. Like many Americans, I, too, have been
concerned about the local, State, and Federal initial response to this
disaster. It was unacceptable and inadequate. I know there will be an
appropriate time for a comprehensive review of the local, State, and
Federal response efforts to determine what went wrong and what went
right. The oversight investigations being held by Senators Collins and
Lieberman are a very important undertaking. I believe Congress and the
Nation have a lot to learn from Hurricane Katrina.
One thing already evident is that the country's local, State, and
Federal first responders remain unable to communicate with each other
during an emergency response. We saw the horrors brought on by the lack
of communication on 9/11 when New York's fire, police, and port
authority officers were unable to talk with one another when responding
to the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have now been told that the first
responders in Louisiana experienced similar problems because New
Orleans and the three nearby parishes all use different radio equipment
and frequencies. In addition, Federal officials use entirely different
communications systems than localities, which hindered relief efforts.
I read that New Orleans officials had purchased equipment that would
allow some patching between local and Federal radio systems, but that
the equipment was rendered useless by flooding. Nonetheless, short-term
solutions to link incompatible systems are not the right approach to
this critical problem. The better approach is for this Nation to get
serious about public safety communications by developing and funding an
interoperable communications system for all local, State, and Federal
first responders.
The Federal Government needs to, one, develop a comprehensive
interoperable communications plan and set equipment standards; two,
fund the purchase of interoperable communications equipment; and three,
provide public safety with additional spectrum so first responders can
communicate using the same radio frequencies and equipment in the event
of an emergency.
Congress has taken some steps toward achieving an interoperable
communications system for local, State, and Federal first responders.
Last year, I offered an amendment that was enacted as part of the
intelligence reform bill that authorized the Department of Homeland
Security's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, otherwise
known as SAFECOM. SAFECOM assists local, regional, State, and Federal
agencies in developing interoperable communications plans and
accelerating interoperable communications equipment standards. They are
in the process of doing so, and I urge them to move forward
expeditiously.
Congress has also begun to fund the purchase of interoperable
communications equipment for localities. Some 50,000 local, State, and
Federal agencies make independent decisions about communications
systems and use various frequencies. This is unacceptable and a waste
of Government resources. The Department of Homeland Security has
already spent over $280 million for the purchase of interoperable
communications equipment. The Senate-passed Department of Homeland
Security fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill would provide over $2.6
billion for localities to purchase interoperable communications
equipment. This bill is currently in conference with the House.
Obviously, interoperability will come with a cost. Some estimate as
much as $15 billion. But even this may be a small price to pay in order
to save thousands of lives in the event of another disaster.
Let's remember that Congress also provided additional spectrum for
first responders in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So after
spending millions of dollars in funding in additional spectrum for our
Nation's first responders, why are we not better off than we were on 9/
11 when it comes to interoperable communications? Because the spectrum
Congress provided to first responders in 1996 is being held hostage by
television broadcasters, even though broadcasters have now been given
new spectrum.
It was almost 20 years ago that broadcasters began their journey
toward becoming spectrum squatters. In 1987, broadcasters first asked
the FCC to look into the potential of digital television technology and
whether additional spectrum would be necessary. Upon the broadcasters'
request, Congress provided new spectrum in 1996 to the broadcasters for
free. I have often referred to this as the great $70 billion taxpayer
giveaway. In return, broadcasters promised to give back their current
spectrum by December 31, 2006, and make it available to first
responders for interoperable communications.
But before the ink was dry on the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
broadcasters persuaded certain Members of Congress to include an
exception to the December 31, 2006, date in the 1997 Balanced Budget
Act. Last year, during a Commerce Committee hearing, then-FCC Chairman
Michael Powell testified that this exception could result in the first
responders not receiving this spectrum for ``decades or multiple
decades.'' As evidenced by the tragedies from Hurricane Katrina, we
cannot wait decades. Broadcasters are blocking access to spectrum for
first responders who serve over 50 percent of the country.
Providing first responders access to this spectrum is one of the key
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
[[Page S9974]]
and remains a top priority for Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman
Hamilton. I introduced legislation last year to implement this
recommendation, and it was voted out of the Commerce Committee. I then
added the provisions, an amendment to the intelligence reform bill last
fall, to provide this spectrum to first responders. Unfortunately, this
language was removed in conference and replaced with a ``sense of
Congress'' that such legislation be voted on during the first session
of the 109th Congress.
Senator Lieberman and I reintroduced our legislation to provide
spectrum to first responders. Yet Congress has yet to act this year as
envisioned by the sense of Congress. S. 1268, the Spectrum Availability
for Emergency Response and Law Enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency
Services Act, otherwise known as the SAVE LIVES Act, would provide
first responders with the spectrum by January 1, 2009. Upon
introduction, I suggested this date is a compromise between public
safety organizations, equipment manufacturers, localities, and
broadcasters. However, after watching citizens suffer during recovery
efforts in New Orleans, I believe this date should be moved up to
January 1, 2007, as originally contemplated by Congress in the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Yet here we are 9 months into the first session with another horrible
disaster having taken place, and Congress has yet to take up the SAVE
LIVES Act or any other legislation providing first responders their
promised spectrum.
To what level of crisis must this country endure before we act? Is
the devastation from Hurricane Katrina still not enough to bring
action? Chairman Stevens has stated his intention to include such
legislation in the Commerce Committee's response to budget
reconciliation. I will be watching to see if the broadcasters find a
way to once again delay the hand off of this spectrum to first
responders. I will do all I can to move our legislation.
In 1997, the President of the National Association of Broadcasters
stated on ``The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'' that broadcasters' use of
spectrum allocated to first responders was merely a ``loan to
facilitate an orderly transition.'' Mr. Fritts, this ``loan'' has gone
on long enough. Congress must now call in your ``loan.'' You got your
spectrum, now give the first responders their spectrum.
I will conclude by sharing 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean's comments
as stated on CNN's Late Edition this past Sunday:
[w]hat's frustrating is it's the same thing over again. I
mean, how many people have to lose their lives? It's lack of
communication, our first responders not being able to talk to
each other. . . . Basically it's many of the things that,
frankly, if some of our recommendations had been passed by
the United States Congress . . . could have been avoided. But
on the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to
each other because the radio communications don't work. They
haven't got enough what's called spectrum. So there is a bill
in Congress to provide first responders spectrum. The bill
has been sitting in Congress, nothing has been happening, and
again, people on the ground--police, fire, medical
personnel--couldn't talk to each other. That's outrageous and
it's a scandal and I think it cost lives.
I couldn't agree more.
I want to end by thanking all of the first responders who are
assisting in rescue efforts in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. They
are heroes and make me proud to be an American. For over 2 weeks now,
they have slept very little and eaten very little, but done so much for
a region in need. In appreciation, we owe them better communications
systems so that when they are called upon to assist in the next
disaster, they have the tools necessary to protect themselves and those
they are working to protect.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Commerce, Justice, Science and
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2862, as
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $48.875
billion in budget authority and $49.495 billion in outlays in fiscal
year 2006 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and related
agencies. Of these totals, $229 million in budget authority and $241
million in outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year
2006 of $48.646 billion. This amount is $2 billion less than the
President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the
Senate, and $36 million more than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the
Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the
Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
H.R. 2862, 2006 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING
COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
[Fiscal year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General
Purpose Mandatory Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
Budget authority............. 48,646 229 48,875
Outlays...................... 49,254 241 49,495
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority............. 48,646 229 48,875
Outlays...................... 49,254 241 49,495
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority............. 48,610 242 48,852
Outlays...................... 48,376 228 48,604
President's request:
Budget authority............. 50,655 229 50,884
Outlays...................... 49,185 241 49,426
House-passed bill:*
Budget authority............. 57,452 361 57,813
Outlays...................... 58,563 373 58,936
Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
Budget authority......... 0 0 0
Outlays.................. 0 0 0
2005 Enacted:
Budget authority......... 36 -13 23
Outlays.................. 878 13 891
President's request:
Budget authority......... -2,009 0 -2,009
Outlays.................. 69 0 69
House-passed bill:*
Budget authority......... -8,806 -132 -8,938
Outlays.................. -9,309 -132 -9,441
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* House and Senate subcommittees have differing jurisdictions.
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted
for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.
NOTICE OF INTENT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my
intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce
appropriations bill, the following amendment:
amendment no. 1652
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE __--TEMPORARY MEDICAID DISASTER RELIEF
SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE; PURPOSE.
(a) Short Title of Title.--This title may be cited as the
``Temporary Medicaid Disaster Relief Act of 2005''.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to ensure all
those affected by Hurricane Katrina have access to health
coverage and medical care through the medicaid program and to
authorize temporary changes in such program to guarantee and
expedite that coverage and access to care.
SEC. __02. DISASTER RELIEF PERIOD.
(a) In General.--For purposes of this title, the term
``disaster relief period'' means the period beginning on
August 29, 2005, and, subject to subsection (b), ending on
February 28, 2006.
(b) Presidential Authority To Extend Disaster Relief
Period.--
(1) In general.--The President shall extend the application
of section __03 and paragraphs (1) and (2) of section __04(a)
until September 30, 2006, unless the President determines
that all Katrina Survivors would have sufficient access to
health care without such an extension. In the case of such an
extension, the reference to ``February 28, 2006'' in
subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to
``September 30, 2006''.
(2) Notice to congress.--The President shall notify the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the
House of Representatives, and the Chairs and Ranking Members
of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committees
on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives at least 30 days prior to--
(A) extending the application of such sections; or
(B) if the President determines not to extend the
application of such sections, February 28, 2006.
SEC. __03. TEMPORARY MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR KATRINA SURVIVORS.
(a) Definitions.--In this title:
(1) Katrina survivor.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Katrina Survivor'' means an
individual who is described in subparagraph (B) or (C).
(B) Residents of disaster localities.--
(i) In general.--An individual who, on any day during the
week preceding the declaration of a public health emergency
on August 29, 2005, had a residence in--
[[Page S9975]]
(I) a parish in the State of Louisiana that is among the
parishes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the
Department of Homeland Security declared on September 4,
2005, to be Federal Disaster Parishes; or
(II) a county in the State of Alabama or Mississippi that
is among the counties such Agency declared Federal Disaster
Counties on September 4, 2005.
(ii) Authority to rely on website posted designations.--The
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall post on the
Internet website for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services a list of parishes and counties identified as
Federal Disaster Parishes or Counties. Any State which
provides medical assistance to Katrina Survivors on the basis
of such posting and in accordance with this title shall be
held harmless if it is subsequently determined that the
provision of such assistance was in error.
(C) Individuals who lost employment.--An individual who, on
any day during the week preceding the declaration of a public
health emergency on August 29, 2005, had a residence in a
direct impact State and lost their employment since Hurricane
Katrina.
(D) Construction.--A Katrina Survivor shall be treated as
being ``from'' the State of residence described in
subparagraph (B)(i) or (C), as the case may be.
(E) Treatment of current medicaid beneficiaries.--Nothing
in this title shall be construed as preventing an individual
who is otherwise entitled to medical assistance under title
XIX of the Social Security Act from being treated as a
Katrina Survivor under this title.
(F) Treatment of homeless persons.--For purposes of this
title, in the case of an individual who was homeless on any
day during the week described in subparagraph (B)(i), the
individual's ``residence'' shall be deemed to be the place of
residence as otherwise determined for such an individual
under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(2) Direct impact state.--The term ``direct impact State''
means the State of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
(b) Rules for Providing Temporary Medical Assistance to
Katrina Survivors.--During the disaster relief period, any
State may provide medical assistance to Katrina Survivors
under a State medicaid plan established under title XIX of
the Social Security Act in accordance with the following:
(1) Uniform eligibility rules.--
(A) No income, resources, residency, or categorical
eligibility requirements.--Such assistance shall be provided
without application of any income or resources test, State
residency, or categorical eligibility requirements.
(B) Streamlined eligibility procedures.--The State shall
use the following streamlined procedures in processing
applications and determining eligibility for medical
assistance for Katrina Survivors:
(i) A common 1-page application form developed by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with
the National Association of State Medicaid Directors. Such
form shall include notice regarding the penalties for making
a fraudulent application under paragraph (4) and shall
require the applicant to assign to the State any rights of
the applicant (or any other person who is a Katrina Survivor
and on whose behalf the applicant has the legal authority to
execute an assignment of such rights) under any group health
plan or other third-party coverage for health care.
(ii) Self-attestation by the applicant that the applicant
is a Katrina Survivor.
(iii) No requirement for documentation evidencing the basis
on which the applicant qualifies to be a Katrina Survivor.
(iv) Issuance of a Medicaid eligibility card to an
applicant who completes such application, including the self-
attestation required under clause (ii). Such card shall be
valid during the disaster relief period.
(v) If an applicant completes the application and presents
it to a provider or facility participating in the State
medicaid plan that is qualified to make presumptive
eligibility determinations under such plan (which at a
minimum shall consist of facilities identified in section
1902(a)(55) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(55)) and it appears to the provider that the
applicant is a Katrina Survivor based on the information in
the application, the applicant will be deemed to be a Katrina
Survivor eligible for medical assistance in accordance with
this section, subject to paragraph (3).
(vi) Continuous eligibility, without the need for any
redetermination of eligibility, for the duration of the
disaster relief period.
(C) Determination of eligibility for coverage after the
termination of the disaster relief period.--In the case of a
Katrina Survivor who is receiving medical assistance from a
State, prior to the termination of the disaster relief
period, the State providing such assistance shall determine
whether the Katrina Survivor is eligible for continued
medical assistance under the State's eligibility rules
otherwise applicable under the State medicaid plan. If a
State determines that the individual is so eligible, the
State shall provide the individual with written notice of the
determination and provide the individual with continued
coverage for such medical assistance for so long as the
individual remains eligible under such otherwise applicable
eligibility rules. If a State determines that the individual
is not so eligible, the State shall provide the individual
with written notice of the determination, including the
reasons for such determination.
(2) Scope of coverage same as categorically needy.--The
State shall treat Katrina Survivors as individuals eligible
for medical assistance under the State plan under title XIX
of the Social Security Act on the basis of section
1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)), with coverage for such assistance
retroactive to August 29, 2005.
(3) Verification of status as a katrina survivor.--
(A) In general.--The State shall make a good faith effort
to verify the status of a Katrina Survivor enrolled in the
State Medicaid plan under the provisions of this section
after the determination of the eligibility of the Survivor
for medical assistance under such plan.
(B) Evidence of verification.--A State may satisfy the
verification requirement under subparagraph (A) with respect
to a Katrina Survivor by showing that the State providing
medical assistance obtained information from the Social
Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or the
State Medicaid Agency for the direct impact State.
(C) Disallowance of payments for failure to make good faith
effort.--If, with respect to the status of a Katrina Survivor
enrolled in a State Medicaid plan, the State fails to make
the good faith effort required under subparagraph (A), and
the Secretary determines that the individual so enrolled is
not a Katrina Survivor, the Secretary shall disallow all
Federal payments made to the State that are directly
attributable to medical assistance provided or administrative
costs incurred with respect to the individual during the
disaster relief period.
(4) Penalty for fraudulent applications.--
(A) Individual liable for costs.--If a State, as the result
of verification activities conducted under paragraph (3),
determines after a fair hearing that an individual has
knowingly made a false self-attestation described in
paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the State may, subject to subparagraph
(B), seek recovery from the individual for the full amount of
the cost of medical assistance provided to the individual
under this section.
(B) Exception.--The Secretary shall exempt a State from
seeking recovery under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary
determines that it would not be cost-effective for the State
to do so.
(C) Reimbursement to the federal government.--Any amounts
recovered by a State in accordance with this paragraph shall
be returned to the Federal government, except that a State's
administrative costs attributable to obtaining such recovery
shall be reimbursed by the Federal government in accordance
with section __04(a)(2).
(5) Exemption from error rate penalties.--All payments
attributable to providing medical assistance to Katrina
Survivors in accordance with this section shall be
disregarded for purposes of section 1903(u) of the Social
Security Act.
SEC. __04. TEMPORARY DISASTER RELIEF FOR STATES UNDER
MEDICAID.
(a) Increase in Federal Matching Rate.--
(1) 100 percent fmap for medical assistance.--
Notwithstanding section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), the Federal medical assistance
percentage for providing medical assistance under a State
medicaid plan under title XIX of such Act to Katrina
Survivors or, in the case of a direct impact State, to any
individual who is provided medical assistance under the State
medicaid plan during the disaster relief period, shall be 100
percent.
(2) 100 percent federal match for certain administrative
costs.--Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 1903(a) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)), or any other paragraph of such
section, the Federal matching rate for costs directly
attributable to all administrative activities that relate to
the enrollment of Katrina Survivors under section __03 in a
State medicaid plan, verification of the status of such
Survivors, processing of claims for payment for medical
assistance provided to such Survivors under such section, and
recovery costs under section __03(b)(4)(C), shall be 100
percent. The Secretary shall issue guidance not later 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act on the implementation
of this paragraph.
(b) Limitation on Reduction of FMAP for Fiscal Year 2006
for any State.--If the Federal medical assistance percentage
(as defined in section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act)
determined for a State for fiscal year 2006 is less than the
Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the
State for fiscal year 2005, the Federal medical assistance
percentage for the State for fiscal year 2005 shall apply to
the State for fiscal year 2006 only for purposes of title XIX
of the Social Security Act.
(c) Temporary Suspension of Medicare ``Clawback'' and
Postponement of Cut-Off of Medicaid Prescription Drug Funding
in Affected States.--
(1) Suspension in application of ``clawback''.--Section
1935(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5(c))
shall not apply, subject to paragraph (3), before January
2007 to a direct impact State or to a State that experiences
a significant influx of Katrina Survivors.
(2) Continuation of medicaid drug coverage for dual
eligibles.--Section 1935(d)(1) of such Act shall also not
apply,
[[Page S9976]]
subject to paragraph (3), before January 2007 to a part D
eligible individual who is a Katrina Survivor.
(3) Termination of application of subsection.--Paragraphs
(1) and (2) shall no longer apply to a State or a Katrina
Survivor, respectively, if the Secretary determines, after
consultation with the State, that enrollment of all part D
eligible individuals in the State under part D of title XVIII
of the Social Security Act who are described in section
1935(c)(6)(A)(ii) of such Act can be achieved without a
discontinuation in prescription drug coverage for any such
individual.
(4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
``State that experiences a significant influx of Katrina
Survivors'' means those States, including Arkansas, Florida,
Oklahoma, and Texas, that the Secretary of Health and Human
Services identifies as having a significant in-migration of
Katrina Survivors.
SEC. __05. ACCOMMODATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS OF KATRINA
SURVIVORS UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) Exclusion of Disaster Relief Period in Computing Part B
Late Enrollment Penalty.--In applying the first sentence of
section 1839(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395r(b)) in the case of a Katrina Survivor, there shall not
be taken into account any month any part of which is within
the disaster relief period or within the 2-month period
following the end of such disaster relief period.
(b) Part D.--
(1) Extension of initial enrollment period.--In the case of
a Katrina Survivor, the initial enrollment period under
section 1860D-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-101(b)(2)) shall in no case end before May 15, 2007.
(2) Flexibility in documentation for low-income
subsidies.--For purposes of carrying out section 1860D-14 of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114), with respect
to Katrina Survivors, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish documentation rules for Katrina
Survivors which take into account the loss and unavailability
of documents due to Hurricane Katrina.
NOTICE OF INTENT
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my
intention to move to suspend peragragh 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce
appropriations bill, the following amendment:
AMENDMENT NO.1662
On page 190, after line 14, insert the following:
SECTION 522. HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE VOUCHERS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane Katrina Act of
2005''.
(b) Hurricane Katrina Emergency Assistance Vouchers.--
Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42
U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(20) Hurricane katrina emergency assistance vouchers.--
``(A) In general.--During the 6-month period beginning on
the date of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of
Hurricane Katrina Act of 2005, the Secretary shall provide
temporary rental assistance to any individual or family, if--
``(i) the individual or family resides, or resided on
August 29, 2005, in any area that is subject to a declaration
by the President of a major disaster or emergency under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with Hurricane
Katrina; and
``(ii) the residence of the individual or family became
uninhabitable or inaccessible as result of that major
disaster or emergency.
``(B) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date
of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane
Katrina Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue final rules to
establish the procedures applicable to the issuance of
assistance under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Notice.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and such
other agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate, shall
establish procedures for providing notice of the availability
of assistance under this paragraph to individuals or families
that may be eligible for such assistance.
``(D) Authority to contract with pha's and others.--The
Secretary may contract with any State or local government
agency or public housing agency, or in consultation with any
State or local government agency, with any other entity, to
ensure that assistance payments under this paragraph are
provided in an efficient and expeditious manner.
``(E) Waiver of eligibility requirements.--In providing
assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary shall waive
the requirements under--
``(i) paragraph (2), relating to tenant contributions
towards rent, except that any such waiver shall expire on an
individual's return to work;
``(ii) paragraph (4), relating to the eligibility of
individuals to receive assistance;
``(iii) subsection (k) and paragraph (5) of this
subsection, relating to verification of income;
``(iv) paragraph (7)(A), relating to the requirement that
leases shall be for a term of 1 year;
``(v) paragraph (8), relating to initial inspection of
housing units by a public housing agency; and
``(vi) subsection (r)(1)(B), relating to restrictions on
portability.
``(F) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, funds available for assistance under this paragraph--
``(i) shall be made available by the Secretary to
individuals to cover the cost of --
``(I) rent;
``(II) security and utility deposits;
``(III) relocation expenses, including expenses incurred in
relocating back to the major disaster area when such
relocation is permitted; and
``(IV) such additional expenses as the Secretary determines
necessary; and
``(ii) shall be used by the Secretary--
``(I) for payments to public housing agencies, State or
local government agencies, or other voucher administrators
for vouchers used to assist individuals or families affected
by the major disaster or emergency described in this
paragraph up to their authorized level of vouchers, if any
such vouchers are not otherwise funded; and
``(II) to provide operating subsidies to public housing
agencies for public housing units provided to individuals or
families affected by the major disaster or emergency
described in this paragraph, if such a subsidy was not
previously provided for those units.
``(G) Payment standard.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the payment standard for each size of dwelling unit in a
market area may not exceed 150 percent, or higher if the
Secretary approves of such increase, of the fair market
rental established under subsection (c) for the same size
dwelling unit in the same market area, and shall be not less
than 90 percent of that fair market rental.
``(H) Nondiscrimination.--In selecting individuals or
families for tenancy, a landlord or owner may not exclude or
penalize an individual or family solely because any portion
of the rental payment of that individual or family is
provided under this paragraph.
``(I) Termination of assistance.--Assistance provided under
this paragraph shall--
``(i) terminate 6 months after the date on which such
assistance was received; and
``(ii) extend for an additional 6 months unless at that
time the Secretary makes a determination that assistance
under this paragraph is no longer needed.
``(21) Assistance for current voucher recipients affected
by hurricane katrina.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall waive any of the
requirements described in clauses (i) through (vi) of
paragraph (20)(E) for any individual or family receiving
assistance under this section on August 29, 2005, if--
``(i) the individual or family resides, or resided on
August 29, 2005, in any area that is subject to a declaration
by the President of a major disaster or emergency under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with Hurricane
Katrina; and
``(ii) the residence of the individual or family became
uninhabitable or inaccessible as result of that major
disaster or emergency.
``(B) Additional uses of funds.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall provide, as the
Secretary determines appropriate, supplemental assistance to
an individual or family receiving assistance under this
section on August 29, 2005, and meeting the requirements
described in subparagraph (A), to assist the individual or
family with the additional costs of relocating to new
housing, including to cover--
``(i) the additional cost of rent and utilities;
``(ii) security and utility deposits;
``(iii) relocation expenses, including expenses incurred in
relocating back to the major disaster area when such
relocation is permitted; and
``(iv) such additional expenses as the Secretary determines
necessary.
``(C) Payment standard.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the payment standard for each size of dwelling unit in a
market area may not exceed 150 percent, or higher if the
Secretary approves of such increase, of the fair market
rental established under subsection (c) for the same size
dwelling unit in the same market area, and shall be not less
than 90 percent of that fair market rental.
``(D) Nondiscrimination.--A landlord or owner may not
exclude or penalize an individual or family solely because
that individual or family is eligible for any waivers or
benefits provided under this paragraph.
``(E) Termination of authority.--The authority of the
Secretary to provide assistance under this paragraph shall--
``(i) apply during the 6-month period beginning on the date
of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane
Katrina Act of 2005; and
``(ii) extend for an additional 6 months after that period,
unless if at that time the Secretary makes a determination
that assistance under this paragraph is no longer needed.
``(22) Authority of the secretary to directly administer
vouchers when pha's are unable to do so.--If the Secretary
determines that a public housing agency is unable to
implement the provisions of this subsection due to the
effects of Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary may--
``(A) directly administer any voucher program described in
paragraphs (1) through (20); and
[[Page S9977]]
``(B) perform the functions assigned to a public housing
agency by this subsection.''.
(c) Report on Inventory of Availability of Temporary
Housing.--Not later than 10 days after the date of enactment
of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of
the General Services Administration, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and such other agency heads as the Secretary
determines appropriate, shall compile and report to the
Secretary an inventory of Federal civilian and defense
facilities that can be used--
(1) to provide emergency housing; or
(2) as locations for the construction or deployment of
temporary housing units.
(d) Appropriation of Funding.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
and are appropriated $3,500,000,000 to provide assistance
under this Act.
(2) Emergency designation.--The amount appropriated under
paragraph (1) is designated as an emergency requirement
pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
Notice of Intent
Mr. REID. Mr. President, In accordance with rule V of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my
intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce
appropriations bill, the following statement:
Amendment No. 1678
On page 191, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
TITLE VII--FINANCIAL RELIEF
Subtitle A--Limitation on Payments
SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Hurricane Emergency
Limitation on Payments (HELP) Act of 2005''.
SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Disaster.--The term ``Disaster'' means the major
disasters declared by the President on August 29, 2005,
relating to damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
(2) Injured person.--The term ``injured person'' means any
individual or entity that suffers harm resulting from the
Disaster that makes the individual or entity eligible to
receive, and the individual or entity submits an application
in good faith to receive--
(A) housing assistance under section 408(b) of the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5174(b));
(B) financial assistance to address other needs under
section 408(e) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e));
(C) unemployment assistance under section 410 of that Act
(42 U.S.C. 5177) (as amended by subtitle C);
(D) a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); or
(E) an emergency loan made under subtitle C of the
Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961 et
seq.).
SEC. 703. MORATORIUM ON PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subtitle, no injured person shall be subject to a penalty or
a requirement to pay interest for a failure of the injured
person, as a result of the Disaster, to make timely payment
of a financial obligation for any loan made, subsidized, or
guaranteed by the United States.
(b) Applicability to Loans.--The moratorium under
subsection (a) shall not apply to any loan made to or assumed
by an injured person on or after August 29, 2005.
(c) Period of Effectiveness.--The moratorium under
subsection (a) shall apply in accordance with section 761 to
the failure of an injured person to make timely payments.
(d) Eligibility.--If a Federal agency responsible for
administering a benefit program referred to in section 702(2)
determines that an individual or entity that has applied to
receive a benefit under the program is not eligible to
receive the benefit, the individual or entity, for purposes
of the moratorium under subsection (a), shall cease to be
considered an injured person as of the date on which the
individual or entity receives notice of the determination of
the Federal agency.
(e) Federal Responsibility.--In the case of a moratorium on
payments on a loan subsidized or guaranteed by the United
States, nothing in this section excuses the United States
from any liability of the United States to the lender under
the terms of the agreement between the United States and the
lender.
(f) Effect of Other Law.--The moratorium under subsection
(a) shall apply to an injured person only if, and to the
extent that, the injured person is not excused from, or
eligible to be excused from, the obligation under other
applicable law.
Subtitle B--Individual and Household Assistance
SEC. 711. INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD ASSISTANCE.
(a) Maximum Amounts.--Notwithstanding section 408 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5174), in providing assistance to individuals
and households affected by Hurricane Katrina, the President
may waive the limitation on total assistance under subsection
(h) of that section.
(b) Mortgage and Rental Assistance.--
(1) In general.--During the 18-month period beginning on
the date of enactment of this Act, the President may provide
assistance in the form of mortgage or rental payments for
persons described in paragraph (2).
(2) Eligible persons.--Assistance under paragraph (1) may
be provided to any individual or household that--
(A) resided on August 29, 2005, in an area that is subject
to a declaration by the President of a major disaster under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with
Hurricane Katrina; and
(B) as a result of financial hardship caused by a major
disaster described in subparagraph (A), is subject to
dispossession or eviction from a residence due to foreclosure
of a mortgage or lien or termination of a lease entered into
before the date on which the major disaster is declared.
(c) Types of Housing Assistance.--No limitation relating to
the maximum amount of assistance under paragraph (2) or (3)
of section 408(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)) shall apply
with respect to major disaster FEMA-1603-DR-Louisiana, FEMA-
1604-DR-Mississippi, or FEMA-1605-DR-Alabama.
(d) Financial Assistance to Address Other Needs.--
Notwithstanding section 408(g)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5174(g)(2)), in the case of financial assistance provided
under subsection (e) of that section to any individual or
household in response to a major disaster referred to in
subsection (c), the Federal share shall be 100 percent.
Subtitle C--Unemployment Assistance
SEC. 721. UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
Section 410 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177) is amended by
striking the section heading and all that follows through the
end of subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 410. UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Provision of Unemployment Assistance.--
``(1) Assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The President shall provide to any
individual unemployed as a result of a major disaster such
benefit assistance as the President determines to be
appropriate.
``(B) Location of employment.--An individual that is
unemployed as a result of a major disaster as determined
under subparagraph (A) may receive assistance under this
subsection regardless of whether the individual was employed
at a location within the declared disaster area.
``(C) Reason for unemployment.--For purposes of this
subsection, an individual who is unemployed because a loss of
business resulting from a major disaster contributed
importantly to the employer's decision to reduce or terminate
employment shall be considered to be an individual unemployed
as a result of a major disaster.
``(D) Eligibility.--An individual shall be eligible to
receive assistance under this subsection regardless of
whether the individual is eligible to receive, or has
exhausted eligibility for, State unemployment compensation.
``(2) Availability.--Assistance provided to an unemployed
individual under paragraph (1) shall be available as long as
the unemployment of the individual caused by the major
disaster continues, or until the individual is reemployed in
at least a comparable position, but not longer than 52 weeks
after the date on which the unemployed individual first
receives assistance.
``(3) Maximum and minimum weekly amounts.--The amount of
assistance provided to an unemployed individual under this
subsection for each week of unemployment shall be--
``(A) unless the amount is less than the amount described
in subparagraph (B), not more than the maximum weekly amount
authorized under the unemployment compensation law of the
State in which the disaster occurred; and
``(B) not less than the national average weekly
unemployment benefit provided to an individual as of the date
of the major disaster for which unemployment assistance is
provided.
``(4) Period for application.--The President shall accept
applications for assistance under this subsection for--
``(A) the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the
applicable major disaster is declared; or
``(B) such longer period as may be established by the
President.
``(5) Cooperation with states.--The President shall provide
assistance under this subsection through agreements with
States that, in the judgment of the President, have an
adequate system for administering the assistance through
existing State agencies.''.
Subtitle D--Tax Relief
SEC. 731. REQUIRED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 7508A
FOR TAX RELIEF FOR VICTIMS OF HURRICANE
KATRINA.
In the case of any taxpayer determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury to be affected by the Presidentially declared
disaster relating to Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary of the
Treasury shall specify a period under section 7508A of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of not less than 6 months
beginning on August 29, 2005, that may be disregarded with
respect to all of the acts described in section 7508(a)(1) of
such Code and amounts described in paragraph (2) of section
7508A(a)
[[Page S9978]]
of such Code relating to any employment tax liability of the
taxpayer.
SEC. 732. PENALTY FREE WITHDRAWALS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS FOR
VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA.
(a) Exclusion From Income of Certain Distributions Which
Are Repaid.--Section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to individual retirement accounts) is amended by
redesignating subsection (x) as subsection (y) and by
inserting after subsection (w) the following new subsection:
``(x) Repayable Distributions From Qualified Retirement
Plans for Victims of Hurricane Katrina.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, gross income shall not include any qualified
distribution.
``(2) Repayment requirement.--
``(A) Addition to tax.--If the required recontributions
made by the taxpayer during the repayment period are less
than the qualified distribution, the tax imposed by this
chapter for the last taxable year in the repayment period
shall be increased by the amount determined under
subparagraph (B).
``(B) Determination of amount.--The amount determined under
this subparagraph shall be an amount which bears the same
ratio to the tax benefit amount as--
``(i) the excess (if any) of the qualified distribution
over required recontributions made during the repayment
period, bears to
``(ii) the qualified distribution.
``(C) Repayment period.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `repayment period' means, with respect to any
qualified distribution, the 5-taxable year period beginning
after the taxable year in which such distribution is
received.
``(D) Tax benefit amount.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `tax benefit amount' means, with respect to any
qualified distribution, the aggregate reduction in the tax
imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such
distribution is received by reason of the exclusion under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Qualified distribution.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `qualified distribution' means any
distribution to an individual who has a principal place of
abode within the area designated as a disaster area by the
President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act in connection with Hurricane
Katrina--
``(A) if such distribution is made during the 6-month
period beginning on the date such declaration is made, and
``(B) to the extent such distribution does not exceed the
excess of--
``(i) the amount of expenses incurred as a result of such
disaster, over
``(ii) the amount of such expenses which are compensated
for by insurance or otherwise.
``(4) Recontribution of qualified distributions.--
``(A) In general.--If an individual received a qualified
distribution, such individual shall make required
recontributions in the manner provided in this paragraph to
an individual retirement plan maintained for the benefit of
such individual.
``(B) Method of making recontribution.--Any required
recontribution--
``(i) shall be made during the repayment period for the
qualified distribution,
``(ii) shall not exceed the qualified distribution reduced
by any prior recontribution under this paragraph with respect
to such distribution, and
``(iii) shall be made by making a payment in cash to the
qualified retirement plan from which the qualified
distribution was made.
An individual making a required recontribution under this
paragraph shall designate (in the manner prescribed by the
Secretary) such contribution as a required recontribution
under this paragraph and shall specify the qualified
distribution with respect to which such recontribution is
being made.
``(C) Treatment of contribution.--For purposes of this
title, any required recontribution under this paragraph shall
not be taken into account for purposes of any limitation on
contributions to a qualified retirement plan (as so defined).
``(5) Other special rules.--
``(A) Basis rules not affected.--The tax treatment under
this chapter of any distribution (other than a qualified
distribution) shall be determined as if this subsection had
not been enacted.
``(B) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of this subsection,
all qualified distributions received by an individual during
a taxable year shall be treated as a single distribution.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to distributions received after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
Subtitle D--Hurricane Katrina Food Assistance Relief
SEC. 741. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Hurricane Katrina Food
Assistance Relief Act of 2005''.
SEC. 742. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.
In this subtitle, the term ``Secretary'' means the
Secretary of Agriculture.
SEC. 743. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM DISASTER AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Section 5(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977
(7 U.S.C. 2014(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(4) Response to hurricane katrina.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Affected area.--
``(I) In general.--The term `affected area' means an area
of a State that the Secretary determines was affected by
Hurricane Katrina or a related condition.
``(II) Inclusion.--The term `affected area' includes any
area that, as a result of Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition, was covered by--
``(aa) a natural disaster declaration under section 321(a)
of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C.
1961(a)); or
``(bb) a major disaster or emergency designation under the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
``(ii) Affected household.--
``(I) In general.--The term `affected household' means a
household--
``(aa) in an affected area;
``(bb) in which a member worked immediately prior to August
29, 2005, in an affected area; or
``(cc) that was displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina
or a related condition to other areas of the same or another
State.
``(II) Inclusion.--The term `affected household' includes a
household containing 1 or more individuals that were
displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition, as determined by the Secretary.
``(iii) Disaster recovery period.--
``(I) In general.--The term `disaster recovery period'
means the period of 180 days beginning on the date of
enactment of this paragraph.
``(II) Extension.--The disaster recovery period shall be
extended for another 180 days unless the President determines
that the extension is not necessary to fully meet the needs
of affected households.
``(B) Disaster recovery period.--During the disaster
recovery period--
``(i) clauses (iv) and (v) of subsection (g)(2)(B),
subsections (d) and (o) of section 6, and section 8(c)(1)
shall not apply to affected households;
``(ii) the application of an affected household shall be
processed under the procedures established under section
11(e)(9);
``(iii) at the option of the State agency, the State agency
may increase the value to the affected household of the
thrifty food plan determined under section 3(o) by 6 percent
when calculating the value of the allotment for an affected
household under section 8(a), in lieu of making the
adjustment otherwise required by clause (iv);
``(iv) except in the case of a household to which clause
(iii) applies, the State agency shall calculate the income of
an affected household using a standard deduction of $323 in
lieu of the deduction provided under subsection (e)(1);
``(v) the Secretary shall pay each State agency an amount
equal to 100 percent of administrative costs allowable under
section 16(a) related to serving affected households in lieu
of the payments section 16(a) would otherwise require for
those costs;
``(vi) an affected household shall be considered to meet
the requirements of subsection (c)(2) if the income of the
affected household, as calculated under subsection (c)(2),
does not exceed the level permitted under subsection (c)(1)
by more than 50 percent;
``(vii) any funds designated for rebuilding or relocation
(including payments from Federal, State, or local
governments, charitable organizations, employers, or
insurance companies) shall be excluded from consideration
under subsection (g) in determining the eligibility of an
affected household; and
``(viii) an affected household may not be considered to
customarily purchase food and prepare meals together with
other individuals if the affected household did not
customarily purchase food and prepare meals for home
consumption with those individuals immediately prior to
August 29, 2005.
``(C) Duplicate participation.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall take such actions as
are prudent and reasonable under the circumstances to
identify affected households that are participating in more
than 1 State and to terminate the duplicate participation of
those households.
``(ii) No action taken.--Except in the case of deliberate
falsehoods, no action may be taken against any affected
household relating to any duplicate participation during the
disaster recovery period that takes place prior to
termination under clause (i).
``(D) Claims relating to benefits.--Except in the case of
intentional program violations as determined under section
6(b), no claim may be established under section 13(b)
relating to benefits issued under this subsection.
``(E) Payment error rate.--For purposes of determining the
payment error rate of a State agency under section 16(c), the
Secretary shall disregard any errors resulting from the
application of this paragraph to an affected household during
the disaster recovery period.
``(F) Savings clause.--This paragraph shall not apply in
any area of a State to the extent that there is in effect in
the area an emergency food stamp plan approved by the
Secretary that is more generous than the assistance provided
under this paragraph.''.
(b) Program Information Activities.--
(1) In general.--From funds otherwise appropriated for the
food stamp program established under the Food Stamp Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the Secretary may use not more
than $5,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2005 through
2006 to enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations to
provide affected households (as defined in section
5(h)(4)(A)(i) of the Food Stamp Act of
[[Page S9979]]
1977 (as added by subsection (a)) with information about and
assistance in completing the application process for any food
assistance programs for which the Secretary provides funds or
commodities.
(2) Expediting provisions.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required--
(A) to provide public notice of the availability of funds
described in paragraph (1); or
(B) to accept competitive bids for contracts under this
subsection.
SEC. 744. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND SECTION 32
ASSISTANCE.
(a) Definition of Eligible Recipient.--In this section, the
term ``eligible recipient'' means an individual or household
that, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security--
(1) is a victim of Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition;
(2) has been displaced by Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition; or
(3) is temporarily housing 1 or more individuals displaced
by Hurricane Katrina or a related condition.
(b) Assistance.--
(1) In general.--In addition to funds already obligated to
carry out the emergency food assistance program established
under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C.
7501 et seq.), the Secretary, in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, shall use not more than
$200,000,000 of funds made available under that Act to
provide a variety of food to eligible recipient agencies for
providing food assistance to eligible recipients, including--
(A) special supplemental foods for pregnant women and
infants or for other individuals with special needs;
(B) infant formula;
(C) bottled water; and
(D) fruit juices.
(2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under paragraph (1)
may be used to provide commodities in accordance with--
(A) section 27 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2036);
(B) section 203A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of
1983 (7 U.S.C. 7504); and
(C) section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of
1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508).
(c) Section 32 Funding.--In addition to funds obligated for
fiscal years 2005 and 2006 under section 32 of the Act of
August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), the Secretary shall use not
more than $200,000,000 of funds made available under that
section to provide food assistance to eligible recipients,
including food described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of
subsection (b)(1).
SEC. 745. WIC FUNDING.
(a) In General.--In addition to other funds made available
to the Secretary for fiscal year 2005 or 2006 to carry out
the special supplemental nutrition program for women,
infants, and children established by section 17 of the Child
Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), there is authorized
to be appropriated $200,000,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2007.
(b) Emergency Designation.--The amounts made available by
the transfer of funds in or pursuant to subsection (a) are
designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section
402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
(c) Allocation of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 17(i) of
the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(i)), the
Secretary may allocate funds made available under subsection
(a) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide
assistance to women, infants, and children who, as determined
by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security--
(1) are victims of Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition; or
(2) have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina or a related
condition.
SEC. 746. REPORT.
Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee on
Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a
report that--
(1) describes whether additional funding or authority is
needed to continue to address the food needs of eligible
recipients; and
(2) includes any determination by the President under
section 5(h)(4)(A)(iii)(II) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (as
added by section 743(a)) that an extension of the disaster
recovery period is not necessary to fully meet the needs of
affected households.
SEC. 747. REGULATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such
regulations as are necessary to implement this subtitle.
(b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and
administration of this subtitle shall be made without regard
to--
(1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of
title 5, United States Code;
(2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture
effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to
notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in
rulemaking; and
(3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly
known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
(c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority
provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.
Subtitle E--Bankruptcy Relief
SEC. 751. BANKRUPTCY RELIEF FOR VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the provisions of title 11, United States Code, as in
effect on August 29, 2005, shall apply to any case described
in subsection (b).
(b) Eligibility.--A case described in this subsection is a
case commenced during the 12-month period beginning on the
effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act of 2005, under title 11, United
States Code (other than under chapter 12 of that title 11),
by or on behalf of a debtor--
(1) who resides, or who resided on August 29, 2005, in any
area that is subject to a declaration by the President of a
major disaster, as defined under section 102 of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 5122) in connection with Hurricane Katrina; and
(2) whose financial condition is materially adversely
affected by the major disaster.
Subtitle F--Administrative Matters
SEC. 761. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY OF BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by this title
or an amendment made by this title, a benefit or assistance
provided by any provision of this title or an amendment made
by this title shall be available through the date that is 180
days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Automatic Extension.--The period during which a benefit
or assistance described in subsection (a) is available shall
be automatically extended for an additional 180 days,
beginning on the date that is 181 days after the date of
enactment of this Act (or any earlier date on which such
period expires under a provision of this title or an
amendment made by this title), unless the President
determines that the extension of the availability of the
benefit or assistance is not necessary to fully meet the
needs of individuals and households affected by Hurricane
Katrina or a related condition.
(c) Report.--If the President determines that an extension
is not necessary under subsection (b), the President shall
submit to Congress a report describing the determination.
SEC. 762. NONDISCRIMINATION.
Each recipient of Federal funds made available pursuant to
this title or an amendment made by this title, in carrying
out programs and activities with those funds, shall comply
with all Federal laws (including regulations) prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, or disability, including title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.). Each
recipient of Federal funds made available pursuant to this
Act or an amendment made by this Act, in carrying out
programs and activities with those funds, shall comply with
all Federal laws (including regulations) prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, or disability, including title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).
Waiving Matching Requirements for Certain FEMA Programs
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to bring to the administration's
attention an issue of vital importance to the victims of Hurricane
Katrina.
As you know, FEMA provides crucial financial assistance to eligible
individuals, households and to local and State governments following a
disaster. Many of FEMA's programs require local governments or States
to provide a 25-percent match.
I commend President Bush's decision to waive the matching
requirements for certain FEMA programs for 60 days. Given the
unprecedented destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina, however, I
call on President Bush to immediately direct FEMA to reimburse all
eligible recipients the full 100 percent of costs eligible under FEMA's
various relief programs for as long as necessary. This waiver should
apply to all entities that are providing assistance in the entire gulf
coast area impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
As seems obvious to all, 60 days will simply not provide enough time
for local and State governments to get back on their feet. Leaders from
the municipalities and States devastated by Katrina should not be
concerned with finding revenue to match Federal funding during this
time of crisis. Federal aid should flow unimpeded.
Does the majority leader agree with me?
Mr. FRIST. I, too, commend the President for his quick action on a
waiver for FEMA. I as well believe the President should consider
waiving this cost-sharing requirement for as long as necessary for
entities and areas in Louisiana where it is necessary. I am aware that
the Louisiana delegation has sent a letter to the President to this
effect, and I am supportive of what we can do to ease the burden for
those impacted by Katrina.
[[Page S9980]]
Mr. REID. I thank the majority leader.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________