[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 165 (Monday, December 19, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13986-S13989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, when I spoke earlier this morning, I
failed to make the comment that there are many provisions in the
conference report that are beyond the scope of the original Defense
appropriations bill and would be subject to rule XXVIII. For instance,
the hurricane supplemental; we have $29 billion for hurricane victims,
including funding for education expenses, housing, and reconstruction
efforts. That was not in the bill as it came out of either House. We
have the Gulf Coast Recovery Fund. This provides short and long-term
funding for Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, and Florida. Where
from? From revenues from the approval of ANWR and from revenues from
the approval in the reconciliation bill of the sale of spectrum when
the transition takes place between analog and digital broadcasting.
Those are predictable funds. They are currently not scored, but they
are moneys that, when they do come in, will be held in the Treasury to
help those people in the gulf coast who need assistance.
There are also provisions in the bill concerning liability with
regard to the manufacture of vaccines for avian flu. The basic bill had
a provision dealing with the provision of money for research on avian
flu, but now the conference report before us ensures that the
production of avian flu vaccines will be available in the United
States. Without this liability provision, we cannot assure that a
sufficient supply of vaccines to protect us against a flu pandemic
would be available.
Our American industry moved overseas. Why? Because of decisions
concerning liability. In this bill is a provision authored by many
Senators and Members of the House that deals with adding to the money
that we provide in the Senate version of the Defense appropriations
bill, the provisions regarding liability and compensation being
authorized on an emergency basis, if it is ever needed. God help us it
will ever be needed.
The avian flu pandemic is a real possibility now. I think it is one
of the great fears of those who are involved in medicine, and I think
our majority leader is one of the leaders in trying to develop a
program to prevent that pandemic, if it hits the United States, from
being like the pandemic flu in the early 1900s and what it did not only
to the United States but the world.
In addition to that, there is real money in this bill for home energy
assistance, the so-called LIHEAP program. There is $2 billion for home
heating assistance.
In addition to that, we provide 5 percent from the ANWR revenues to
the Federal Government to provide a long-term funding stream to deal
with the problems related to increasing fuel prices and its effect on
those people who need assistance to provide heating for their homes.
We also have in the bill provisions regarding interoperable
communications equipment. All of us have been trying to prepare those
people, called first responders, to have the equipment necessary to
carry out their work. There is money in this bill for equipment grants
to State and local governments to assure that first responders can
communicate during national disasters and terrorist attacks.
We also have--again, there is not any other provision in either the
House or Senate bill--we have emergency preparedness grants. We have
money to give all State emergency preparedness people grants, and these
grants are based upon population and risk. It is a fair distribution of
these grants. Some
[[Page S13987]]
of my friends in the Senate from the larger population States have
worried about distribution of such funds. These funds will be on the
basis of population and risk.
We also have for the first time--really at the basic insistence of
the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg--border security
improvements. We have funds for increased border security, helicopter
replacements, and security infrastructure, particularly in Arizona and
California.
In addition, there is agricultural assistance that provides much-
needed funding for conservation at a time when our farmers are paying
such record-high energy costs. This is assistance to farmers.
Why do I point these out? Those who attack this conference report on
the basis of being beyond the scope of rule XXVIII are attacking the
whole conference report. The subjects I have mentioned are beyond the
scope of the original Defense appropriations bill, no question about
it. We added it. I urged the conference to add it because I know of the
need in these areas for these funds and this legislation.
As I said before, I read the statements I made in 1996 when the
Senate at another time had before it a bill pertaining to aviation
where we did, in fact, have an appeal of a ruling of the Chair, and it
was overruled.
The concept of overruling the Chair is not a disaster for rule
XXVIII. It is an opinion. It is a disagreement on the basis of the
sentiments on the floor. It is really the Senate that decides these
questions. But it is true that as a result of having such a vote--by
the way, I have before me now a report of the Congressional Research
Service that pertains to S. Res. 160 reversing the Hutchison FedEx
precedents. On two occasions in the past regarding another rule, rule
XVI, there has been an overturning of the ruling of the Chair, and by
adopting this S. Res. 160, the Senate directed the Presiding Officer to
once again enforce the Senate rule, permitting points of order to be
raised against amendments to appropriations bills authored by other
Senators.
That is what we have done in this bill. The bill contains a provision
which is similar to S. Res. 160, which was offered by Senator Reid, to
reestablish the vitality of rule XVI.
Let me say this: By adopting, as the report says, S. Res. 160, the
Senate directed the Presiding Officer to once again enforce the Senate
rule permitting points of order to be raised. That is what we have done
in this bill. We have added a provision which is like S. Res. 160 which
directs the Presiding Officer to enforce the rule as was intended.
There is a basic disagreement. We are looking to waive the rule for
one time. We are not seeking a precedent. We are not seeking to find
some way around rule XXVIII permanently. We are saying that in this
instance, because of the vastness of the problems we face, the problems
of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, the problems of avian flu, the
problems of LIHEAP, the problems of interoperable communications, the
problems of the emergency preparedness grants, the homeland security
and border security problems, the agricultural assistance that is
needed, and the fact that ANWR, having passed both the House and the
Senate, has been blocked by a filibuster.
What we are really trying to do is to avoid a filibuster being
continued against a bill that passed the Senate and passed the House in
this Congress. By putting it in the conference report, we do that. It
cannot be filibustered. Conference reports can't be filibustered, but
there can be points of order. We will be happy to face those.
I hope my colleagues in the Senate will understand the reason for
what we have done and why we have done it. We have done it because of a
sincere belief that production of oil domestically has a great deal to
do with our national security and that our national defense cannot
operate without the basic potential for our own production of oil.
In the event of a blockade, such as we had in the seventies, we have
to depend primarily on our own oil. Today, we import almost 60 percent
of our oil. In order to operate the Department of Defense in time of
emergency if there is a blockade, we have to have domestic production,
and that is a matter of national security. That is why we have pursued
this.
Beyond this, there is no question about it, this is important to my
State--to our State, Madam President. You are from our State. The
Presiding Officer dignifies the Senate by presiding over it. When we
look at the problem we have in oil pipelines carrying 2.1 million
barrels a day--that was its production at the height of the gulf war.
At this time, we are somewhere around 400,000 barrels a day. One-third
of the oil is available to supply what we call the South 48 States. By
law, that cannot be exported except by approval of the President. It
has only been waived one time that I know of.
As a practical matter, what we are looking at is finding out if it is
possible to increase the supply of oil that is brought by the Alaska
oil pipeline to the rest of the country. That means a lot. We are here
because it means jobs in our State, and it means income for our State.
But this is Federal land this time. Prudhoe Bay was on State land. We
are talking about Federal land.
By the way, some people argue that this is a pristine area that has
never been explored for oil and gas. That is wrong. One well was
drilled in this area, drilled at Kaktovik. We have had oil exploration
there for years. When I was with the Interior Department in 1958, I
helped draw the order that established the Arctic Wildlife Range, 9
million acres in the northeast corner of Alaska. Oil and gas
exploration was permitted. Then along came the withdrawals and demands
of President Carter for additional withdrawals. We had a long debate.
It was a debate that lasted 7 years. It culminated in the act that was
called ANILCA, Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, in
1980. That act specifically reserved 1.2 million acres of that coastal
plain for oil and gas exploration. When that is over, it will become
part of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, but at this time it is reserved for
oil and gas exploration.
What this provision in this bill says is go ahead with that
exploration, which was the commitment made to us in 1980 by Senator
Jackson and Senator Tsongas. I will continue to talk about this, but I
want to make sure every Senator understands, although I did say if this
conference report fails, we can quickly reconstitute another conference
committee. The provisions I have mentioned that are beyond the scope
will be challenged. They will be challenged and some of them are part
of the ANWR provision. We have taken the funds that will be received by
the Federal Government and committed them to assist in the recovery of
the disaster areas. We have committed them to assist in terms of low-
income heating, the LIHEAP program. We have committed them across the
board in many places in order to assure that funding is available for
these emergency areas where it normally takes time to have Congress
come in to being and consider a bill usually in a year to a year and a
half.
We are saying in advance the moneys are in the Treasury and if they
are needed for these emergency purposes they are to be released. In
other words, the ANWR bill is not only a bill to proceed with oil and
gas exploration development; it says the bonus that will be received
and it will be shared in the LIHEAP program, it will be shared in the
communications area and in the disaster area. As we get revenues from
royalties to the Federal Government, those will be committed to further
protect the completion of recovery from the disaster of these terrible
hurricanes. It will be there to assist in our transition to a new form
of digital communication. It will be there to assist the first
responders throughout the country. The ANWR revenues are very important
revenues. They are revenues that come to the Treasury from the
production of oil and gas. As the price of oil goes up, those revenues
go up. They are real revenues, and we are saying to the people of the
United States, if we develop this area, the money that is received by
the Federal Government will be committed to those people who are in
great need.
So I tell the Senate, if this conference report comes down because of
a point of order, we will go back to conference, but many of these
provisions cannot be in there if ANWR is no longer there. I urge the
Senate to listen to what is in this bill and to understand that the
motivation of this Senator in regard to those provisions came
[[Page S13988]]
out of the trip I took when I took the Commerce Committee to New
Orleans. This is not something dreamed up. I see the distinguished
Senator from Louisiana is in the Chamber. We went down there and, along
with the people from the city and the State, we toured that area of
devastation. As I told my own people at home by television programming
just recorded, I have seen devastation in my day. I saw the earthquake
in Alaska in 1964. I saw the great interior of Alaska flooded in 1966.
I saw enormous devastation in China in World War II where the Japanese
had bombed villages and areas out of existence. But I have never seen
devastation as has occurred in the New Orleans area as a result of
failure of those levees and Hurricane Katrina. It is something one
cannot believe unless they see it, and when they see it they come home
filled with sadness. How can we possibly help those people? The Federal
laws do not contemplate that kind of devastation. The Federal laws
assist people from normal types of hurricanes and even typhoons and
tidal waves that have hit our States, but the real possibility is that
unless we pass this bill, a lot of those people are not going to
receive the assistance they should have.
I see the Senator from Mississippi is behind me. I would be happy to
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate my good
friend from Alaska and commend him for his work as chairman of the
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
He and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, provided
bipartisan and strong leadership in the crafting of this appropriations
bill that is now before the Senate as a conference report. I am pleased
as chairman of the full committee to have been a part of that
conference as a member of the subcommittee and am very pleased that the
leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye has been followed by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations so that we have
before us a bill that not only funds the Department of Defense and
related agencies for the next fiscal year, 2006, but also contains
amendments that were proffered and accepted by the conference dealing
with relief from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and others that have
devastated the Gulf Coast States of our country.
As the Senator from Mississippi, I have been in close touch with
friends and residents of the Mississippi gulf coast area and I have
been pleased to join other Senators in trips to visit Louisiana and
Alabama and get an impression and find out what the facts are about the
seriousness of the devastation. The provisions of this conference
report will go a long way toward providing assistance that is needed
right now, not over a period of years but right now, so people can
rebuild and truly recover from this devastating hurricane.
I am hopeful the Senate will approve the conference report. The
Senator from Alaska did a good job of outlining all of the provisions
of the conference report. We are particularly grateful that the
amendment relating to disaster relief due to hurricanes in the amount
of $29 billion was approved by the committee last night. There are
other provisions in the bill, as Senator Stevens pointed out, that will
directly affect our recovery efforts in a very positive way that are
included in this bill. There is money that goes directly to levee
assistance in the Louisiana area, a very high priority of the local
officials there. We have specified amounts that can be reconsidered in
the next fiscal year. All the money cannot be spent in 1 year. This is
something people are realizing. We cannot appropriate in 1 year all
that is going to be needed in the outyears. Some of these projects are
going to take not a few months to complete but a few years to complete.
So we are hopeful that with the full understanding of the Senate this
conference report will be agreed to by a large vote of support for the
committee's work in this area.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak this morning on the great
success of the conference committee in reaching this package and urge
all of my colleagues in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to come
together to have these necessary votes and to pass this important
legislation.
Let me start by thanking and recognizing the vital work of the two
leaders in this endeavor. Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman of the
Senate Appropriations Committee, has worked tirelessly on this package.
Of course, he had all the motivation in the world coming from
Mississippi, but he has also reached out to all of us from all of the
devastated areas, certainly me and my colleague Mary Landrieu from
Louisiana. I want to thank him for all of his great work and for being
so generous with his time, thoughts, and efforts with regard to helping
us meet our Louisiana needs as well.
I also thank and recognize the vital work of my chairman of the
Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens, who spearheaded another crucial
component of this overall package. Ted came down at my invitation, as
he mentioned on the floor a few minutes ago, to tour the devastated
area in greater New Orleans. Nobody can come down there and see the
devastation on the ground in New Orleans--or Mississippi, for that
matter--and not help but be truly moved and have their whole
perspective changed. Perhaps the single best example of that is Ted
Stevens. He was very helpful and very sympathetic even before that
visit in early November. But when he was there on the ground, when he
saw that devastation, particularly in Lake View and the lower Ninth
Ward, when we were standing there together and he saw the levee breach
on the Industrial Canal and just hundreds upon hundreds of homes
everywhere as far as the eye could see ravaged as a result of that, his
level of understanding and his commitment grew even more. He has
clearly been a vital partner in this important work. So I thank and
recognize his work, along with that of Chairman Cochran.
I urge all my colleagues in the Senate, Republican and Democrat, to
come together to make sure we have these crucial votes as soon as
possible and to make sure we pass this important package.
I have been disappointed to hear some of the comments from the other
side of the aisle, particularly those of the minority leader. He has
expressed outrage at some of the procedures that are involved in
passing this crucial bill. I chuckle a little bit when I hear those
comments, for two reasons.
The first reason is that every procedure involved, every step that we
will take this year to complete this important work, has been done
before in the Senate and has been done before in the Senate with his
support. He has voted for these same procedures in the past, every
single one, every step of the way. This is regular order. This is all
under the Senate rules. So for him to express this level of outrage is
ironic at best.
Second, what he proposes in rejecting moving forward is to reject
everything in this bill save Defense appropriations. It is not simply
to reject ANWR, which is the focus of his wrath, it is to reject all of
the hurricane relief, the entire package Senator Cochran has worked so
hard to put together and fashion with his House counterparts. It is to
reject all of the revenue from not only ANWR but DTV, which would also
go to the devastated region. It is to reject all of that. What Senator
Reid is proposing is to reject $2 billion for LIHEAP funding, which is
absolutely crucial for our citizens in the Northeast and elsewhere.
What he is proposing is to reject crucial funding for communications
interoperability, which is a key need and a key priority for homeland
security.
Let's be clear. The path Senator Reid is urging us to go down is not
simply to vote against ANWR. We have had votes on ANWR. We are free to
vote for or against ANWR. We had a clear and fair vote on ANWR earlier
this year, and it passed, no ifs, ands, or buts; perfectly fair. So he
is not really just talking about that. He is talking about everything
in this vital package save Defense appropriations. He is talking about
all of the hurricane relief. He is talking about all of that DTV and
ANWR revenue that would also go to the devastated region. He is talking
about all that crucial help for LIHEAP, $2 billion upfront additional
money into the future. It is very important for Northeastern States and
citizens and for others. He is talking about the crucial
interoperability piece for our first
[[Page S13989]]
responders, a very important, top priority for homeland security.
We must do all that work now, this year, before Christmas, before we
leave. The way we get this work done is to have these important votes.
Every Member of the Senate will be free to vote for or against. Every
Member of the Senate will be free to vote as their conscience deems
they should on all of these procedural matters.
Again, Senator Reid has voted for all these procedures in the past.
Let's be clear about that. So I urge us to put the politics aside, to
not make this yet another Washington partisan political fight. Far too
much is at stake for us to do that. Far too much in my State of
Louisiana. Far too much in the devastated State of Mississippi and
Alabama and Florida, with Wilma, and Texas with Rita, and southwest
Louisiana with Rita.
If there is ever a time for us to look at the substance and the
national good and not Washington politics, it is now. That is what
people sent us here to do, not play these partisan games. I urge
everyone to put that substance first, to put the American people first,
to put the people of the devastated regions of the gulf coast first and
have these votes and pass this crucial package of relief.
Let me be clear. ANWR is directly related to this relief because
significant revenues from ANWR would go to the devastated region for
crucial needs in Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, and Florida.
That is very much a part of this hurricane package.
Let me close as I began, by thanking the chairman of Appropriations,
Senator Cochran, and Senator Stevens, the chairman of the committee on
which I am proud to serve, the Commerce Committee, for their vital
leadership, for their vital work. But for them, we would not be in this
moment of huge opportunity to meet the crucial needs of the still
suffering citizens of the gulf coast.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________