[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 47 (Wednesday, April 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3532-S3568]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 4939, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 4939), making emergency supplemental
appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
Gregg modified amendment No. 3594, to provide, with an
offset, emergency funding for border security efforts.
Harkin/Grassley amendment No. 3600, to limit the
compensation of employees funded through the Employment and
Training Administration.
Reid amendment No. 3604, to provide, with an offset,
emergency funding for border security efforts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I yield to myself 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, there will be a rare opportunity about
noon on the Senate floor. There will be a chance for the American
people to have for themselves a handy list of big spenders, something
they can put on their blogs, something they can put in their
newsletters, something they can speak about at the dinner table,
something they can read to friends. There is always a lot of talk
around here about who is responsible for the fact that the Federal
Government is spending more money than it ought to. We are about to see
a good example of who is responsible for that, if things go true to
form, because we will have two amendments before us at noon. One is by
the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and one by
the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Reid. Both of them are
border security amendments.
There will not be very many votes in this body, I suspect, against
border security. I want to speak about border security because the
Gregg amendment takes very important steps to maintain our current
level of security on the border, which is a minimum level of security.
I am proud to cosponsor that. And the Gregg amendment pays for it by
taking money from other parts of the President's budget. That is the
Gregg amendment.
The Reid amendment, as I understand it, which we will be voting on
side by side, does identically the same thing on border security the
Gregg amendment does, except it pretends that money comes out of thin
air, that it grows on trees, that it comes from nowhere. It is the
thing we see time and time again around here, whereby someone comes up
with an essential, good idea but with no way to pay for it. So we print
the money, make it up, and the runaway spending goes on and on.
I wish to talk this morning a little bit about those two issues--
first, border security, the subject of the Gregg amendment and why I
believe it is essential that we adopt it as part of the supplemental
appropriations bill that is before us. I also want to talk about the
difference between how it is paid for so the American people can get
ready to make their handy list of big spenders because those who vote
for the Reid amendment will be on a handy list of big spenders because
that amendment is not paid for.
Let me start with the Gregg amendment and the condition of border
security. Americans are angry about border security, or the lack of it.
They have a right to be angry about border security, or the lack of it.
That is not the responsibility of the Governor of the State of Arizona
or the Governor of Texas or the Governor of California. It is a Federal
responsibility. Immigration is our job. Border security is our job. It
is a Washington job and it is a job that has been neglected for a long
period of time.
At least to the credit of the majority leader, he has forced this
Senate to deal with this issue and we are in the middle of it and we
ought not rest nor go home again until we deal with the issue of border
security. There are a lot of other issues that do not have to deal with
immigration. How many temporary students do we want here in the United
States? We have 572,000 of them today. They are an important part of
our country, contributing to our standard of living. When they go home,
they usually spread our values and our good will better than any
foreign aid ever has. We have about half a million people who are here
each year and we give them new temporary worker status. It is important
to have them here as well, because in a vibrant, growing economy, we
need more workers. We have an important debate to have about what to do
about the 10 to 12 million people
[[Page S3533]]
who are illegally here, and what I think is the most important part of
the whole immigration debate and that is how do we make sure those who
are not citizens of this country are, for the most part, becoming
Americans so we do not leave this country a large enclave of people
whose allegiance is to some other country.
We are a big country, 300 million people. We have about 30 million
people, or 10 percent of us today, who are noncitizens--about two-
thirds legally here and one-third of those illegally here. But we need
to make sure that for the most part, people who are here who are not
citizens are learning English, are learning the saga of American
history, are learning about our founding documents and are willing to
take the oath which foreswears allegiance to where they came from and
adopts allegiance to this country.
There are many important debates about immigration, but there is
nothing more important than border security. Border security is the
first issue before us because it is based upon the bedrock principle of
the American character which is the rule of law. Most families who have
come to this country are immigrant families. Almost all of us descend
from those. Most of those families, in addition to wanting to make a
dollar, wanting to improve their lives, wanting to gain freedom, wanted
to come to a country where there is the rule of law. They did not want
to live in some other country where some potentate could snatch you out
of your bed in the middle of the night and, based on the whim of that
ruler, decide your fate. Or where a contract that you made would be
decided by some person, not by the rule of law, and where some people
are higher than the law and some people lower than the rule of law.
They wanted to come to this country, the United States, which honors
the rule of law and upholds the rule of law.
Yes, people came here because they wanted freedom. They wanted to be
able to drive across State lines, but they expected to have to stop at
stop signs. They wanted to come to a country where they were free to
make contracts with whomever they wanted, but they expected the
contracts would be enforced. They wanted to come to a country where
they have second amendment rights to own a gun, but they expected they
wouldn't be allowed to shoot people with that gun.
This has been a country with the rule of law, and we have been
ignoring that for the last number of years by looking aside while
millions and millions of people stream back and forth across our
borders illegally while millions of other people patiently wait in
line, attesting to their good character, learning at least eighth grade
English, passing a test on American history, waiting for 5 years, and
preparing themselves to take an oath where they foreswear their
allegiance from where they came and pledge allegiance to the United
States.
Those people are bypassed by these people running back and forth
across the border. It is unfair to them. Principally, it is an offense
to the principle of the rule of law. There may not be anyone in this
Chamber who does not agree with the principle of the rule of law and
that we ought to secure and control our borders. If we believe that, we
ought to do it.
I am growing increasingly to think that Senator Isakson is right as
he suggests that the first thing we ought to do in this immigration
debate is secure our borders, perhaps allow the President to certify
they are secured, and then begin to deal with temporary workers and
other issues that come up.
In any event, we want to secure or borders. That is why the Gregg
amendment is so important. Senator Gregg has proposed we provide $1.9
billion in emergency funding as a critical investment in border
security in this supplemental appropriations bill which is now before
the Senate. This is an integral component of the war on terror.
Key critical capital improvements that are part of this bill include:
No. 1, stemming the tide of illegal aliens entering the country; No. 2,
ensuring that terrorists and weapons of mass destruction are not
capable of slipping through our arguably porous borders; No. 3,
decreasing the illegal drug flow.
The subject matter of the debate, the bill before the Senate, is an
emergency appropriation for the war on terror. This is an integral part
of the war on terror except that the border is on our southwest border
and not somewhere in the Middle East. It is at home. It is part of what
we ought to be talking about.
Here are a few examples of exactly what the Gregg amendment, which I
am proud to cosponsor along with others, would do. These are
improvements necessary to secure our borders. For example, we have an
outdated fleet of aircraft. The P-3 fleet which serves as our border
security's primary air surveillance is over 40 years old, 20 years
beyond the average life of this type of plane. Last month, the entire
fleet was grounded due to safety issues uncovered during a routine
inspection. The entire fleet needs to be overhauled to extend its
service life.
Example No. 2, outdated vehicles. Nearly 1,700 vehicles are virtually
unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme environments
and hard use, forcing border patrol agents and investigators to use
vehicles with a high breakdown rate.
Example No. 3, lack of sufficient patrol boats. There are not enough
patrol boats today, resulting in fewer patrol boat hours now than we
had in 1998, about half the number of hours needed to meet the mission
requirement.
Next example, lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect
3 out of every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by a
patrol aircraft, we stop 75 percent of them. More aircraft are needed
to act on intelligence regarding human and drug smuggling activities.
Next, unmanned aerial vehicles. We have only one unmanned aerial
vehicle operating along our southwest border. In 7 months it has
assisted in the apprehension of over 1,000 aliens. Yesterday morning it
crashed while surveying the Arizona border. The department has only
begun to grapple with how to replace this surveillance capacity until
the next unmanned aerial vehicle is delivered in August. The department
indicates that up to 18 are needed.
Armed helicopters is another example. So the $2 billion increase in
border dollars will replace--or repair, when that is sufficient--
outdated vehicles, aircraft, helicopters, and boats. The money will
also be used to improve law enforcement communications.
The point I am seeking to make is that these essential capital
improvements on border security, the $1.9 billion this year, which is
in addition to the amount of money that Senator Gregg and this Congress
added to the budget in the last two budgets, will make capital
improvements necessary to merely maintain our current capacity to
enforce our borders. There is no need to pass any kind of immigration
bill unless we have both the authority and the money to secure the
borders. We should want to send a clear signal to the American people
that before we establish a system of temporary workers and confirm our
system of student visas and put into place other applications to help
people legally here become American citizens, we should make sure we
are doing our job of ensuring that border is secure.
Let me talk about the money. There are a great many urgent ideas
expressed in the Senate. That is what we are for: Let ideas percolate,
ideas that need resolution, debate them and solve them. It is a
wonderful system. The more I travel and see the rest of the world, as I
have over my lifetime, the more I admire the system we have, messy as
it often is.
The No. 1 issue that might light up the switchboards would be border
security. I judge No. 2 would be runaway Federal spending. That is why
I say it is important for those paying attention to this debate to be
ready to make a list of big spenders. For those who believe in voting
for a good idea but then getting the money out of a tree or up off the
ground or out of some imaginary printing press to pay for it, that is
why we have a big Federal deficit. We vote for a big idea, and then we
do not pay for it.
Senator Gregg pays for it. He does it by saying we will take the $1.9
billion from the 2.775 percent reduction in the $69 billion in funding
provided for the Department of Defense in title I, chapter 3, and title
II, excluding military construction money. Senators Cochran, Stevens,
and Frist all believe that leaves the committees with sufficient
flexibility to support our needs in Afghanistan, Iraq, as well as our
needs along the border.
[[Page S3534]]
The President has said he will veto a supplemental appropriations
bill that just balloons to the sky, that goes over $92.2 billion. The
letter came last night, and it does not say ``advisors predict'' or
``someone said.'' It says the President will veto anything over $92.2
billion. I intend to support the President if he does have to veto. I
hope we will be fiscally responsible.
The Democratic amendment takes $106 billion and adds another $2
billion to it for this good idea, border security. The Gregg amendment
says let's pay for it out of funds we have, keep it within the budget.
At noon today, we will have a chance, No. 1, to vote for border
security. That is essential. Both amendments do the same thing. The
second thing we have a chance to do is compile for the country a list
of big spenders, those who believe in taking the money out of the air
somewhere, printing it in a printing press. You can do a lot of
talking, but if you do not offset the dollars, you are a big spender
and you go on the list.
Perhaps one should be proud of being on such a list, but I would
rather vote with Senator Gregg, which is why I am cosponsoring his
amendment rather than the Democratic leader's amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New York and 15
minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, sitting here listening to my colleague
from Tennessee reminds me of that old story about the boy who kills his
parents and then stood before the judge and asked for mercy because he
was an orphan. This is an unbelievable narration we have just heard.
The other side of the aisle has been expert in running up the largest
deficits we have ever had. We had a balanced budget, we had a surplus 5
years ago. We were on the right track economically. We were fiscally
responsible. But the combination of this White House and this
Republican majority has blown all of that to smithereens.
This President has never vetoed anything and now we finally get a
veto threat on an emergency supplemental. This President has used
emergency supplementals in order to avoid the budget realities that
would confront anyone who knows elementary arithmetic about how much we
are spending that we do not have.
With all due respect to my colleague, this is a rather strange
argument to be making at this point in time as though none of the
history of the previous 5 years had occurred.
The debate between these two amendments is a worthy debate; however,
it is an unnecessary debate. The President sent a budget to this
Congress just a few months ago. It could have had much of what is in
this emergency supplemental in the budget. They chose not to do so
because even they are getting a little embarrassed about the ocean of
red ink we are all swimming in these days.
What this supplemental appropriations bill does is provide vital
support for our men and women currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and elsewhere. This emergency supplemental provides body armor, tools
to defeat improvised explosive devices, the so-called IEDs that are
killing and maiming young Americans every single day. This supplemental
provides money for training for the Iraqi security forces. Maybe,
finally, we will have a government in Iraq that knows how to do that.
They certainly need to get the message that we are not there for the
long term unless they start defending themselves and providing security
for their own people.
These funds are to replenish the money we are spending in our
military to make sure our young men and women who are bravely serving
us have the resources, the equipment, the tools they need to do the job
we sent them to do.
The bill also includes funds to continue the rebuilding from
Hurricane Katrina. As we approach yet another month of debris, confused
leadership, failure to supervise and monitor expenditures from this
administration, we know how much more needs to be done to rebuild New
Orleans and the gulf coast region.
Here we are, about to have a vote in a few hours on an amendment--
really, two amendments--as to whether we are also going to face up to
our responsibilities along our border, and how we are going to pay for
that. Both the Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment recognize the
critical need for increased border security.
I have long maintained it is unconscionable to think that in our
post-September 11 world we still do not know the identities of people
who enter our country, stay illegally in our country, and may or may
not exit our country. Over the past several weeks, we have seen
agreement in the Senate that securing our borders must be a top
priority and a major component of whatever immigration reform we
consider.
Now, there are those who are, frankly, misguided and demagogic in
their claims that all we need is border security. We know that is not
the case. Senator Kennedy, who is in the Chamber at this moment, has
been a leader on immigration reform for decades. He knows if you do not
have comprehensive immigration reform, you do not deal with the
challenges we confront.
We all are in agreement we have to do more to secure our porous
borders. The Reid amendment is a step in the right direction because it
does provide $1.9 billion to strengthen our borders. These funds would
be used to replace and upgrade law enforcement communications, provide
Border Patrol agents with air and land vehicles, expand air operations
for Customs and border protection, invest $100 million in sensor and
surveillance technology that will help our Border Patrol agents be more
effective.
If we can succeed in securing our borders, something that we have not
yet succeeded in doing, then we can turn our attention as a nation and
focus our energies and our resources on other credible threats against
our homeland.
I commend Senator Reid's efforts to direct resources to strengthening
our borders. I know he would agree with me that obtaining these
additional funds should not be mistaken for comprehensive immigration
reform. We still need comprehensive immigration reform that secures our
borders, creates a better set of agreements and understandings with our
neighbors to the south as to what they are going to do to stop the flow
of illegal immigrants through their countries, particularly Mexico, and
imposes and enforces tough sanctions against employers who employ
illegal immigrants. After all, these people would not be risking their
lives if there wasn't a job waiting for them at the other end of their
dangerous journey; make sure we don't disadvantage people who have
waited legally for their opportunity to come here to join a family
member and to get a job that has been promised.
We need to do something to help alleviate the financial burden on
local communities--not just along the border but, frankly, in New
York--that are paying health care and education and law enforcement
costs because this Federal Government can't figure out how to run an
immigration system.
Yes, we need an earned pass to citizenship to bring out of the
shadows the 11 or 12 million hard-working immigrants who are here and
give them a chance through paying back taxes, going through a
background check, learning English, and waiting their turn to become
legal. We know what comprehensive reform looks like. And border
security is absolutely paramount, but passing the Gregg amendment is
not the end of immigration reform. I hope everyone understands that.
My colleague from New Hampshire agrees that we need to increase
border security, but he would cut needed funds for our troops in the
name of border security. The Gregg amendment would take money from
troop pay, body armor, and even from the joint improvised explosive
device funds. That is a false choice, and it is a wrong choice.
I do not believe that we should be engage in deficit spending. That
is why I have voted against many of the provisions that have come from
the other side--tax cuts which we can't afford, spending that should be
under control. But it is an odd moment indeed that all
[[Page S3535]]
of a sudden my friends have found a conversion experience and they want
to take money from our troops to secure our borders. I will take that
comparison any time. I will be on any list that says don't take money
from our troops; don't cut the research which we finally have as to how
we are going to defeat improvised explosive devices because you now
decide you want to do border security when you have been presenting
budgets for 5 years after 9/11.
We need to get serious about defending this country and the men and
women who serve on its behalf. We shouldn't be cutting funds for our
troops in the name of border security. It is wrong to cut funds for
body armor or for efforts to defeat IEDs. It is wrong to cut money from
Iraqi security force training when they are finally about to have an
Iraqi Government, something we have all been waiting for. It is wrong
to cut the defense health program which provides medical assistance to
our troops on the battlefield. And it is wrong to cut the death
gratuity which assists the families of fallen soldiers.
If I sound a little passionate about this, it is because I am. I find
this a false, cheap choice to score political points. And I think it is
wrong.
The most important obligation of our Government is to provide for the
security of the American people. Border security is an urgent need. It
should and must be addressed by this Congress. But our security and our
values are not served by choosing between protecting our troops and
protecting our homeland, nor by playing support for our men and women
in uniform against our need for border security. The Gregg amendment
undermines both. I urge my colleagues to support the Reid amendment.
Do we need to get back to fiscal responsibility? You bet we do. Let
us talk about that when it comes to cutting even more taxes for people
making more than $1 million a year. Let us talk about that when we are
spending $10 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us talk about
that when we borrow $60 billion a month from foreign lenders, such as
the Governments of China, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and India.
How do we protect our security against an increasingly dangerous
world? How do we stand up to the threats from unstable regimes and from
competition from China and elsewhere for scarce natural resources when
we can't even get our own fiscal house in order because the other side
of the aisle and the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are addicted to
tax cuts for the wealthy regardless of the costs for anything else,
regardless of the costs for our country?
We need an energy policy that moves us toward energy independence. We
get rhetoric, we don't get budget priorities. We are living on borrowed
time and borrowed money. We are one accident or one terrorist attack
away from oil at $100 a barrel--not just $75. We have no leadership. We
are not asked to sacrifice anything. The only people who sacrifice on a
daily basis are the young men and women wearing our uniform.
Now we are standing up here with a straight face saying we are going
to cut funds for body armor, we are going to cut the IED research
program, we are going to cut the death gratuity so we can score
political points and act all of sudden as if we have become fiscally
responsible. I am sorry, I find that a sad commentary about what should
be expected from each and every one of us.
I hope we will begin to seek common ground and try to figure out how
we get ourselves out of the dangerous situation we are in today. All
one has to do is pick up the morning newspapers or turn on the news. It
is beyond me why we would want to have a political debate pitting
border security against the needs of our men and women in uniform.
There are other ways to pay for this. There is money for construction
that could be postponed until a real budget emerges. There are other
kinds of options. But, no, we are going to have a debate about two
serious, urgent requirements that we should be stepping up to meet.
I hope we will support the Reid amendment and do what is right by our
troops and our border needs, and then let's get down to a serious
discussion that is long overdue in this Chamber about where this
country is headed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from
Massachusetts.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair to let me know when there
is 3 minutes remaining.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so notify the Senator.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as she is exiting the Chamber, I wish to
commend my friend and colleague, the Senator from New York, for an
excellent statement and comment about what is really at play here at
noontime in the Senate; that is, a choice between meeting our
responsibilities to the service men and women who are serving bravely
and gallantly in Iraq and Afghanistan and also meeting our
responsibilities to protect our country at our border. I have listened
to her on many different occasions, and she spelled out the choice as
clearly and as passionately as I have ever heard the case made. I thank
her for her excellent and eloquent comments.
Mr. President, we are getting close to decision time on this
particular amendment. Just to review very briefly where we are on the
issues that are before us, I think all of us in this Chamber understand
that we are making progress on an extremely difficult and complex
issue; that is, the issue on immigration reform.
There are strong emotions, strong feelings, and strong beliefs on a
variety of different aspects of immigration reform, but one which I
believe has total support in this body is that what we do need to do is
be able to control our borders, and to be able to do that, we have to
be able to make the investment which is going to be necessary to secure
our borders.
Many of us believe that just in and of itself trying to establish
just a border or just a fence in one part of the country is not going
to do it.
All we have to really do is look at history. We understand that 10
years ago, about 40,000 illegals were coming into the United States.
Since that time, we have spent over $10 billion on border security, we
have increased the number of border guards by 300 percent, and now we
have some 400,000 coming into the United States.
It is going to take tough border security, but it is going to take
something more in terms of law enforcement in this country for those
who are eligible to be able to work and separating out those who are
ineligible and also to be able to develop a program of earned
citizenship for individuals who are here because they want to provide
for their families, to work hard, to play by the rules, and to serve in
the Armed Forces. They are prepared to pay a penalty, and they are
prepared to go to the back of the line and wait their turn for up to 11
years before they would even be eligible for citizenship.
The immigration debate will continue along, and we will get back to
it here in the Senate, but there is broad agreement on doing more in
terms of our border security. There is some difference in how that
should be shaped, but we ought to recognize that we need the resources,
we need the $2 billion which is before the Senate. What is completely
unacceptable is the tradeoff between trying to deal with and seal our
borders and to see a reduction in the support for our military and the
armed services in both Iraq and Afghanistan. A number of us have worked
very hard to increase in more protective humvees and the up-armoring of
the humvees over the last 3\1/2\ years.
I serve on the Armed Services Committee. We have had 12 different
estimates from the Defense Department on the requirement for up-armor
humvees, and after each and every time, they have raised the
requirement in order to protect troops.
We have added resources, both in the Armed Services Committee and
here on the floor, to ensure that we are going to provide the best
protection that the humvees can provide when they are up-armored. Now
we are faced with an amendment which would reduce the resources for up-
armoring humvees, something I believe is completely unacceptable. The
tradeoff is completely unacceptable. We need both.
We have read and Americans have understood that we need to do a great
deal more on armor for our troops. We are all familiar with the stories
of American servicemen going through
[[Page S3536]]
dumpsters in Iraq to get strips of steel and metal and strapping those
onto their vehicles because we weren't providing sufficient body armor
either to individuals or to the trucks that are used in convoys over
there. Nonetheless, the proposal that is being offered by the Senator
from New Hampshire would reduce the funds available for the kinds of
protective armor which is so essential for individuals and for their
vehicles.
The IED, as we have heard from General Casey, as we have heard from
General Abizaid, and as we have heard from the commanders in the field,
is the primary threat to American service men and women. Who of us has
not watched the news virtually every single night and not seen the
smoking ruins of some vehicle where young, brave, courageous American
men have lost their lives? Those are primarily destroyed by IEDs.
We have not done the kind of research into IEDs necessary in order to
master the technology so our servicemen will have a defense. In the
very beginning, IEDs were being set off with simple signals, but we
were unable to jam them because it interfered with our military's
communications. We have an opportunity. We have sent men and women to
the Moon and brought them back, but we are unable to develop the
electronics to set off the IED before it can hurt our troops coming
down the road. I don't understand it. But I know that we haven't
utilized to the extent we should the entrepreneurship, the ideas, and
the innovation in the private sector in terms of electronics to be able
to advance this whole area of technology.
We have finally established a very interesting important task force
to try to bring in the best minds in defense and the private sector
together to solve this problem. But we are going to be cut back on that
for border security. What possible sense does that make?
Those are a few of the very top priorities but there other priorities
that will be affected, including training the Iraqi security forces to
upgrade their skills so they can stand up and Americans can stand down.
This amendment would cut that program, as well as training programs in
Afghanistan.
Why in the world, if we have made assessments that these programs are
justified, are necessary, that are included in the supplemental, is it
possibly justified to say: Well, those weren't really accurate, those
really didn't reflect the need? We can chip away at any number of those
programs because we need border security. It is a bad choice. I would
like to take note, particularly of some of the smaller dollar items
but, nonetheless, items which are of enormous importance and
consequence.
Family support counseling: We have read about the explosion in the
number of divorces that have taken place among our service men and
women who are returning from Iraq. It is now four or five times the
national average of those in their generation because of the stress
experienced by these individuals, both those who go to Iraq and, sadly,
those who are left behind. So we provide assistance in terms of family
support counseling, which is so important, so necessary.
And all of us are familiar with the stories of children who are
missing their father and may have difficulties in school. We also hear
of the families who have difficulties in adjusting to the fact that
parents are away for a long time, come home for a brief time, and then
are sent back to Iraq; come home for a brief time, and then are sent
back to Iraq again. This puts enormous pressure on families who see
these enormous potential dangers to the lives and well-being of their
loved ones. So the resources in here to help with support counseling
are very important. This amendment would reduce those services.
This amendment would also reduce the help and assistance,
particularly, for patient transportation, medical services, and
rehabilitation services, particularly for those severely wounded. The
fact is, we have made some progress in the advancement of technology
for helmets, so we have less injuries to the brain and to the head than
we have seen in previous wars. And we have also made improvements in
body armor. But as a result we have seen the extraordinary trauma in
the extremities, and many servicemen have lost their limbs--legs and
arms. We have some special provisions in this legislation to give
greater focus and attention, direction and support, to programs that
deal with these injuries.
I do not understand why, if we are talking about getting $2 billion
for border security--which I strongly support--we ought to put at risk
any of these programs. That is what this amendment will do. We know we
have to do something to protect our borders. We know we need to make
the improvements which are outlined in both the amendments of Senator
Reid and Senator Gregg, which are areas I certainly support, but we
should not do it at the cost of these essential programs which are
absolutely necessary for those individuals who are fighting on the
front line and risking their lives every single day in a dangerous part
of the world, and their families.
It is the wrong choice to make, to put any of these programs at risk
in order to support the $2 billion. We ought to be able to support
that. We ought to add that and it should be a part of this Nation's
obligation for the future.
I just remind ourselves of a recent excellent report by a Nobel
laureate, Professor Stiglitz, at Columbia, whose estimate is that this
war in Iraq--just in Iraq--is going to cost $1 trillion--$1 trillion--
before the end of it. A Nobel laureate estimating it will cost $1
trillion. We are being asked here for just about $2 billion to provide
vital support services to those men and women who fight this war. It
seems to me we have seen extraordinary expenditures already to date. I
had my reservations, and I opposed going to this war, and I still
believe it has not enhanced our national security or the security of
Americans, but, nonetheless, what I am sure of is that it does not make
sense for us to see a reduction in these programs that are so vital for
our service men and women.
Mr. President, I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I do not suppose there is a row of
seats in the U.S. Senate that produces more passion and eloquence than
the back row on the other side of the aisle. I enjoyed listening to the
Senator from New York and the Senator from Massachusetts on this
subject. I was especially struck by the Senator from New York, who
spoke about budget deficits and talked about history and talked about
an ocean of red ink and made a very impassioned speech. Then, when she
got to the end of her speech, she volunteered to be on the list of big
spenders that is going to be created at noon, which will be those who
vote for the Reid amendment.
The Gregg amendment and the Reid amendment are identical. They are
about border security. All the Reid amendment does is they took the
Gregg amendment, which is a carefully structured approach to try to
help maintain our border security on the southwest border, just at its
present level, and they just struck out ``Gregg'' and they wrote in
``Reid'' and they did something else: they struck out the way to pay
for it. So they are going to pay for it from thin air. They are going
to pay for it with cotton candy.
There was talk about a brazen smokescreen. That is a brazen
smokescreen. That goes on all the time here. I am on the Budget
Committee. The Senator from New Hampshire is the chairman. We sat in
the Budget Committee and voted down--I think it was 17 ``no'' votes--as
the Democrats sought to add $128 billion over the next 5 years. Then
the debate moved to the floor, and they tried to add $273 billion over
the next 5 years.
So I guess it is all right to be fiscally irresponsible, but at least
you ought to stand up and say: Yes, I am the one doing it. I am the one
who has the good idea and then does not want to pay for it--which is
exactly what the Reid amendment does.
The Senator from New York said: Oh, there must be other ways to pay
for it. Why doesn't she suggest one? Why doesn't she cut something?
The Gregg amendment does not cut anything. This is a supplemental
emergency appropriation for the war on terror. The war on terror is
mostly in Iraq
[[Page S3537]]
and Afghanistan and in the Middle East, but it is also along our
southwest border. I believe the Senator from New Hampshire believes
that, and I believe most American people believe that. I believe it is
appropriate to include that with the additional money that we are
appropriating to support our men and women in uniform.
So the false choice--the false choice--is to stand up and say: We
want to support border security, but we have no money to pay for it.
That puts you on a list of big spenders. So as it stands today, the
Gregg amendment is the responsible amendment. And the Senator, I am
sure, will speak, as I have spoken earlier, on exactly what it does to
help maintain our current infrastructure.
The Reid amendment is the identical amendment, except it is a
smokescreen. There is no way to pay for it. So as to the list of those
on the Reid amendment, those votes will be a handy list of big
spenders, which can be taken to your blog, which can be taken to your
dinner table. And when somebody says: Who is it in Washington who keeps
coming up with these good ideas but then never pays for it with real
dollars, and so as a result we have runaway spending, then you will
have a list of people who do that.
This is not about the last 5 years. It is not about the next 5 years.
It is about today's vote: the Gregg amendment, which is the border
security paid for amendment; or the Reid amendment, which is the same
amendment not paid for.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the very concise and accurate
summation of this amendment, its purposes, and how it would affect
spending by the Senator from Tennessee. I do think it is appropriate to
respond even a little further on this issue.
The purpose of this amendment is to basically give the people who are
defending us on our borders--the border security agents, the Customs
agents, the Coast Guard--the tools they need to do their job right,
which includes the airplanes, the unmanned vehicles, the boats, the
cars, and the helicopters. That is clearly a critical element of our
national defense in the fight in the war on terrorism. It has to be
done. It has to be done now.
For example, the Senator from Tennessee noted that the one unmanned
vehicle on the southwest border crashed--it is fairly ironic it would
crash this week, but it crashed this week--so we now have none. We need
to replace that. We not only need to replace it, we have to add about
three or four more. It costs money, and this amendment would accomplish
that. We know that has to be done if we are going to get the borders
under control. With the proper capital support, with the proper
technical support, and with the proper number of people on the border,
we can bring the border under control.
We are on a path to do that. We added 1,500 agents. We are going to
add another 1,500 agents this year. We are adding them as fast as we
can hire them. But the problem is hiring is a little difficult because
they are high-quality people, and we get about 40,000 applicants for
every 1,500 we can hire, so it takes a while to ramp up. But with
this capital support, we will have to accomplish that, and we will have
the border under control, in the near term. But this argument coming
from the other side: Well, you should not pay for this initiative, is
just plain wrong. We are a country which, if we are going to remain
strong and vibrant, has to be fiscally responsible and set priorities.
Now, it was my priority, quite honestly my personal priority, that we
pay for this by taking out of the emergency request that came up from
the Defense Department a number of items which really are not clearly
emergencies. They go more to the core operation of the Defense
Department, but I think they were put in the emergency because they
thought it was maybe a way to pick up those dollars and not have to
worry about them in their basic underlying budget.
I suggested the modernity initiative, which is about $3.5 billion and
would essentially have paid for this initiative in the Border Patrol,
be taken out and replaced by the Border Patrol needs which are an
emergency. They are an emergency. The planes are not flying. The UAV
crashed. We do not have enough boats. The cars aren't running. The
facilities are not there. It is an emergency. The Defense modernity is
something we need to do, but it should be done and built out over the
basic defense budget. There are a couple of other items in this
emergency supplemental that also fall into that category, such as the
V-22 Osprey purchase.
But I went to the people who understand defense spending around here,
and I said: How should we pay for this? I went to Senator Stevens. My
staff talked to Senator Warner's staff, Senator Cochran. And they said
they would rather pay for it the way the amendment has been structured
with basically an unidentified across-the-board cut--it is not going to
even be across the board but an unidentified reduction to the overall
number, giving the Defense Department the flexibility to find those
dollars within the $530 billion they will spend, $2 billion.
So to come down here and allege that these funds are going to come
out of the needs of the people who are on the front lines in Iraq or
Afghanistan is pure poppycock, pure. And to make that representation is
hyperbole and waving a red flag, which is totally inappropriate to this
debate because if they read the amendment and they recognize how the
amendment was structured, they would know that would never happen. They
do know it would never happen. They are down here just trying to get
attention for their position and make an excuse for why they are not
willing to pay for their proposal.
The fact that it will not happen is because when you line up Senator
Stevens and Senator Warner and Senator Cochran on one side, and you put
the folks who are saying the opposite on the other side, I tend to come
down on the side of those three Senators as knowing more about what we
are going to do and what we need in defense than necessarily the
critics of this amendment. These are the people who have stood by our
Defense Department for not only this year but for generations.
When the defense was being cut, savaged basically under the Clinton
administration, when it was basically being hollowed out under a
Democratic Congress in the early 1990s, it was people like Senator
Stevens and Senator Warner who stood on this floor and tried to stop
it. It is those folks who have built the Defense Department back up so
our soldiers have what they need so we have a strong national defense.
They came to me and said: We would like to see your amendment done this
way rather than the way you proposed. And I said: OK. You are the
experts. I am perfectly willing to follow your suggestion.
So this argument that is being thrown out on the other side is a
straw dog. The issue is, as Senator Alexander has framed it, a question
of whether we are going to set priorities, whether, when we say we are
going to do something about the Border Patrol needs, Coast Guard needs,
Customs needs in the area of capital assets--such as planes and
helicopters, unmanned vehicles--we are going to do that, and whether we
are going to prioritize so that goes to the top of the list or close to
the top of the list of our national priorities, and so it is paid for
and is not put into debt.
So the choice, as Senator Alexander has reflected, is: Are you going
to pay for it or aren't you going to pay for it? Are you going to be a
big spender or are you going to be somebody who is fiscally
responsible?
The amendment I have put forward is a fiscally responsible amendment
which will have no negative impact on any soldier who is in the field
or on our operational capabilities in Afghanistan or Iraq. That
representation clearly is inappropriate and wrong. I take a little bit
of umbrage at it.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. ALEXANDER. I wonder if, through the Chair, I might ask the
Senator from New Hampshire a question. Typically, a piece of
legislation that is paid for has a better chance of making it all the
way through to the end than a piece of legislation that is not paid
for; is that not correct?
[[Page S3538]]
Mr. GREGG. The Senator is absolutely correct. We have attempted in
the past to get these capital funds for the Border Patrol without
paying for it, and the language has been dropped as it worked its way
through the process. This is a priority we should be willing to pay
for. As responsible governors of the purse of the American people, we
should pay for it rather than just put it on the debt.
Mr. ALEXANDER. There is some talk about a brazen smokescreen on the
other side. I suggest the brazen smokescreen might be to first stand up
and say we are going to have more border security but we are not going
to pay for it, and then turn around 30 seconds later and claim to be
the guardians of fiscal responsibility. You can't do that. That is a
smokescreen.
Another way to have a brazen smokescreen might be to stand up and
make an impassioned speech and say: Let's spend $2 billion for border
security without paying for it, knowing full well that many amendments
that are not paid for then get lost somewhere in the process and never
are passed. And then the American will people say: What happened over
there in the Senate? I saw them say they were for border security, but
the money never came through.
The American people want us to maintain the border, pay for it, and
do it. The Gregg amendment does it. The amendment offered by the
distinguished Democratic leader does not.
Mr. GREGG. I reserve the remainder of the time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final
10 minutes of debate before the votes at noon be equally divided
between the Democratic leader and the majority leader or their
designees, with the final 5 minutes reserved for the majority.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GREGG. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous
consent that the time be applied to both sides equally.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to speak for 5 minutes on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is only 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If the 3\1/2\ minutes is not taken on our side, I
will ask unanimous consent for that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of Senator
Gregg's amendment. I appreciate the job Senator Gregg has done in his
position as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland
Security, which has done so much to try to beef up our borders. Senator
Gregg has been a leading proponent of strengthening control of our
borders with Mexico and Canada.
I think this amendment is a very positive and productive one, adding
$1.9 billion to homeland security and trying to do the things that
would make access through our borders more secure. The US-VISIT
Program, which sometimes stifles legitimate commerce on our borders
will be provided $60 million. This will be used to integrate the
biometric databases so they will work better and we will know who is in
our country and to allow people who are legitimately in our country to
be able to go back and forth. It adds funds for Customs and border
protection. It adds money for construction of new stations, checkpoints
and tactical infrastructure, Immigration and Customs enforcement.
I think this is an issue everyone in America is absolutely behind. We
want to have control of our borders. I have had meetings with Hispanic-
American leaders, and I have had meetings with small business people
who are on the border, as well as throughout our country. Everyone
believes that as a sovereign Nation and for the security of our
country, we need to control our borders. We had 160,000 other-than-
Mexican illegal aliens entering our country from all over the world
last year through the Mexican border. This is unacceptable for a
sovereign country not to know who is in our country, particularly when
al-Qaida puts out the word that if you want to penetrate America, go
through the southern border.
It is not good for Mexico. Mexico knows there are people coming
through their southern border, all the way through Mexico, sometimes as
a criminal element, and they are doing so to get to the United States.
So it is very important that we pass the Gregg amendment. What is
different about the Gregg amendment from the Reid amendment is that it
is offset, it is an agreed-to offset, with a reduction in spending in
other parts of the bill, in order to pay for this effort to secure our
borders, and strengthen our national security.
I think it is so important that we are focusing on the Coast Guard to
upgrade their patrol aircraft, their ships, and their patrol boats. The
whole Gulf of Mexico is a very vulnerable area, and we need to secure
the coast, as well as the land border areas.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the fully offset Gregg amendment
that will beef up our border security at a time when we all know this
is a first priority.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, for those of us who have served in the
Senate for the past 5 years, the irony of the amendments before us
today is inescapable. Had the Bush administration fulfilled its
promises over those years and lived up to its rhetoric about bolstering
our Nation's border security, there would be no need for the emergency
supplemental spending amendments proposed by the distinguished chairman
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee
and the Democratic leader.
The administration's failure on this front has not gone unnoticed. In
December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission's Report Card gave the Bush
administration a `D' grade for its efforts on border security, and
specifically, for its failures in fostering international collaboration
to improve border security. This is particularly disappointing in light
of the grandiose statements in February 2001 in which the President
heralded a new era of cooperation with President Vicente Fox on
immigration and border issues.
For all its talk and swagger about security, the Bush-Cheney
administration has not lived up to its public promises. Just last month
we heard about nuclear material being successfully smuggled across our
borders in a sting operation. Not long after that bombshell, a U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services employee, Michael Maxwell,
testified before a House subcommittee about an astonishing culture of
corruption, and misdirected priorities in the agency within the
Department of Homeland Security charged with processing immigration
applications. For an administration that has regularly touted its
commitment to national security, it is incomprehensible that the type
of behavior Mr. Maxwell testified about was occurring in one of our
most critical border security agencies.
You do not have to take my word for it or read the New York Times to
see criticism of this administration's competence when it comes to
border security. Take just one day's worth of reports from the
Washington Times, one of the most conservative papers in the country.
On Tuesday, that paper ran a front page story in which it reported that
U.S. law enforcement officials say that ``[h]undreds of Mexican
nationals who wear government-issued uniforms, carry official
identification cards and are authorized to use weapons are helping
smugglers move tons of drugs into the United States.'' This follows
numerous reports of uniformed incursions into the United States.
On page 3 we read that the Homeland Security Department's inspector
general has completed a 22-month investigation ``into Syrian nationals
suspected of practicing to hijack a plane during a Detroit-to-Los
Angeles flight.'' The inspector general's public summary says that the
Department needs to better coordinate information on suspicious
passengers, and on the conflicting jurisdictions of the FBI and Federal
Air Marshal Service that can
[[Page S3539]]
compromise investigations of in-flight incidents. Because the 40-page
inspector general report is classified, its detailed contents have not
been made public, but it involves an incident from June 2004. According
to the paper, the suspects were traveling under expired visas on one-
way tickets bought with cash, but that immigration officials had failed
to report to the airport to detain them.
Then on page 13, Tuesday's Washington Times reports about the case of
a high-ranking Iranian official travels in and out of the United States
on a U.S. green card, even though he carries an Iranian passport and is
reported to be ``an economics and technology aide to Iran's top nuclear
negotiator,'' and is reported to have ``joined the Iranian government
last year'' and to be a ``high-ranking Iranian official.''
The three incidents I have just described are all possible border
security scandals reported in just one newspaper on just 1 day.
Just as gas prices for American consumers have doubled during the
Bush-Cheney administration so, too, have the number of undocumented
immigrants within the United States doubled. I do not think that I need
to remind the American people that the same Government Department that
so mishandled Katrina and its aftermath is in charge of border
security. Nor will any of us forget that after 9/11 the immigration
authorities were still sending cordial correspondence to dead suicide
hijackers.
Here in Congress, we have met the President's calls for increased
border enforcement with authorizations across the board. Indeed, we
have often acted, as we are now, to provide additional authorities and
resources that the administration did not request in order to try to
force progress on border security. The administration, however, has not
lived up to its end of the bargain. Despite the funding mandates of the
intelligence reform bill that provided for 2,000 new Border Patrol
agents annually, the President's budget request for 2006 would have
provided enough funding to add only 210 Border Patrol agents. That is
10 percent of what Congress mandated, and not a single new agent would
have been assigned to help protect our northern border.
What the President has said and what the administration has done
couldn't be more different. He has talked about border security, but
his priorities in the budget proposals he has sent to Congress shows
that his administration values tax cuts for the rich over robust border
security.
It is incomprehensible that almost 5 years after the horrific attacks
of September 11, only 6 percent of shipping containers entering U.S.
ports are screened. Despite the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
and despite Coast Guard recommendations that $5.4 billion is needed for
port security over a 10-year period, the Republican Congress has
appropriated only $800 million in grants during the last 5 years. I
commend Senator Byrd for the port security additions he has made over
time and to this bill. Following its failed effort to approve the Dubai
Ports deal, the administration has recently made a big show of arrests
of undocumented workers at one company. Ironically, those recent raids
emphasize how little this administration has done over the last 5 years
in terms of interior enforcement and enforcement of prohibitions
against employers' illegal hirings. Where is the President's leadership
on these critical issues?
I was pleased to see an increase in the President's proposed budget
to allow for the hiring of 1,500 or more Border Patrol agents in 2007.
The Judiciary Committee reported a bipartisan bill that calls for even
more agents and investigators than that. But even the 1,500 new agents
proved to be another hollow promise from the Bush administration. On
closer scrutiny, it is clear that the funds to pay for these agents do
not exist. The administration's budget also fails to specify whether
any of these new positions are allocated to the northern border.
The President's budget priorities for fiscal year 2007 raise other
serious concerns, including a proposal to eliminate grants dedicated to
port security. This short-sighted proposal inexplicably shortchanges
what we know is already a critically vulnerable aspect of our border
security. It is difficult to reconcile what this President says about
border security and what his administration does or does not do.
The lack of effectiveness of this administration is represented for
many Americans by the Department of Homeland Security's failures to
prepare for and respond to Hurricane Katrina. It was a disgrace and a
human tragedy. It has been 6 months since the hurricane hit. We know
that 1,604 lives were lost, but approximately 1,840 individuals are
still listed as ``missing'' or ``whereabouts unknown.'' These numbers
are astonishing. Is it possible that more lives were taken by Hurricane
Katrina--a storm that we knew was coming for several days before it
hit--than on September 11, 2001, when we were attacked without warning?
What is being done to locate these persons and discover if they are
living or if their lives were taken in the storm? It is no surprise
that Congress is required to force action on border security when we
consider how the Bush administration has performed.
I support the additional funding for border security in these
amendments, though I do so with the regret that the Bush
administration's lack of leadership on this critical issue has brought
us to this point. Many of the items are the types of expenditures that
we are now categorizing as ``emergency spending'' because of more than
5 years of neglect and incompetence in making them part of our regular
budget and spending priorities as they should have been.
I conclude by commending the Democratic leader for his amendment. He
has recognized a serious concern with the way that the alternative
amendment was drafted. Both amendments contain the same funding. Both
provide for long overdue law enforcement communications upgrades.
Senator Gregg and I have worked on these matters since the tragic Drega
incidents that affected our States demonstrated this critical need.
Both amendments contain funding for border patrol vehicles and
surveillance technology. Years ago it was a Vermont agent who helped
develop remote sensors for border patrol purposes. Both contain almost
$800 million for helicopter replacement and other air patrol and
surveillance needs. Both contain $600 million for the Coast Guard
vessels, aircraft, and equipment that is needed. Some of the other
inclusions are less essential but I will not quibble with the
subcommittee chairman or the Democratic leader who both include the
same items and dollar amounts.
The difference between the amendments is a significant one, however,
as the Democratic leader has explained. He supports, we all support,
increased border security. But his amendment ensures that these
additions are not paid for by taking funds from the emergency funding
recommended for the needs of troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or
from the needs of those victimized by Hurricane Katrina in the gulf
region. We should not be cutting pay and benefits for our National
Guard, Active Duty and Reserve troops. We should not be cutting Iraqi
security force training funding. We should not be cutting the Joint
Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Fund that is intended to protect our
troops from the scourge of deadly IEDs that threaten them in Iraq. We
should not be cutting but should be improving health programs for out
veterans and, sadly, the death benefits for their families. I agree
with Senator Reid and will support his amendment to better secure our
borders and years of neglect but will do so without shortchanging the
needs of the troops whom the President has committed to fighting in
Iraq, and that we all authorized be sent to Afghanistan.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate will vote today on two amendments
to provide $1.9 billion of critical resources to enhance our border
security. I will vote for both amendments.
Last month, the Senate began debate on immigration and border
security legislation, part of which would authorize a whole host of
items intended to secure our borders. The legislation would authorize
the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents. The legislation would
authorize the hiring of additional immigration enforcement agents and
detention officers. It would authorize border surveillance technology
and unmanned aerial vehicles. However, the immigration bill is just an
authorization bill. If you are serious
[[Page S3540]]
about border security, you must approve real dollars.
Yesterday, the administration sent Congress a Statement of
Administration Policy on the pending emergency supplemental bill. I
will ask that the statement be printed in the Record. In this
statement, the President threatens to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5
billion. He opposes providing disaster aid to our farmers impacted by
drought and hurricanes. He opposes funding for 31 States to repair
highways that were damaged by floods, and other disasters. He fails to
endorse critical investments in port security.
By threatening to veto the bill if it exceeds $94.5 billion, he
forces the Congress to make very difficult tradeoffs. By endorsing
additional border security funding while capping the bill at $94.5
billion, the President is supporting cuts in his own request for the
Department of Defense, or for aiding the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
I think this tradeoff is unnecessary and unfortunate. That is why I
will vote for the Reid amendment. However, Chairman Gregg has done an
excellent job in crafting the $1.9 billion package of border security
investments. If the only way to get the additional border security
funds is to accept the President's position requiring offsets, then, in
this case, I will vote for the Gregg amendment as well.
I ask unanimous consent that the before mentioned statement be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 4939--Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006
(Sponsors: Cochran (R), Mississippi; Byrd (D), West Virginia)
The Administration supports expeditious Senate passage of
an FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental for the Global War on
Terror and Hurricane Relief as requested by the President.
The Administration commends the Committee for its continued
support for our ongoing military and intelligence operations
in the Global War on Terror (GWOT), other international
activities, and hurricane relief and reconstruction. The
Senate reported bill also included $2.3 billion in emergency
funds for pandemic influenza preparedness and prevention
included in the President's Budget for FY 2007. The
Administration wants to work with Congress to secure
enactment of pandemic influenza funding before October 1,
2006, and believes this is an appropriate vehicle to ensure
the funding is available when it is needed.
However, the Senate reported bill substantially exceeds the
President's request, primarily for items that are unrelated
to the GWOT and hurricane response. The Administration is
seriously concerned with the overall funding level and the
numerous unrequested items included in the Senate bill that
are unrelated to the war or emergency hurricane relief needs.
The final version of the legislation must remain focused on
addressing urgent national priorities while maintaining
fiscal discipline. Accordingly, if the President is
ultimately presented a bill that provides more than $92.2
billion, exclusive of funding for the President's plan to
address pandemic influenza. he will veto the bill.
In addition, today the President sent to Congress a
revision to the Administration's pending supplemental
request, asking for an additional $2.2 billion for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to heighten and strengthen levees in
New Orleans. This additional funding is fully offset by a
corresponding reduction to the previous request for the
Disaster Relief Fund and assumes a non-Federal share for a
portion of the work. The Administration urges the Senate to
amend the bill to incorporate this revised request during its
consideration of the bill.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Global War on Terror (GWOT)
The Administration appreciates the Committee's strong
commitments to the President's funding request for ongoing
military operations in the GWOT. The Administration also
commends the Committee for funding the President's request
for international funding for counter-insurgency and
stabilization activities in Iraq and urgent, unanticipated
needs to help relieve human suffering, including in Sudan and
other parts of Africa.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's full support
for the training of the Iraqi Security Forces, but opposes
the $290 million reduction from the President's request of
$2.2 billion for the Afghan Security Forces Fund (ASFF).
This reduction to ASFF would set back efforts to build
police forces by denying them the ability to operate from
secure, functional, and economical facilities. Such
setbacks hamper the effort to build cohesive units able to
secure the peace and foster continued democratic
transition in Afghanistan.
Similarly, the Administration opposes the reduction of
funding for coalition support by more than one-half, or $760
million. Failure to fund this effort through the end of the
calendar year would jeopardize continued coalition partner
support and a shared coalition responsibility for success in
Iraq and Afghanistan this fall and winter.
The Administration opposes the reduction in requested
transfer authority, particularly the failure to increase
general transfer authority from $3.75 billion to $5 billion.
The lack of additional transfer authority and needed
flexibility will hamper the Department of Defense's (DOD's)
ability to ensure that funding goes to the most pressing
requirements.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
military pay and allowance programs, but notes that the
increase of over $500 million for these programs should have
been appropriated in the base appropriations bill for FY
2006. The Administration opposes the inclusion of unrequested
procurement funding while reducing critical funds for
supporting combat missions in Iraq and for responding to
unanticipated requirements. The Committee reduces $104
million from the Army's Operation and Maintenance account
that is intended to sustain Iraqi military forces operating
side-by-side with American units.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the National and Military Intelligence Programs. However, the
bill funds the National Intelligence Program at a higher
level than requested, particularly for the National
Reconnaissance Office. The Administration urges the Senate to
redirect this funding to restore other reductions to the
President's request.
In addition, the Administration is concerned about the $13
million rescission to the Export-Import Bank's subsidy
appropriations that are available for tied-aid grants, which
help deter or defend against trade distortions caused by
government-to-government concessional financing of public
sector capital projects in developing countries.
Hurricane Disaster Relief and Recovery
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the request for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. However, the
Administration is concerned that the additional $1.2 billion
provided far exceeds what is needed for the new ``alternative
housing pilot program'' authorized in the bill. Such a pilot
program should maintain the Department of Housing and Urban
Development as the lead agency for longer-term and permanent
housing initiatives, and focus on cost-effective alternatives
that treat severely affected communities equitably.
The Committee provides $5.2 billion in Community
Development Block Grant funds, $1 billion above the request.
The Administration is concerned that the bill would permit
funding to all affected States rather than limiting it to
Louisiana, as requested, because Louisiana faces unique needs
to mitigate future flood risk and address other housing
concerns. The Administration also believes that designation
of $1 billion of the total for affordable rental housing is
unnecessary and hampers the ability of local communities
to prioritize funding based on local needs and citizen
input.
The Administration commends the Committee for supporting
the President's proposed actions to strengthen the Greater
New Orleans hurricane protection system, including providing
needed authorization for levee improvements and restoration
of wetlands. Today the Administration is transmitting a
proposal to Congress to authorize and fund actions needed to
certify the majority of the levee system in the New Orleans
area and, where needed, replace floodwalls. The
Administration requests that Congress support the revised
request, which is fully offset by a reduction to the Disaster
Relief Fund request.
The Administration urges the Senate to eliminate section
2303, which instructs the Navy to adjust shipbuilding
contracts for business disruptions that contractors incurred
as a result of the hurricanes in 2005, for several reasons.
First, it would require the Navy to cover shipbuilding costs
that are routinely borne by private insurance, creating an
incentive for insurance companies to deny payments. Expanding
the scope of the Navy's liability would also limit
flexibility in future contract negotiations because
shipbuilders could claim business disruption for years to
come. Second, Federal Acquisition Regulations expressly
disallow insurable losses and already adequately evaluate the
costs at issue in the shipbuilding contracts. Third, the
legislation would require the Navy to cover business
disruption costs of any affected shipyard--including those
completely unrelated to DOD.
The Administration also opposes the $594 million provided
for Federal Highway Emergency Relief for requirements
unrelated to the Gulf hurricanes, and the $200 million
provided to the Federal Transit Administration, which was not
requested.
The Administration strongly objects to the $700 million
included in the Senate bill to relocate the privately owned
rail line that runs along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The CSX
Corporation, using its own resources, has already repaired
damage to the line, and trains are now running. Relocating
the tracks would represent a substantial investment beyond
pre-disaster conditions and would improperly require U.S.
taxpayers to pay for private sector infrastructure.
[[Page S3541]]
The Senate is also urged to eliminate other unrequested and
unnecessary funding and programmatic waivers in the bill,
such as that included for the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, private historic residences, USDA debris
removal and rural development programs, Job Corps
construction, National Civilian Community Corps, Army Corps
projects and reprogramming activities, and grants for Federal
law enforcement.
Other Items
The Administration understands that an amendment may be
offered to add additional funding for border security
efforts. The Administration believes that such funding can
significantly complement comprehensive immigration reform
that provides enhanced border security and increased interior
enforcement efforts and creates a temporary worker program
that does not provide amnesty and allows new citizens to
fully assimilate into their communities. The Administration
looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that any
additional funding provided for these purposes is targeted to
address enforcement challenges on the Nation's borders most
effectively.
The Administration strongly opposes the Committee's
agricultural assistance proposal, totaling nearly $4 billion.
The 2002 Farm Bill was designed, when combined with crop
insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster
assistance. In 2005, many crops had record or near-record
production, and U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the
second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of
assistance is excessive and may over-compensate certain
producers for their losses.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the President's proposed funding to rebuild a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration facility, assess
fishery resources, and provide mapping to assist debris
removal. However, the Administration strongly objects to the
additional $1.1 billion provided for the Department of
Commerce. Providing direct income assistance would constitute
preferential treatment for fishing industry participants, who
are already eligible for other sources of assistance. In
addition, the Committee provides substantial funding for non-
emergency needs such as a promotion campaign for seafood.
The Administration urges the Senate to remove a provision
prohibiting the use of funds to implement a final rule
regarding foreign control of U.S. airlines. The
Administration is committed to working with the Congress to
address concerns with the rule.
The Administration objects to restrictions on the
Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA) ability to use a
portion of its secondary revenues to pay down debt owed to
the Treasury. The Administration's proposal is consistent
with sound business principles and would provide BPA with
more financial flexibility to meet its long-term capital
investment needs.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the Administration's previous request for pandemic influenza
prevention and preparedness activities and looks forward to
working with the Congress to ensure this funding is allocated
in the most effective manner possible to achieve our
preparedness and prevention goals.
Constitutional Concerns
The language under the heading, ``State and Local Law
Enforcement, Office of Justice Programs,'' purports to
require that the Attorney General consult with Congress prior
to obligating funds. Because this provision would infringe on
separation of powers, it should be modified to be permissive.
In addition, Section 2503 of the bill purports to require
approval of the Committees prior to the obligation of funds.
This provision should be changed to require only notification
of Congress, since any other interpretation would contradict
the Supreme Court's ruling in INS v. Chadha.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the increased funding for
border security that is provided by the Gregg and Reid amendments. This
funding for replacing and upgrading the equipment and vehicles that we
need to protect our borders is vital to our security. Of course, border
security alone will not solve our immigration problem, and I am
committed to working toward comprehensive immigration reform. But
providing much needed resources to those who are working to secure our
borders is a critical part of guaranteeing our national security and
dealing with our broken immigration system.
Although both amendments would provide this funding, only Senator
Gregg's was offset. The spending of this Republican-controlled Congress
has been out of control, and it is beyond time to rein it in. The Gregg
amendment is a start. The 2.75-percent cut to the defense portions of
this bill will not come out of important items to protect our troops. I
would never consider supporting any measure that threatened their
safety. This is supposed to be an emergency funding bill, but there are
billions of dollars of nonemergency items in the bloated defense
portion of this bill that have nothing to do with protecting our troops
and have no business in this supplemental--items that can be cut to pay
for the real border security needs funded in both amendments. Some
examples include the unrequested funding for V-22 Ospreys and C-17s and
the clearly nonemergency Army modularity program. Our spending on our
national security is also completely imbalanced, with almost all
resources going to the Department of Defense and very little to other
important national security priorities such as border security and the
U.S. Coast Guard. The Gregg amendment brings back some balance to our
spending.
Mrs. BOXER. I rise today to express my opposition to the amendment
put forward by Senator Gregg to the emergency supplemental
appropriations bill--an amendment to provide additional funding for
border security at the expense of the U.S. Armed Forces.
While I certainly support the goal of providing an additional $1.9
billion to secure our Nation's borders, it is completely unconscionable
to cut funding for our military men and women at a time when they are
risking their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let me explain how Senator Gregg's amendment would hurt our military.
The Gregg amendment cuts Department of Defense programs included in
this bill. This includes critical funding, such as funding for the
military personnel account--which provides pay and benefits for Active-
Duty, Guard and Reserve troops--and the Defense Health Program, which
is responsible for providing our troops with medical assistance.
Funding for the training of Iraqi security forces is included, as
well. We know this mission is critical to our success in Iraq and the
ability to bring home our brave servicemembers.
The bill also includes funding for the Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Fund, which provides assistance to our troops seeking to
eliminate IEDs the leading cause of death for U.S. troops in Iraq.
Furthermore, the Death Gratuity Fund, which provides assistance to
the families of fallen soldiers, is included in this bill.
Senator Gregg's amendment seeks to secure our borders but does so by
reducing much-needed funding for the men and women fighting for our
country every day. This is unacceptable.
While I oppose Senator Gregg's amendment, I am pleased to support
Senator Reid's amendment. The Reid amendment also provides nearly $2
billion in additional funding for our Nation's border security but
without dangerous funding cuts that would harm our troops.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the
Democratic side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the news this morning tells us Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is in Iraq. That is a good thing. It is a
good thing for the leaders of our Government to be in touch in the
field to let them know we are on their side. I am glad the Secretary is
there. I know when he visits there, he often learns things--things that
help us wage this war more effectively.
Do you remember not so long ago when Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld had an open meeting with the soldiers in Iraq? He invited them
to comment on how the war was going. A member of the Tennessee National
Guard stood up and said: Mr. Secretary, why as a soldier do I have to
dig through a dump to find a piece of metal to put in my humvee to
protect me and my fellow soldiers? Why has it come to this?
It was a moment of great embarrassment for the Secretary. It was a
moment of embarrassment for our Nation. We ask these young men and
women to take an oath to defend this country and risk their lives in
uniform for us every day. We stand and sit in the comfort of this
Chamber on Capitol Hill with all of the protection around us, and they
wake up every morning putting on a uniform knowing it may be their last
day on Earth.
Now take a look at this amendment. Take a close look at this
amendment. This amendment is designed to give us better control of our
borders, and we need it. Our borders are out of control. There are
500,000 illegal people crossing
[[Page S3542]]
them every year, at least. We know that has to change, not just because
of the immigration issue, a terrible challenge to America to get it
right, but because of security. So we all support, on both sides of the
aisle, more resources at the borders, more people, more technology,
better efforts to stop this illegal flow of immigration.
It is a serious problem, and we should take it seriously. That is why
the Democratic leader, Senator Reid, has offered this amendment, an
amendment which provides the resources for the border. He says it is an
emergency; it should be treated as such. I couldn't agree with him
more.
But listen to the other side of the aisle. Senator Gregg on the
Republican side said we can only pay for border security at the expense
of soldiers in the field. He takes the roughly $2 billion out of the
military account to make our borders stronger. That is not fair to the
soldiers. It is not fair to the men and women who are risking their
lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We know we have failed them many times. This administration has
failed to provide the body armor these troops needed. Senator Dodd of
Connecticut had to offer an amendment to allow ordinary American
families to deduct from their taxes the cost of body armor that they
would buy for their soldiers which they sent overseas. I have met them
in Illinois, families who said: I got tired of waiting for the Army to
give my son protection; my wife and I bought it ourselves.
Another one said: We had a little potluck supper at church to raise
money for body armor for our soldiers.
Think about that. We know about these humvees. They were death traps
for entirely too long. They were not well protected. We know what
happened. We had helicopters in the field that didn't have good defense
devices, and they were shot down.
Now the Republican side says let's take more money away from the
defense of our soldiers so our borders are more secure. What a terrible
choice to ask of this Senate, but what an easy choice for many of us.
I am not going to take money away from these soldiers. This Senator
voted against this war in Iraq, but I have voted to give this President
and this administration every penny they have asked for to wage this
war for one basic reason. I thought to myself: What if it were my son
or daughter, would I want them to have the best equipment and best
supplies, even if I felt the foreign policy was wrong? You bet. And
when it comes to this choice in this amendment, it is very clear. We
can take the Republican approach of making our borders safer while
making our soldiers less safe, or we can take the approach which
Senator Reid is suggesting: Declare this an emergency at our borders
that deserves emergency status.
Isn't it interesting, when it comes down to these choices, so many on
the Republican side of the aisle say: Now we are going to be fiscal
conservatives, fiscal conservatives at the expense of our soldiers. It
is plain wrong.
I ask my colleagues: Read these amendments carefully. Understand the
stark choice we are being given. Support Senator Reid's amendment which
declares it an emergency to have strong enforcement at the borders but
not at the expense of our men and women in uniform who risk their lives
while we stand in the safety of this Capitol Building.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the chairman
of the Budget Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from New
Hampshire, but he is absolutely wrong on this issue. I heard his
impassioned statement that this is no problem; anyone who says this is
a problem, they haven't read the bill.
The amendment is written in English. It is very clear:
The aggregate amount provided by . . . chapter 3 of title
II of this Act may not exceed $67,062,188,000.
The amendment takes $1.9 billion from this bill. It seems rather
unusual to me that on an emergency appropriations bill--this bill--
everything in it is being paid for, like everything else around here,
by the American taxpayers. This, I am sorry to say--like most of what
has been paid for in the past 5\1/2\ years in the Bush administration--
is being paid by my children, their children, their children's
children. Deficit spending and suddenly there is a concern about this.
Our concern is that money that should go to our gallant troops in
Iraq and Afghanistan will not go to them if the amendment that has been
offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is adopted.
What are these cuts? They are cuts to the military personnel account,
operations and maintenance, Iraqi security forces training, the
improvised explosive device defeat fund, defense health program. What
are these programs? No matter what my friend from New Hampshire says,
the $2 billion has to come from someplace, and this is what is in this
bill:
Military personnel account: This includes hardship pay for those in
the line of fire--I think people in Afghanistan and Iraq who are
serving in our military qualify for that--and family separation pay for
those who are forced to serve in combat zones away from their families.
Is this what we want, for men and women currently serving in Iraq and
Afghanistan not to get this pay I have outlined?
The operations and maintenance accounts provide resources for the
day-to-day needs of our military. This money allows our forces to
conduct operations against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. It
includes money for nuts-and-bolts activities--the airlifts, the
transportation, and other logistical missions. It also provides for the
Commander's Emergency Response Program which gives resources to
commanders on the front lines to support humanitarian reconstruction
projects. If a commander in the streets of Baghdad wants to put up a
power line that was knocked down, this account gives them tools to do
that. Is this what we want to cut?
As the President has said time and again, as foreign troops stand up,
we can stand down. This account is what will help us ensure foreign
troops are able to stand up. It is the money that we use to assist the
Governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to assume increased responsibility
for their Nation's security. Is this what we want to cut? I hope not.
The joint improvised explosive device defeat account: Explosive
devices every day are a threat to our forces in Iraq. This account
directs money helping our troops to spot these IEDs and defuse them.
These people in Iraq are very ingenious. We figure out a way to stop
them from using a certain method, and they figure out a way to go
around that. We need to stay ahead of them. We are not doing a very
good job of that, and cutting money from this account isn't going to
help. Our troops need resources so they can keep up with everchanging
enemy tactics. This account will help them do that.
Defense health program: This is money for health care for our
troops--and their families--who are serving today in Iraq. It is their
health care.
The choice here is pretty direct: If the amendment offered by the
Senator from New Hampshire is adopted, we will have added border
security.
Mr. President, I will use my leader time now.
If the amendment offered by the Senator from New Hampshire is
adopted, we will have improved border security, and that is important.
If there were ever an emergency, this is it. If my amendment is
adopted, we will have increased border protection. But with my
amendment, we pay for it as we do everything else in this bill--in this
bill. I think it is rather unusual to have the majority coming to the
floor now suddenly with qualms of conscience about these deficits that
have been run up by President Bush and his administration--trillions of
dollars, not billions, trillions.
I am not willing to vote to cut the military personnel account,
operations and maintenance, Iraqi security forces training, explosive
device defeat fund, the defense health program, or the death gratuity
fund. I am not willing to cut those programs. I want border security.
It is important. I was 3 weeks ago today on the border. If there ever
was an emergency and we need to do something, it is this program. I
don't make any apologies for saying this situation on the border is an
emergency.
[[Page S3543]]
It is an emergency, like other matters in this bill.
I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will vote to give the troops
everything they need and also do a better job of protecting our
borders.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, in a few moments we will begin the votes
on these two amendments. I wish to say right up front that I applaud
and congratulate Senator Judd Gregg, chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Homeland Security, for having as the very first
amendment on the supplemental request an amendment that focuses on
border security, on national security, on tightening the borders that
we all know are too porous. It shows good leadership. It shows
priorities in this being the first amendment to tighten the borders and
strong border enforcement.
Actually, the first step was taken last year by Senator Gregg, when
we were on this floor, under his leadership, and funded an additional
1,400 border guards, as well as 1,800 detention beds, a strong
statement recognizing the importance of addressing border security.
This is step two today in addressing more the capital expenditures, the
equipment, the infrastructure which we know those border guards require
to guard that border.
A key element of our security, of our global war on terrorism,
indeed, is securing our Nation's borders, and this amendment takes that
next major step in that direction by providing $1.9 billion for
improving that border infrastructure.
The Democratic leader just mentioned he had been on the southern
border. I have been on the southern border. It doesn't take long to
witness for every one person detained and stopped, there are two or
three people who sneak around that border, and that is as many as 2 to
3 million people a year who come to this country. We don't know who
they are, why they are here, or what their intentions are. For this
particular amendment, there are a number of things we have talked about
over the course of the morning. It will provide needed funds to upgrade
an outdated P-3 aircraft fleet that is used for surveillance along our
borders. When you are there and you look at that 1,900 mile border, you
know how important it is to have those surveillance aircraft to be able
to look down and identify along that long expanse people coming across
illegally. It will provide needed funding for a number of unmanned
aerial vehicles operating along our southwest border. As we talked
about already today, it is amazing that we only have one UAV, unmanned
aerial vehicle, which has worked very effectively, but--I said we
have--we had, because literally that aircraft crashed yesterday morning
while serving along that Arizona border.
The amendment will provide additional resources for continued
construction of the border fence--the fence itself, the physical
structure--near San Diego.
This first amendment also sets what is a very important standard
framework, a fiscal spending framework as we begin debate on this
emergency funding bill. The initiative included in the amendment put
forward by our side of the aisle--we initiated this amendment for the
tightening of border security--is paid for in the bill itself, and that
is a very important framework which I hope we can continue to use for
absolutely necessary emergency spending as we look at the rest of this
bill.
Securing our borders is the first step for any action we need to take
in terms of more comprehensive reform of immigration, an issue we
debated for 2 weeks on the floor beginning about a month ago and an
issue we will come back to. But border security is first, it is
foremost. I feel strongly that we need to look at workplace enforcement
and interior enforcement and a temporary worker program as well, and we
will come back to that later. But now is the time for us to say
forcefully that we are serious about tightening that border, and we
will provide the resources, the personnel, and capital infrastructure
to do just that.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it now be in order to
ask for the yeas and nays on both amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Madam President, I now ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3594. The clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is
absent due to illness in family.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 94 Leg.]
YEAS--59
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Isakson
Kyl
Landrieu
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Murray
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--39
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Harkin
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3594) was agreed to.
Mr. GREGG. Madam 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.
Vote on Amendment No. 3604
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on
agreeing to amendment No. 3604 offered by the Senator from Nevada, Mr.
Reid. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator
from Massachussetts (Mr. Kerry) is absent due to illness in the family.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachussetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 95 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Talent
Wyden
NAYS--54
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
[[Page S3544]]
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3604) was rejected.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3616, 3617, 3618 and 3619, en bloc
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside and I send four amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments
numbered 3616, 3617, 3618, and 3619, en bloc.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3616
(Purpose: To strike a provision that provides $74.5 million to states
based on their production of certain types of crops, livestock and or
dairy products, which was not included in the Administration's
emergency supplemental request)
On Page 229, strike lines 5 through 14.
AMENDMENT NO. 3617
(Purpose: To strike a provision that provides $6 million to sugarcane
growers in Hawaii, which was not included in the Administration's
emergency supplemental request)
Beginning on Page 224, strike line 23 through line 10 on
page 225.
AMENDMENT NO. 3618
(Purpose: To strike $15 million for a seafood promotion strategy that
was not included in the Administration's emergency supplemental
request)
Beginning on page 138, line 24, strike all after the ``:''
through ``fisheries'' on page 139, line 2.
AMENDMENT NO. 3619
(Purpose: To strike the limitation on the use of funds for the issuance
or implementation of certain rulemaking decisions related to the
interpretation of ``actual control'' of airlines)
Beginning on page 250, strike line 24 and all that follows
through page 251, line 12.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague from Virginia.
Amendments Nos. 3620 and 3621, en bloc
Mr. WARNER. I ask that the pending amendments be laid aside and I be
allowed to send to the desk two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes amendments
numbered 3620 and 3621, en bloc.
Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendments be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENT NO. 3620
(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for 12 operational aircraft
carriers within the Navy)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. __. Section 5062 of title 10, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking subsection (b); and
(2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections
(b) and (c), respectively.
AMENDMENT NO. 3621
(Purpose: To equalize authorities to provide allowances, benefits, and
gratuities to civilian personnel of the United States Government in
Iraq and Afghanistan)
On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
AUTHORITY TO EQUALIZE ALLOWANCES, BENEFITS, AND GRATUITIES OF PERSONNEL
ON OFFICIAL DUTY IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Sec. 1405. (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following
findings:
(1) As part of the United States effort to bring democracy
and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, employees of a broad
range of Federal agencies are needed to serve in those
countries, furnishing expertise to their counterpart agencies
in the Government of Iraq and the Government of Afghanistan.
(2) While the heads of a number of Federal agencies already
possess authority to provide to their personnel on official
duty abroad allowances, benefits, and death gratuities
comparable to those provided by the Secretary of State to
similarly-situated Foreign Service personnel on official duty
abroad, other agency heads do not possess such authority.
(3) In order to assist the United States Government in
recruiting personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to
avoid inequities in allowances, benefits, and death
gratuities among similarly-situated United States Government
civilian personnel on official duty in these countries, it is
essential that the heads of all agencies that have personnel
on official duty in Iraq and Afghanistan have the same basic
authority with respect to allowances, benefits, and death
gratuities for such personnel.
(b) In General.--During any fiscal year, the head of an
agency may, in the agency head's discretion, provide to an
individual employed by, or assigned or detailed to, such
agency allowances, benefits, and gratuities comparable to
those provided by the Secretary of State to members of the
Foreign Service under section 413 and chapter 9 of title I of
the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3973; 4081 et
seq.), if such individual is on official duty in Iraq or
Afghanistan.
(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impair or otherwise affect the authority of the
head of an agency under any other provision of law.
(d) Applicability of Certain Authorities.--Section 912(a)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall apply with respect
to amounts received as allowances or otherwise under this
section in the same manner as section 912 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 applies with respect to amounts received
by members of the Foreign Service as allowances or otherwise
under chapter 9 of title I of the Foreign Service Act of
1980.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the U.S. Navy today very proudly has 12
aircraft carriers on active service. That is a figure that was acted
upon by this body and the other body and enacted into law, instructing
the Commander in Chief, the President, and the Secretary of Defense to
maintain no less than 12 carriers in our fleet.
Subsequent to the legislation by the Congress, and the law enacted,
the Navy has determined that the USS John F. Kennedy--a ship that bears
a name in which every Member of this Chamber takes a deep and abiding
pride--that ship is now 38 years old and is, in the judgment of the
Chief of Naval Operations, not qualified to perform her primary mission
of aviation operations. And she is not deployable without a significant
investment of resources. By that I mean to return her to her primary
mission would require an inordinate amount of money to go into
reconstruction of the launching and arresting gear, the main
powerplant, steam-powered plant. She is a conventional as opposed to a
nuclear-powered carrier.
It is a decision of the Department of the Navy that those
expenditures on a ship 38 years old are simply not prudent, not in the
best interests of the Navy, and those funds should be directed towards
new ship construction.
As to the risks inherent to naval aviation--and they are very
significant risks to all of us who have been aboard those carriers and
watched aircraft take off and land--and as to maintaining her at sea,
at this point in time she cannot perform that primary mission.
Therefore, the purpose of this amendment is to revise the previous
legislation such that the Secretary of the Navy can retire this ship.
Now, I recognize to many it is a painful thing to realize this ship
can no longer serve. But these are the consequences, if we were not to
enact this legislation: Each month there is a delay on a decision--the
decision being not acting on this piece of legislation--costs the Navy
$20 million in operations and manpower funds, funds that are sorely
needed elsewhere by the Navy.
It puts an extraordinary burden upon the sailors who are proudly
attached to this ship and deep in their hearts regret that ship can no
longer perform its primary mission. And it puts a burden on their
families. There have to be adjustments in their new assignments--moves,
transfers, and all the other personnel actions that are essential to
maintain our fleets throughout the world.
Madam President, as I said, I rise today to offer an important piece
of legislation related to our Navy and national security.
The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on
the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware,
in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review the global
war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on our naval
combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented fundamental
changes to fleet deployment practices that have increased total force
availability, and it has fielded advances in ship systems, aircraft,
and precision weapons that have
[[Page S3545]]
provided appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.
However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in
decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the
Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security requires
that we modernize and expand our Navy.
The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires
that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further
in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force, to
increase our expeditionary capability, to maintain our undersea
superiority, and to develop the ability to penetrate the littorals with
the same command we possess today in the open seas.
The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical
requirements against the backdrop of the National Defense Strategy and
concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. This determination
is in whole agreement with concerns raised by Congress as the rate of
shipbuilding declined over the past 15 years. Now we must finance this
critical modernization, and in doing so we must strike an affordable
balance between existing and future force structure.
The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike
group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier
capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11
aircraft carriers provide the decisively superior combat capability
required by the National Defense Strategy. Carefully considering this
conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12
to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the
naval force.
Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service
life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy, CV-67.
The compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F.
Kennedy, CV-67, is not qualified to perform her primary mission of
aviation operations, and she is not deployable without a significant
investment of resources. Recognizing the great complexity and the risks
inherent to naval aviation, there are very real concerns regarding the
ability to maintain the Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for
our sailors at sea.
In the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to
safely operate and deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the future
prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to invest in
modernizing the naval force.
Meanwhile, each month that we delay on this decision costs the Navy
$20 million in operations and manpower costs that are sorely needed to
support greater priorities, and it levies an untold burden on the lives
of the sailors and their families assigned to the Kennedy.
We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men
and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where
called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the
world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force
structure, raising concerns with regard to long-term impacts on
operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base
that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am
encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger,
modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant
seapower through the 21st century.
However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources,
it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have
served this country for so long.
To this end, I offer this amendment which would eliminate the
requirement for the naval combat forces of the Navy to include not less
than 12 operational aircraft carriers.
Therefore, I urge the Senate to act favorably upon this amendment. At
this time I will not seek the yeas and nays. I will defer to the
manager that at such time as he believes it is appropriate that this
matter be brought up.
Now, Madam President, to the second amendment. I have taken a great
interest, along with other Senators--and it came into clear focus on my
last trip to Afghanistan and to Iraq--that we simply have insufficient
infrastructure in place from those Departments and agencies other than
the Department of Defense. We are ever so proud of the courage and the
dedication of the men and women in uniform who each day are assuming
risks to see that the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have a government
of their own choosing and take their place alongside other democracies
in our world community.
But they need help, those military people. The Iraqi people need
help. The new government which is making considerable progress towards
its formation needs help. We need people experienced in agriculture,
people experienced in commerce, people who can help them devise a code
of military justice, a framework of laws, the whole framework of
infrastructure that must be put in place to support these emerging
democracies.
I first learned of this need in testimony months ago by General
Abizaid, General Casey, Ambassador Khalilzad appearing before the Armed
Services Committee and, indeed, in other public appearances. I have
talked to them personally.
I subsequently have had two brief meetings with the President of the
United States on this subject. I am very pleased to say that he is in
full support of this legislation, which legislation devised by the
Office of Management and Budget enables the various Cabinet officers to
give additional incentives to their employees to accept all of the
risks and hardships of being transferred to Iraq to perform missions to
support our military, to support the formation of the new government by
the Iraqi people.
Madam President, as I said, I rise today to propose an amendment
along with Senators Lugar and Clinton that will equalize authorities to
provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian personnel of
the U.S. Government serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Many civilian agencies and Departments already have provisions to
provide pay, allowances, benefits, and gratuities in danger zones.
However, others do not. This amendment applies to those currently
without such authorities.
Over the past few months, the President has explained candidly and
frankly what is at stake in Iraq and Afghanistan. The free nations of
the world must be steadfast in helping the people of these nations to
attain a level of democracy and freedom of their own choosing.
It is vital to the security of the American people that we help them
succeed such that their lands never again become the breeding ground or
haven for terrorism as was Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden and al-
Qaida.
We have seen how terrorists and insurgents in Iraq have failed to
stop Iraq's democratic progress.
They tried to stop the transfer of sovereignty in June 2004; they
tried to stop millions from voting in the January 2005 elections; they
tried to stop Sunnis from participating in the October 2005
constitutional referendum; they tried to stop millions from voting in
the December 2005 elections to form a permanent government under that
constitution; and, in each case, they failed.
Just in the past few days, there have been significant, encouraging
developments toward forming a unity government in Iraq. Clearly, the
efforts of administration officials and congressional Members in
meetings with Iraqi leaders and parliamentarians have contributed to
these developments.
In my view, this represents important forward momentum, which has
been long awaited. The new leadership in Iraq is making commitments to
complete cabinet selection and take other actions to stand up a unity
government. This is a pivotal moment in that critical period many of us
spoke about after the December elections. We must be steadfast and
demonstrate a strong show of support for Iraq's emerging government.
For 3 years now the coalition of military forces have, from the
beginning, performed with the highest degree of professionalism, and
they and their families have borne the brunt of the loss of life,
injury, and separation.
In hearings of the Armed Services Committee this year, with a
distinguished group of witnesses, and based on two--and I say this most
respectfully and humbly--personal conversations I have had with the
President of the United States and, indeed, the Secretary of State, I
very forcefully said
[[Page S3546]]
to each of them that we need to get the entirety of our Federal
Government engaged in our efforts to a greater degree.
The Department of Defense concurs. I was struck by the 2006 QDR that
which aptly states that:
Success requires unified statecraft: the ability of the
U.S. Government to bring to bear all elements of national
power at home and to work in close cooperation with allies
and partners abroad.
I would add that General Abizaid, when he appeared before our
committee this year, stated in his posture statement:
we need significantly more non-military personnel . . .
with expertise in areas such as economic development, civil
affairs, agriculture, and law.
I fully agree. I, along with five other Senators, heard the same
sentiments from our field commanders and diplomatic officials during a
trip to Iraq and Afghanistan last month.
The United States has a talented and magnificent Federal work force
whose skills and expertise are in urgent need in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We must provide our agency heads with the tools they need to harness
these elements of national power at this critical time.
I have spoken about this publicly on previous occasions. I have
written to each Cabinet Secretary asking for a review of their current
and future programs to support our Nation's goals and objectives in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have spoken to the President about this.
I will ask to have a copy of one of the letters printed in the
Record.
The aim of this bill is to assist the U.S. Government in recruiting
personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to avoid inequities in
allowances, benefits, and gratuities among similarly situated U.S.
Government civilian personnel. It is essential that the heads of all
agencies who have personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have this
authority with respect to allowances, benefits, and gratuities for such
personnel.
In my conversations with President Bush and the Cabinet officers and
others, there seems to be total support.
The administration, at their initiative, asked OMB to draw up the
legislation, which I submit today in the form of an amendment.
I hope this will garner support across the aisle--Senator Clinton has
certainly been active in this area, as have others--and that we can
include this on the supplemental appropriations bill. The urgency is
now, absolutely now.
Every day it becomes more and more critical that the message of 11
million Iraqi voters in December not be silenced. We want a government,
a unified government, stood up and operating. To do that, this emerging
Iraqi Government will utilize such assets as we can provide them from
across the entire spectrum of our Government. Our troops have done
their job with the Coalition Forces.
Now it is time for others in our Federal workforce to step forward
and add their considerable devotion and expertise to make the peace
secure in those nations so the lands of Iraq and Afghanistan do not
revert to havens for terrorism and destruction. I know many in our
exceptional civilian workforce will answer this noble call in the name
of free people everywhere.
Madam President, I ask for the consideration of this amendment at
such time as the distinguished manager so desires. I will reappear on
the floor. Perhaps these amendments can be accepted. If not, I will ask
for rollcall votes.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the before
mentioned letter to Cabinet officials regarding interagency support to
our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2006.
Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
Secretary of State,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Secretary: Over the past few months, the
President has candidly and frankly explained what is at stake
in Iraq. I firmly believe that the success or failure of our
efforts in Iraq may ultimately lie at how well the next Iraqi
government is prepared to govern. For the past three years,
the United States and our coalition partners have helped the
Iraqi people prepare for this historic moment of self-
governance.
Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan requires coordinated
and integrated action among all federal departments and
agencies of our government. This mission has revealed that
our government is not adequately organized to conduct
interagency operations. I am concerned about the slow pace of
organizational reform within our civilian departments and
agencies to strengthen our interagency process and build
operational readiness.
In recent months, General Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General John P. Abizaid, USA,
Commander, United States Central Command, have emphasized the
importance of interagency coordination in Iraq and
Afghanistan. General Abizaid stated in his 2006 posture
statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``We need
significantly more non-military personnel * * * with
expertise in areas such as economic development, civil
affairs, agriculture, and law.''
Strengthening interagency operations has become the
foundation for the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).
The QDR so aptly states that, ``success requires unified
statecraft: the ability of the U.S. Government to bring to
bear all elements of national power at home and to work in
close cooperation with allies and partners abroad.'' In the
years since the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986,
``jointness'' has promoted more unified direction and action
of our Armed Forces. I now believe the time has come for
similar changes to take place elsewhere in our federal
government.
I commend the President for his leadership in issuing a
directive to improve our interagency coordination by signing
the National Security Presidential Directive-44, titled
``Management of Interagency Efforts Concerning Reconstruction
and Stabilization,'' dated December 7, 2005. I applaud each
of the heads of departments and agencies for working together
to develop this important and timely directive. Now that the
directive has been issued, I am writing to inquire about the
plan for its full implementation. In particular, what steps
have each federal department or agency taken to implement
this directive?
I ask for your personal review of the level of support
being provided by your department or agency in support of our
Nation's objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Following this
review, I request that you submit a report to me no later
than April 10, 2006, on your current and projected activities
in both theaters of operations, as well as your efforts in
implementing the directive and what additional authorities or
resources might be necessary to carry out the
responsibilities contained in the directive.
I believe it is imperative that we leverage the resident
expertise in all federal departments and agencies of our
government to address the complex problems facing the
emerging democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am prepared
to work with the executive branch to sponsor legislation, if
necessary, to overcome challenges posed by our current
organizational structures and processes that prevent an
integrated national response.
I look forward to continued consultation on this important
subject.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely,
John Warner,
Chairman.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I yield the floor.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services for his kind words about aircraft carrier named for my
brother. The chairman has long been a friend of my family, and his
support is deeply appreciated and reciprocated.
All of us in our family are proud of the USS John F. Kennedy, and to
her many years of outstanding service to our country. The keel for the
carrier was laid on October 22, 1964, in the chairman's home State of
Virginia. She was christened on May 27, 1967, by President Kennedy's
daughter Caroline, when she was just 9 years old, the carrier came to
be affectionately known to her crew as ``Big John.''
In 1983, the JFK was called upon to support U.S. forces during the
growing crisis in Beirut. Six years later, at the height of the cold
war, F-14 Tomcats assigned to the Kennedy shot down two Libyan Mig-23s
that were threatening the battle group.
Afterward, the JFK returned to the U.S. and visited New York City for
Fleet Week and then returned home to Boston for the Fourth of July, to
the state that my brother was so proud to represent. Soon after that,
she was assigned to the Red Sea, and stayed to support Gulf War I in
Operation Desert Storm in 1991.
The following year, she was deployed to the Mediterranean Sea and
monitored the turmoil in the former Yugoslavia. Later returning to the
U.S. for routine maintenance, she was designated as the Reserve
Operational Carrier.
In 1996, the carrier made a dramatic visit to the port of Dublin in
Ireland.
[[Page S3547]]
More than 10,000 visitors were able to tour the ship and learn about
her history. I was honored to be there for that visit and awed by love
the Irish people showed her. Before she left, 16 planes from the JFK
took off from the flight deck and performed a thank-you flyover of Cork
and Dublin, in gratitude for the affection shown by people.
From September 1999 through March 2000, the JFK was back in the
Mediterranean, and her aircraft patrolled Iraq's southern no-fly-zone.
In 2002, in the Mediterranean and in the Arabian Gulf, she supported
our troops in Afghanistan and Operation Enduring Freedom. She was
called on again in 2004 to support U.S. troops in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. She was relieved by the USS Harry S Truman. She returned to
her homeport in Mayport, FL, that December and last year, she made what
may be her final visits to Boston and New York.
It is bittersweet to know she will be retired, but the people of
Massachusetts and the Kennedy family are very proud of her service and
know she holds a special place in the hearts of the Navy and the
Nation.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, earlier today, the chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, Senator Chambliss, and the ranking member,
Senator Harkin of Iowa, held a very important hearing on the biofuels
industry. I hope it will be the first and not the last because
biofuels, specifically ethanol and biodiesel, are real, viable, here-
and-now alternatives to the ever-increasing cost of gasoline and diesel
fuels.
We are in the midst of another price crisis for the gasoline, diesel,
and oil upon which our citizens, our industries, and our lifestyles and
our entire national economy depend.
Most Americans want their fuel prices to be lower, but they do not
want to change their fuels in order to make them so. People say,
understandably: Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us
do anything differently. That is why I respectfully disagree with
people who say: We do not have a national energy policy. We do. And it
is to maintain the status quo for as long as possible.
That is actually a rational policy because our existing energy
sources, over 95 percent of which are oil and oil-derived products,
coal, natural gas, and nuclear, have been and, in most cases, continue
to be cheaper, more available, more convenient, and certainly more
familiar than any of their alternatives.
The sources of supplies, their production, transportation,
distribution systems, and retail networks are all well established and
well protected by everyone who profits from them. Those industries and
companies that control and profit from our country's enormous and
almost exclusive dependence upon their sources of energy have enormous
stakes in preserving their control and protecting their profits by
destroying any real competitive threats to their energy monopolies.
Nowhere are the stakes higher than in our Nation's transportation
sector. Over 40 percent of total U.S. energy consumption is of oil and
petroleum products, and over two-thirds of that oil is used for
transportation. Our country now consumes almost 30 percent of all the
oil produced in the entire world each year, which means that 20
percent, or one out of every five barrels of oil produced in the entire
world, goes into an American car, truck, train, or airplane. Up until
recently, oil was the only fuel that those cars, trucks, trains, and
airplanes could run on. What a gigantic energy monopoly that is. It is
the largest monopoly of any in the world. And like most monopolies, it
is hugely profitable for the monopolists and hugely expensive for
everyone else. Like every other source of enormous profits and
financial power, it is not going to be surrendered voluntarily by the
profitable and the powerful.
The huge oil and oil products monopoly is not going to willingly
surrender sales or market share or profits, not to a competitor such as
the biofuels industry. Like any other established energy monopolies,
they may give lip service to those energy alternatives, but they don't
really mean it. That was very clear when the Senate considered its
energy bill last year. There were full-page ads in the Hill and Roll
Call newspapers, run by the American Petroleum Institute, which smeared
the biofuels industry with the same misrepresentations, distortions,
and fearmongering that they tried to use a decade ago to defeat a 10-
percent ethanol mandate in the Minnesota Legislature.
Back then, the oil industry claimed that biofuels, particularly
ethanol, would raise the price of every gallon of gasoline, that the
supply would be impure and unreliable, and that people's gas tanks
would explode or their carburetors would implode or the cars would be
damaged or destroyed. None of those occurred. Yet almost 10 years after
Minnesota required every gallon of gasoline sold in our State to
contain at least 10 percent ethanol, we were still the only State to do
so. Nationwide, the use of ethanol is only about 2.5 percent that of
gasoline.
It turns out that regular automobile, SUV, and small truck engines
not only run very well, with no modifications at all, on 90 percent
gasoline and 10 percent ethanol, but they can also, with factory-
modified engines, run as well or even better on a blend of 85 percent
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline called E-85 fuel. In Brazil, where I
visited 2 weeks ago, automobiles run very effectively on 100 percent
ethanol.
This week's U.S. News and World Report magazine contains a two-page
ad by General Motors touting its flex fuel engines which could run on
either 100 percent regular unleaded gasoline, 85 percent ethanol, or a
combination of the two. Yesterday, Daimler-Chrysler announced that in
model year 2008, 500,000--or one-fourth of its vehicles--are going to
be produced with flex fuel engines.
The flex fuel engine is the key to unlocking the gasoline monopoly.
With a flex fuel engine, as I have in both my Minnesota and Washington
cars, the consumer has a choice at every service station offering both
regular unleaded gasoline and E-85 fuel. It is that price competition
which will do more than anything else to stop the price gouging and
profiteering by the oil and gasoline companies.
For the past 3 years, I have introduced legislation requiring that
every car, truck, and SUV sold in this country have a flex fuel engine,
beginning with the model year 2005, 2007, 2009--you can pick the year.
Some people say that simply isn't possible, but last year over 70
percent of all automobiles sold in Brazil had flex fuel engines. I met
last year in Detroit with General Motors and Ford company engineers.
They told me they can design and install flex fuel engines at a
production cost of between $100 and $300 per vehicle. They are better
engines. However, until now, most American consumers haven't known
about them or even wanted them.
We in the Federal Government can take one of two positions: We can do
nothing and let the markets eventually change manufacturers' and
consumers' behaviors, as they are starting to do now, or we can act to
accelerate that transition. It seems clear that our constituents are
clamoring for us to make available alternatives to the rising cost of
gasoline and other fuels. We have before us right now the opportunity
to do so--right now, not 10 years from now with hybrid engines, not 20
years from now with hydrogen engines. They may ultimately be more
energy efficient and environmentally friendly, but ``ultimately'' is
years away. Right now, we can give Americans a real energy alternative,
the first large-scale, readily available alternative to a traditional
energy source in many years, because ethanol--and behind it,
biodiesel--is not just a substitute for the gasoline additive MTBE, it
is a substitute for gasoline. It is not perfect. No energy source yet
is. There are transition costs, production and distribution challenges,
and similar susceptibilities to supply manipulation, price gouging, and
profiteering as with oil, gasoline, or other fossil fuels. The key is
the competition, consumers' ability to choose the lower priced, better
option.
[[Page S3548]]
Last week, traveling around Minnesota, I could choose, with my
vehicle with the flex fuel engine, between E-85, which was costing
about $2.39 a gallon, and regular unleaded gasoline, which was costing
about $2.79 a gallon. Both of those prices were significantly higher
than they were in Minnesota 6 months or a year ago. Both prices are too
high. Americans are being taken advantage of at the gas and the E-85
stations in Minnesota and other places around the country, and this
Congress has a choice whether to do something about it or to do
nothing.
President Bush said last weekend that his administration would
investigate and prosecute price gouging and profiteering at the
gasoline pump. I am glad to hear the President say that. I only
question whether he really means it because he said the same thing last
September when gasoline prices skyrocketed after Hurricane Katrina. Yet
as far as I know, there is not a single charge that has been brought
against anyone. In fact, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission
subsequently testified before a Senate committee that no ``Federal
statute makes it illegal to charge prices that are considered to be too
high, as long as companies set those prices independently.'' She went
on in her prepared statement to state that an oil company's
``independent decision to increase price is and should be outside the
purview of the law.''
As my mother used to say to me, actions speak louder than words.
Price gouging investigations and prosecutions for now are just words. I
urge the President to turn them into actions.
The President yesterday touted his support for biofuels. However, in
the last 2 years, he has signed into law cuts of almost 50 percent in
bioenergy grants. His fiscal year 2007 budget calls for a 57-percent
reduction for renewable energy grants. I urge the President and the
Congress to turn their words into actions by increasing Federal funding
for biofuels and other renewable energy research and development.
Another important action Congress should take this year is to pass a
new energy bill. Some progress toward increasing the supply and use of
biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel was achieved in last year's
energy bill but, as a nation, we are tiptoeing when we should be
running. A new energy bill should accelerate this transition away from
our Nation's increasing dependence on foreign oil which, even after
last year's legislation, is projected to increase from 62 percent now
to 67 percent in 2012. If we are really serious about reversing our
growing energy dependence on oil and its products and not being held
captive to rising oil, gasoline, and diesel prices here and around the
world, we must act again by passing energy legislation, and we must act
this year in doing so.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING
OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3633
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about what is on
everybody's mind in my State, and that is what is happening as it
relates to gas prices.
First, we all know there are multiple ways in which we need to
address this issue. I was in an Agriculture hearing this morning on
biofuels. It is very exciting to see colleagues on both sides of the
aisle talking about what we can do in the way of policy to build on
what was in the Energy bill that was passed last August in terms of
ethanol and biobased fuels.
I know in my home State, we will have five ethanol plants by the end
of the year. We already have biobased diesel being used. There are many
exciting opportunities to create jobs, to help our farmers create new
markets, to address our environmental issues in a sound way that deal
with protecting our environment, protecting the Earth and, at the same
time, getting us off foreign oil. I believe very strongly, if we work
together--and we need to do this boldly and quickly--we can start
buying our fuel from Middle America instead of the Middle East. That
should be a goal for all of us. I know colleagues on both sides of the
aisle share the excitement about moving forward in this way. We have
things happening in all of our States.
From my perspective, not only corn but sugar beets can be used for
ethanol. Soybeans are part of what we grow in our multitude of
different crops in Michigan, and there are a lot of opportunities, not
just for fuel but for us to replace oil-based plastic with corn-
byproduct-based plastic, and to do a number of other things that will
move us off foreign oil, which needs to be one of our major goals as a
Congress, and certainly working here in the Senate.
We have some short-term issues we have to deal with as well. While we
move boldly--and I believe we need to move very quickly on the question
of real competition--we also have to address what is happening right
now without competition. We have an oil industry that has been
consolidated down to five major companies. There is no real
competition. It is not a regulated utility such as electricity and
other basic necessities. Yet it is a necessity. Gasoline is not a
luxury, it is a necessity. And the fact is, price increases for this
necessity are making it harder and harder for people to be able to
afford the product they need to get them to work, to get the kids to
school, to be able to till the fields, to be able to do business, or to
be able to take that trip up north in beautiful northern Michigan on
vacation where tourism is so critical for us.
We also know it directly relates to jobs. GM executives have
indicated, for example, that for every $1 increase in the cost of a
barrel of oil, it costs them $4 million more to operate. So this is a
question of jobs. From every angle, this is something that needs our
immediate attention while we address where we go long term. Nothing
would please me more than to be able to drive my American-made
automobile into a service station--and by the way, they use flex fuels
and E-85 ethanol and a number of products right now--right now--for our
automobiles, and we see GM and Ford and Daimler Chrysler doing
wonderfully bold things and advertising alternative fuels, flex fuels
right now. But nothing would please me more than to see a pump with E-
85 in it that is giving competition to the other pumps where the prices
are going through the roof.
It would be one thing if this was just about supply and demand, but
it is not. We know there are multiple factors. It is not about an
industry hard hit, an oil industry barely being able to make it because
of international factors or because of the hurricanes. No, we are
talking about an industry that had over $111 billion in combined
profits last year. We are talking about ExxonMobile with the highest
profits recorded in the history of the country. And to add insult to
injury for people, that same company pays their top executive, we
understand, the equivalent of $110,000 a day in salary--a day. That is
more than the average person in Michigan makes in a year, $110,000 a
day. Then, when he announced his retirement, he gets a combined package
of $400 million.
No wonder people are outraged. No wonder they look at us and say:
What are you doing? What is going on here? You have the industry with
the highest profits ever paying their executives more than the revenue
of some cities in my State. Yet, at the same time, the policies
continue to support tax break after tax break subsidized by American
taxpayers to continue to increase the profits of the oil companies. It
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is outrageous that the oil
companies are bringing in billions of dollars in profits each year,
while families are now paying over $40 every time they fill up their
gas tank, and certainly it could be $50 or it could be $60. On average
in Michigan right now, it is about $42. That is up $4 from last month
and $10 from last year, and we know it is going to be going up and up
as the summer goes on.
We also know that, unfortunately, there appears to be no relief in
sight. On average, I am told that Michigan families will be paying at
least $500 more in the next year for their gasoline
[[Page S3549]]
based on what is happening. Five hundred dollars may not sound like a
lot to a lot of people. In fact, Exxon CEO Lee Raymond indicated in an
interview with CNN that a single quarter or a single year of profits is
``not all that significant,'' and that what is happening evidently in
the oil industry is not all that significant.
Well, it is significant when it comes to what is happening to people
who are working hard every day trying to make it. Five hundred dollars
is a house payment. It is the rent. It is a car payment. It is paying
for food. It is making sure your kids have the opportunity to go to
college, maybe pay for the books that are needed for them to be able to
go to college for a year. So it is a lot of money for the average
person.
I think it is outrageous that somebody who has been earning the
equivalent of $110,000 a day would act like what is happening to
average families and the profits that are going to the oil companies is
somehow insignificant. People in my State don't know if they are going
to have a job tomorrow. There are policies, unfortunately, that have
caused manufacturers in our country to believe, I am concerned to say,
that maybe we don't need to make things anymore in this country, which
of course is what has built our middle class. And those folks who have
built our middle class and created our way of life and are the
consumers who buy goods so that we can be successful in this country
are now feeling that they are getting hit on all sides. They may not
have a job.
Health care is going up. They may not have their pension. The cost of
college certainly has gone up, based on things that have been happening
here, such as taking away $12 billion as it relates to student loans
and other proposals, to have the cost of college go up.
Now, to add insult to injury, we have an industry that is more
profitable than it has ever been, with the highest recorded profits by
ExxonMobile, the highest of any publicly held company ever, and now the
American consumer is being told: You are going to pay again. You are
going to pay for all of the excesses that are going on right now by
making it harder for you to get to work, to take the kids to school, to
be able to do your job, and maybe to take a little vacation this
summer. It is absolutely outrageous.
I want to also make the point that this is not about our gas station
owners. I met with some terrific people on Monday who talked to me
about how they are helping people literally piece together pennies,
helping people who have been longtime customers of theirs, a single mom
coming in with kids and the gas station owners trying to help her piece
together a few dollars so they can put enough gas in the tank so she
can go to work, so she can take care of her kids. I was told by one gas
station owner that a gentleman came in with 69 cents trying to figure
out how he could get a gallon of gas into his tank. Sixty-nine cents
buys a quarter of a gallon. We are now hearing stories about pawn
brokers doing great guns right now, their business is going great
because people are pawning their watches, their jewelry, their cars,
whatever they have, in order to get enough money to be able to drive to
work.
This is in America. We can do better than this in our country. People
expect us to stand up and fight for them, not an industry that is
gouging the American consumer and raking in billions of profits in the
meantime.
I am putting forward an amendment that will address this very thing.
People say: What can we do about it right now? We need to look long
term. When I began speaking, I said I know we need to look long term.
This morning, in the Agriculture Committee, we had a wonderful
bipartisan discussion, and there is a lot of excitement about a number
of things that we can do together to look long term. We know there are
ways for us to move off of foreign oil and to move off of oil period,
and we can do that. There is the old saying that the first way to get
out of a hole is to stop digging. We need to stop digging. Part of that
right now is to stop the continuation of tax breaks that Americans,
working hard every day and paying their taxes, are subsidizing for the
oil companies which then turn around and are so grateful that they
raise their price at the pump.
In the conference committee right now there is work being done
relating to tax cuts. There is an additional $5 billion in new tax
breaks for the oil companies. Some of it relates to how we subsidize
their foreign activity. They do business with the Middle East and
somehow we are going to give them favorable treatment through our tax
policy. It makes absolutely no sense. It is an insult to the American
people. That is on top of $2 billion that was put into the Energy bill
that was passed last year in subsidies. It is unexplainable and
unacceptable at a time when there are so many other areas where we need
to provide tax relief, when we need to address middle-income people
bumping up against the alternative minimum tax or small businesses that
are trying to make it, businesses large and small, when we need to deal
with health care costs that need a tax credit--and I am more than happy
to support that. But instead of that, we have $5 billion in the
conference committee report that subsidizes an industry that is raking
in billions and billions of dollars in profits at the expense of the
American consumer. I think that is wrong.
My amendment would take that $5 billion and instead put it right back
in the pockets of the folks paying the bill. We know on average there
is going to be about $500 in additional cost for the average family for
the next year as a result of these high gas prices. My amendment will
give an immediate $500 rebate to every individual or family, just as we
did with the $300 rebate. It is the very same process that was done
then, where people were given the $300 rebate when the tax cut was
done. We can use that very same mechanism. It is very simple and
straightforward. In fact, we can do this if we act quickly, before
Labor Day, to help people pay their bills.
My amendment would give $500 back to each family or each individual
filer so that they are able to help pay the price of this outrageously
high-price gas. That is a short-term fix while we get our act together
on what needs to be happening to create more competition and more
alternatives, which I believe we can do, working together in the
Senate. But I believe it is an outrageous situation when we are
continuing to add $5 billion in tax breaks to an industry that is
causing so much pain for American families.
My amendment is based on a bill of mine called the Oil Company
Accountability Act. In total, it would repeal both the $5 billion in
committee plus the $2.6 billion that was passed in the Energy bill, for
a total of $7.6 billion in tax breaks for oil companies, and provide an
immediate $500 tax rebate to families to offset their energy costs.
I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow] proposes an
amendment numbered 3633.
Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide an immediate Federal income tax rebate to help
taxpayers with higher fuel costs, and for other purposes)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--OIL COMPANY ACOUNTABILITY
SEC. 8001. ENERGY TAX REBATE.
(a) In General.--Subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to rules of special
application in the case of abatements, credits, and refunds)
is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``SEC. 6430. ENERGY TAX REBATE.
``(a) General Rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, each individual shall be treated as having made a
payment against the tax imposed by chapter 1 for the taxable
year beginning in 2006 in an amount equal to $500.
``(b) Remittance of Payment.--The Secretary shall remit to
each taxpayer the payment described in subsection (a) not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(c) Certain Persons Not Eligible.--This section shall not
apply to--
``(1) any individual who did not have any adjusted gross
income for the preceding taxable year or whose adjusted gross
income for such preceding taxable year exceeded $120,000,
[[Page S3550]]
``(2) any individual with respect to whom a deduction under
section 151 is allowable to another taxpayer for the taxable
year beginning in 2006,
``(3) any estate or trust, or
``(4) any nonresident alien individual.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31,
United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period
``, or from section 6430 of such Code''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for
subchapter B of chapter 65 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
``Sec. 6430. Energy tax rebate.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 8002. REVALUATION OF LIFO INVENTORIES OF LARGE
INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.
(a) General Rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, if a taxpayer is an applicable integrated oil company
for its last taxable year ending in calendar year 2005, the
taxpayer shall--
(1) increase, effective as of the close of such taxable
year, the value of each historic LIFO layer of inventories of
crude oil, natural gas, or any other petroleum product
(within the meaning of section 4611) by the layer adjustment
amount, and
(2) decrease its cost of goods sold for such taxable year
by the aggregate amount of the increases under paragraph (1).
If the aggregate amount of the increases under paragraph (1)
exceed the taxpayer's cost of goods sold for such taxable
year, the taxpayer's gross income for such taxable year shall
be increased by the amount of such excess.
(b) Layer Adjustment Amount.--For purposes of this
section--
(1) In general.--The term ``layer adjustment amount''
means, with respect to any historic LIFO layer, the product
of--
(A) $18.75, and
(B) the number of barrels of crude oil (or in the case of
natural gas or other petroleum products, the number of
barrel-of-oil equivalents) represented by the layer.
(2) Barrel-of-oil equivalent.--The term ``barrel-of-oil
equivalent'' has the meaning given such term by section
29(d)(5) (as in effect before its redesignation by the Energy
Tax Incentives Act of 2005).
(c) Application of Requirement.--
(1) No change in method of accounting.--Any adjustment
required by this section shall not be treated as a change in
method of accounting.
(2) Underpayments of estimated tax.--No addition to the tax
shall be made under section 6655 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to failure by corporation to pay estimated
tax) with respect to any underpayment of an installment
required to be paid with respect to the taxable year
described in subsection (a) to the extent such underpayment
was created or increased by this section.
(d) Applicable Integrated Oil Company.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``applicable integrated oil company''
means an integrated oil company (as defined in section
291(b)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which has an
average daily worldwide production of crude oil of at least
500,000 barrels for the taxable year and which had gross
receipts in excess of $1,000,000,000 for its last taxable
year ending during calendar year 2005. For purposes of this
subsection all persons treated as a single employer under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 shall be treated as 1 person and, in the case of
a short taxable year, the rule under section 448(c)(3)(B)
shall apply.
SEC. 8003. MODIFICATIONS OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT RULES
APPLICABLE TO LARGE INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES
WHICH ARE DUAL CAPACITY TAXPAYERS.
(a) In General.--Section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 (relating to credit for taxes of foreign countries
and of possessions of the United States) is amended by
redesignating subsection (m) as subsection (n) and by
inserting after subsection (l) the following new subsection:
``(m) Special Rules Relating to Large Integrated Oil
Companies Which Are Dual Capacity Taxpayers.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this chapter, any amount paid or accrued by a dual capacity
taxpayer which is a large integrated oil company to a foreign
country or possession of the United States for any period
shall not be considered a tax--
``(A) if, for such period, the foreign country or
possession does not impose a generally applicable income tax,
or
``(B) to the extent such amount exceeds the amount
(determined in accordance with regulations) which--
``(i) is paid by such dual capacity taxpayer pursuant to
the generally applicable income tax imposed by the country or
possession, or
``(ii) would be paid if the generally applicable income tax
imposed by the country or possession were applicable to such
dual capacity taxpayer.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to imply the
proper treatment of any such amount not in excess of the
amount determined under subparagraph (B).
``(2) Dual capacity taxpayer.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `dual capacity taxpayer' means, with
respect to any foreign country or possession of the United
States, a person who--
``(A) is subject to a levy of such country or possession,
and
``(B) receives (or will receive) directly or indirectly a
specific economic benefit (as determined in accordance with
regulations) from such country or possession.
``(3) Generally applicable income tax.--For purposes of
this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `generally applicable income
tax' means an income tax (or a series of income taxes) which
is generally imposed under the laws of a foreign country or
possession on income derived from the conduct of a trade or
business within such country or possession.
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include a tax unless
it has substantial application, by its terms and in practice,
to--
``(i) persons who are not dual capacity taxpayers, and
``(ii) persons who are citizens or residents of the foreign
country or possession.
``(4) Large integrated oil company.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `large integrated oil company' means,
with respect to any taxable year, an integrated oil company
(as defined in section 291(b)(4)) which--
``(A) had gross receipts in excess of $1,000,000,000 for
such taxable year, and
``(B) has an average daily worldwide production of crude
oil of at least 500,000 barrels for such taxable year.''
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxes paid or accrued in taxable years beginning
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Contrary treaty obligations upheld.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to the extent contrary
to any treaty obligation of the United States.
SEC. 8004. NONAPPLICATION OF AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND
GEOPHYSICAL EXPENDITURES TO LARGE INTEGRATED
OIL COMPANIES.
(a) In General.--Section 167(h) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) Nonapplication to large integrated oil companies.--
This subsection shall not apply to any expenses paid or
incurred during any taxable year by any taxpayer which is an
integrated oil company (as defined in section 291(b)(4) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) which has gross receipts
in excess of $500,000,000 for such taxable year. For purposes
of this subsection all persons treated as a single employer
under subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be treated as 1 person and, in the
case of a short taxable year, the rule under section
448(c)(3)(B) shall apply.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the
amendment is not in order under the provisions of rule XVI.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be in order, notwithstanding the point of order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
Mr. COCHRAN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Chair sustains the
point of order under rule XVI and the amendment falls.
The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the people of Michigan and the people of
the country deserve better than what we are doing right now. There is a
sense of urgency. We can make this in order if we want it to be in
order. There is no question about it.
If we come together and we want to act today, if we want to put in
place the opportunity for people to have a $500 rebate before Labor Day
to help pay for the high gas prices they are paying right this minute,
we can do that. The choice of the majority is not to do that, but we
could be doing that if there were agreement. That is very unfortunate
because there is a sense of urgency on behalf of every individual,
every family right now, trying to figure out what they are going to do,
with gas prices that are over $3, $3.20, $3.50--in some parts of the
country $4 a gallon. It is the difference between whether people will
be able to pay their bills, go to work, do what they have to do for
their families. The American people, certainly the people of my great
State, deserve better than inaction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator is recognized.
[[Page S3551]]
Amendment No. 3615
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3615, which is at
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. Thomas] proposes an amendment
numbered 3615.
Mr. THOMAS. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
amendments.'')
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I bring forward an amendment this
afternoon to talk about my concern with the process we are going
through. We started out with a request for $92.2 billion in emergency
spending--$20 billion for hurricane recovery, $72 billion for the war
on terror. Then we added $14 billion of additional nonemergency
spending.
Our constituents simply can't run their households or businesses like
this, and I think we should not be running our business here, for the
country, in that way either. The money we spend here does not come out
of thin air. Of course, it comes out of the pockets of hard-working
Americans. We should not take the emergency spending process lightly.
By definition, these are dollars we have not budgeted, and they
should be reserved only for the urgent and dire need for which they
were intended. There are some examples, very briefly, of nonemergency
items. There are a number of them. Regardless of their merit, and they
probably have merit, the question is, Do they belong in this bill? Why
are we using this bill to provide $230 million for an Osprey program
which is not involved in either Iraq or Afghanistan? We also just
enacted a $286 billion highway bill less than a year ago. Yet this bill
will add an additional $594 million in additional highway spending that
really has nothing to do with any emergency. Why is there an emergency
to spend $700 million to move a railroad that, while damaged by
Katrina, has already been repaired? It may be a useful thing. Is it an
emergency? I think not.
Finally, this is not the right vehicle for spending almost $4 million
in farm subsidies or increasing the funding for community development
block grants.
Again, these may be legitimate priorities. Perhaps they are. But in
my view, this is not the right vehicle, nor the right process.
Therefore, I have offered this amendment which will pull out all the
extraneous spending and get us back to the President's request for
emergency funds. I understand the way my amendment is drafted it merely
strikes the whole bill and replaces it with the original amount in the
President's request and this would vitiate any amendments adopted in
the interim. I have also modified my amendment to account for Senator
Gregg's security amendment and the President's revised request with
respect to avian flu funding.
It seems to me this is something we ought to consider. Obviously, we
have a lot of things to do. But overall, we have a responsibility, a
financial responsibility to follow the rules, to go through the
processes that are appropriate to do something about holding down
spending, not put these items in the budget if they are not
emergencies, and we ought not to be using these kinds of vehicles to
spend more money when we are in the process of trying to do away with
the deficit we have. These issues are out there, and they are out there
all the time.
We have all just been home for a couple of weeks. What do we hear
about a lot? We have to do something about spending. We have to do
something about the deficit.
We do. Still, here we are expanding a request--one, frankly, that the
President has threatened to veto. I encourage him to continue to take
that position. We ought to deal with those things that are out here
that fit this definition of emergency.
I have introduced this amendment, and I hope we give it some
consideration at the appropriate time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from
Wyoming for bringing this amendment to the floor. It does go to some of
the points of contention that have been raised in the discussions based
on whether the President's request should be exceeded by the Congress.
First of all, the President has threatened to veto the bill, which,
of course, he has a right to do. He is setting out another marker that
any amount over and above the request of the President would be
considered inappropriate and therefore would subject the bill to a
veto.
This is very early in the process of considering the bill for the
President, in my opinion, to be threatening a veto. We have clear
emergencies confronting the country that require the expenditure of
funds for the Department of Defense and our military forces which are
deployed in Iraq and elsewhere and engaged in the global war on terror
to protect the security interests of our country and the lives of our
American citizens. That is the major portion of this legislation.
Another very important part of the bill is to replenish some accounts
in the Department of State, where agencies and officers of that
Department are engaged in the same kind of peacekeeping activity,
diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict, to preserve the peace where it
can be preserved and protect the security interests of our citizens.
The third request the President submitted was to provide additional
disaster assistance for the gulf coast States, primarily in the State
of Louisiana but also across the gulf coast. I know that we can
disagree on the exact dollar amounts. In the Senate, we are going to
have a difference of opinion on some of these issues, but it suits me
now to just test the water and see where the Senate is. Do we want to
ignore, as a body, the needs that are clear and important and serious,
that are addressed by the funding in this legislation? This amendment
takes a lot of money out of the bill. It may respond to some concerns
that some have that this bill calls for spending more money than is
necessary. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported this bill to
the Senate and is recommending its passage. I am hopeful that we can
get an early reading. If this bill should go back to the committee, we
could reconsider it.
But I think the time is now, when we should come to terms with the
realities of this legislation. Either the Senate agrees that these
needs are real, that they require the funds we recommended be
appropriated, or not. We had an open discussion in the committee, in
public. Any Senator who serves on that committee could offer an
amendment to reduce funding. I don't recall any amendment to reduce
funding. There were amendments to add funds to address needs that had
either arisen after the President submitted his request and the House
had acted early on the legislation or because of information that had
come to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations. It was the
view of the majority, the vast majority of the members of that
committee, that the funding should be included at the amount reported
to the Senate.
I am prepared to have a vote. I suggest--I don't know of any reason
why we can't have the vote now. I can move to table the amendment and
ask for the yeas and nays and we will get a vote. I think that is what
we will do.
Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from
Wyoming, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I will withhold my request until you have made a
decision on the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to
be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
lay on the table amendment No.
[[Page S3552]]
3615. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is
absent due to illness in the family.
I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 26, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 96 Leg.]
YEAS--72
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--26
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Coburn
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Santorum
Sessions
Sununu
Thomas
NOT VOTING--2
Kerry
Rockefeller
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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 Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Idaho.
Sound Energy Policy
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I speak today of my strong concern over
what I believe are troubling movements in the Western Hemisphere in
relation to U.S. energy independence, energy security, and
competitiveness of the U.S. oil and gas industry in the region and this
country's political and economic influence in our own backyard.
For all the right reasons, in the past few years we have been
appropriately focused on developments in the greater Middle East as we
have engaged in a global war on terror and fought in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Again, we are absolutely right to be engaged in conflicts in that
region. But it is dangerous for any region to have a monopoly on this
country's attention.
At home, in this Senate, we have engaged in many debates regarding
U.S. energy independence. This issue was first recognized in World War
I, when Winston Churchill stated that the answers to energy security
``lie in variety and variety alone.''
Energy security is becoming a hot topic, and many Senators--Democrats
and Republicans--have been on the floor the last few days talking about
tight oil markets, high oil prices, threats of terrorism, instability
in some of the exporting nations, nationalistic backlashes in other
fiercely competitive areas and supplies, geopolitical rivalries, and
all countries' absolute need for energy to power their economic growth.
We have no time to waste to move forward on a sound national energy
policy. Many of us in this body have taken the first step. We passed
last August a national energy policy. By its action, we agreed to
drastically decrease our energy dependence on the Middle East. Now our
economy in energy is working in that direction, slowly, because of the
phenomenal investment in time it takes to turn something as big as our
energy industries of all kinds.
In 2005, the U.S. obtained 41 percent of its total petroleum imports
from OPEC countries, which equals 27 percent of total U.S. consumption.
In order to reduce our reliance on Middle East energy sources and
strengthen our Nation's energy security, it goes without saying that
our energy sector must be doing business elsewhere. No doubt, the
closest, therefore the most economically viable, option should be to
turn to our own backyard or should I say ``-yards.''
Unfortunately, that is hard to do when we too frequently send our oil
and gas companies into international competition hobbled by self-
defeating laws and regulations that allow our economic adversaries and
our competitors to beat us to the punch right at our doorstep.
I must point out that it is certainly ironic that the same people
blocking the American public from obtaining resources in our own
country, and in the region, are the same people not offering solutions
to the new and very rapidly growing demand across the world.
Frankly, the United States has taken our neighbors in the Western
Hemisphere for granted. We have hamstrung the United States energy
sector from seeking additional resources in the region while at the
same time allowing the likes of China and Canada and Brazil and France
and others to freely seek energy opportunities 50 miles off our coast
without competition from state-of-the-art technologies and expertise of
our own United States gas and oil industries.
I have here a chart that is phenomenally self-explanatory. As shown,
here is the coast of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Of
course, here is the great peninsula or the Panhandle of Florida down to
the Keys. Here is Cuba. And literally, within the last 2 years, Cuba,
within their water, 50 miles off the furthest point of the Keys of
Florida, has allowed the nations of China and Canada and Spain to start
drilling. It will be possible--or should I say it may be possible--to
stand on the furthest Florida Key in the near future and see an oil rig
drilling in Cuban water.
Did that happen accidentally? No. Why isn't an American company, with
the best technology that could do it the cleanest, there? Because we
simply have not allowed that to be.
For example, a February 2005 U.S. Geological Survey reported on a
possible deposit in the Northern Cuban Basin--this area shown on the
map that is all charted off--estimated at 4.6 billion barrels of oil,
and possibly as much as 9.3 billion barrels. I would remind my
colleagues these estimates are almost the same as the kind we are
talking about on the Coastal Plain of Alaska known as ANWR, and it is
simply 50 to 60 miles off our coast.
So the question must be asked: What is the U.S. doing while foreign
countries and companies are exploring right off the U.S. coast in the
Northern Cuban Basin, which is adjacent to the U.S. Outer Continental
Shelf and contiguous to this country's Exclusive Economic Zone?
Well, I can firmly tell my colleagues that we are doing absolutely
nothing about it. Not one single U.S. company is exploring in these
potentially beneficial waters that extend to within 50 miles off the
Florida coast. Oh, we are all angst about Gas Lease Sale 181, and it is
at least 120 miles off of any coast. But stand on a high place in the
lower Florida Keys someday and you may see an oil rig, and it will not
be ours. It could be Red China's, or certainly mainland China's. I
guess that is the politically correct thing to say about them now. And,
frankly, ladies and gentlemen, it is China, and they are drilling in
our backyard.
I am certain the American public would be shocked, as this country is
trying to reduce its dependency on Middle East oil, that countries such
as China are realizing this energy resource. In my opinion, China is
using the area off our coast and in the Cuban national waters as a
strategic commodity reserve. It is doing this by acquiring exclusive
rights in the emerging Cuban offshore oil sector, thereby forever
closing the door on those resources to the United States itself and
dramatically impacting our foreign policy in the region.
[[Page S3553]]
As the administration recently pointed out in its National Security
Strategy, China has quickly become the world's second largest user of
petroleum products. Additionally, the administration's most recent
National Security Strategy appropriately points out that China is
``expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow lock-up energy
supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening
them up.''
We will miss the boat--because, folks, this boat will sail only but
once--if we continue to deny ourselves the right to allow our companies
to engage where they ought to be engaging, where they have the talent,
the resources, and the expertise to engage. But, instead we are by our
action forcing potentially substandard companies that do not have the
talent, the expertise, the environmental know-how, to drill in an area
that could be phenomenally damaging to the coast of Florida. That is
the reality of today's policy in this country.
Higher oil prices will spur others to turn marginal opportunities
into commercial prospects with or without the United States. As we saw
last week, since demand for oil is so high, any disruption in small oil
production--whether it be in Ecuador or Argentina or the Congo or Egypt
or Azerbaijan or Bahrain or Sudan or Yemen or Chad--can have a profound
impact on oil prices at the pump anywhere in this country. It is for
this reason that we must and should act aggressively to diversify our
imports and production and compete with other nations around the world.
On top of the economic competitiveness we are missing out on, we are
also allowing the energy security of this country to slip away, to slip
away right in our backyard. Simply put, too many unknowns lie in the
hands of terrorists, instability, and chaos in the Middle East.
Therefore, let us think about and rid ourselves of the vulnerability
that we forced ourselves into by the responsible and environmentally
sound development of our own resources or resources that are just
across the fence in our neighbor's backyard. This is the opportunity we
now deny ourselves.
I intend to look at these opportunities to bring about potential
legislation that will cause this Senate to look and to act responsibly,
as it would allow us to deal with these kinds of opportunities, instead
of simply denying them. We think we can build a buffer around us to
secure ourselves environmentally, and yet we have denied our backdoor.
Our backdoor is open. The southern Florida coast is potentially
vulnerable to second-rate drilling capabilities from foreign countries
that do not have the kind of deepwater expertise and talent that has
resulted in no spills by U.S. companies now for well over a decade.
Therein lies the opportunity. Yet we have some who would say: Oh, my,
50 miles we will turn our back on but 100 miles out, oh, we have a
problem there. No, folks, we have a problem here, and we have a problem
in Cuba. We ought to be recognizing it instead of denying it.
Here is the reality. Here is the sale area, the opportunity that Cuba
is now exploiting by allowing foreign countries to come in our backyard
or, can I say, just across the fence in our neighbor's backyard. Is it
50 miles off the coast of Key West? Is it 70? Is it 90? It is all of
those. And it is potentially an opportunity for us to work with another
government in effectively, responsibly, and environmentally exploiting
a very valuable resource. We have denied it. Shame on us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator's point that he makes very well is
that foreign governments, such as the Republic of China, drilling off
the north coast of Cuba, because of the currents--the currents come up
there in the Gulf of Mexico and down around the Florida Keys, what is
known as the Straits of Florida, and then northward, as it turns into
the gulf stream--the Senator is making the point that illegitimate or
unrestrained second-rate drilling that would occur off the north Cuban
coast could threaten the delicate environment and ecology of the coral
reefs and the Florida coast. Is that one of the points the Senator
would make?
Mr. CRAIG. Well, the point I am making is, we have had the expertise
in the gulf to do it and do it right without any environmental damage.
But we have denied exploration within a certain margin or buffer zone
of the coast.
As shown on the map, in this case, here is Lease Sale 181 that is
being talked about today. On the average, from Pensacola, it is 100
miles out, approximately. And this is gas.
This is oil and gas. At the closest point, we believe, at least to
the line here of the EEZ, it is 50 miles.
I simply offer this as an opportunity for the American people to
become aware that in their backyard something is going on we are
ignoring at this moment, and that we should not be ignoring.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. If the Senator will further yield, I would
point out very respectfully to the Senator that the chart he shows with
the oblong green block there--that is the existing lease of Lease Sale
181. What is proposed is an additional 4 million acres to the east.
Mr. CRAIG. Yes.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Yes, sir. In there is the area that is
restricted because it is the largest training and testing area for the
U.S. military in the world. It is, as declared by the Pentagon,
incompatible to have rigs where we are doing the testing and training
of our U.S. military.
I ask the Senator, who is a great supporter of the military, why did
all pilot training for the FA-22 come to Tyndall Air Force Base in
Panama City, and why, in the realignment, did all pilot training for
the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter come to Eglin Air Force Base, and why
did all of the U.S. Navy Atlantic fleet training come to northwest
Florida after it was shut down?
Mr. CRAIG. I will reclaim my time, Mr. President, since the Senator
has answered for himself. It is obvious, training capability. We also
know--and the military will agree--that once a well is drilled, the rig
goes away. There is no surface obstruction. We are talking about 3
trillion cubic feet of gas potentially. We may be talking about a whole
region that has 6 or 7 billion barrels of oil in it, let alone
trillions of cubic feet of gas. We ought to be concerned
environmentally, but my guess is we can fly around them a little bit
while it is going on and then the rigs go away. But the oil and the gas
keep flowing for the security of the economy of this country.
I don't think citizens at the pumps right now are worried too much
about flight patterns, but they are worried an awful lot about a flat
pocketbook because we have not allowed ourselves the foresight that I
am trying to suggest our foreign policy in these instances denied. You
and I will debate 181 and beyond. But at our back door, and a heck of a
lot closer to the coastline of your State than any sale proposed today
out of 181, toward the east, 50 miles off is where the Chinese at this
moment are test drilling to determine whether in fact there is a supply
of oil. Then the rigs go in place. Then the environmental issues that
you and I are concerned about may well come to be. I hope I am wrong.
But I know I am right about this. These sales and test drillings are
currently going on.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. This Senator, if I might conclude and
compliment the Senator from Idaho, certainly has a commonality of
interest with the Senator with regard to countries such as China
drilling off the north coast of Cuba and the threat not only to U.S.
interests that that portends but also to the interests of Florida. We
will debate the question of oil drilling out there in the military area
of the eastern Gulf of Mexico, particularly at a time that the people
recognize that we ought to be independent of oil, not continuing the
dependence that we have.
Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his comments. Before I yield the
floor, whether it is the Senator from Florida or Idaho, the American
people are saying to us: A foreign policy that allows China to drill in
our backyard is not a very good policy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Amendment No. 3632
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside all pending
amendments and call up amendment No. 3632.
[[Page S3554]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself, Ms.
Mikulski, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mr. Biden, proposes an amendment numbered
3632.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To ensure that a Federal employee who takes leave without pay
in order to perform service as a member of the uniformed services or
member of the National Guard shall continue to receive pay in an amount
which, when taken together with the pay and allowances such individual
is receiving for such service, will be no less than the basic pay such
individual would then be receiving if no interruption in employment had
occurred)
On page 117, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
nonreduction in pay while federal employee is performing active service
in the uniformed services or national guard
Sec. 1312. (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as
the ``Reservists Pay Security Act of 2006''.
(b) In General.--Subchapter IV of chapter 55 of title 5,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``Sec. 5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the
uniformed services or National Guard
``(a) An employee who is absent from a position of
employment with the Federal Government in order to perform
active duty in the uniformed services pursuant to a call or
order to active duty under a provision of law referred to in
section 101(a)(13)(B) of title 10 shall be entitled, while
serving on active duty, to receive, for each pay period
described in subsection (b), an amount equal to the amount by
which--
``(1) the amount of basic pay which would otherwise have
been payable to such employee for such pay period if such
employee's civilian employment with the Government had not
been interrupted by that service, exceeds (if at all)
``(2) the amount of pay and allowances which (as determined
under subsection (d))--
``(A) is payable to such employee for that service; and
``(B) is allocable to such pay period.
``(b)(1) Amounts under this section shall be payable with
respect to each pay period (which would otherwise apply if
the employee's civilian employment had not been
interrupted)--
``(A) during which such employee is entitled to
reemployment rights under chapter 43 of title 38 with respect
to the position from which such employee is absent (as
referred to in subsection (a)); and
``(B) for which such employee does not otherwise receive
basic pay (including by taking any annual, military, or other
paid leave) to which such employee is entitled by virtue of
such employee's civilian employment with the Government.
``(2) For purposes of this section, the period during which
an employee is entitled to reemployment rights under chapter
43 of title 38--
``(A) shall be determined disregarding the provisions of
section 4312(d) of title 38; and
``(B) shall include any period of time specified in section
4312(e) of title 38 within which an employee may report or
apply for employment or reemployment following completion of
service on active duty to which called or ordered as
described in subsection (a).
``(c) Any amount payable under this section to an employee
shall be paid--
``(1) by such employee's employing agency;
``(2) from the appropriation or fund which would be used to
pay the employee if such employee were in a pay status; and
``(3) to the extent practicable, at the same time and in
the same manner as would basic pay if such employee's
civilian employment had not been interrupted.
``(d) The Office of Personnel Management shall, in
consultation with Secretary of Defense, prescribe any
regulations necessary to carry out the preceding provisions
of this section.
``(e)(1) The head of each agency referred to in section
2302(a)(2)(C)(ii) shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of such agency.
``(2) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall, in consultation with the Office,
prescribe procedures to ensure that the rights under this
section apply to the employees of that agency.
``(f) For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `employee', `Federal Government', and
`uniformed services' have the same respective meanings as
given them in section 4303 of title 38;
``(2) the term `employing agency', as used with respect to
an employee entitled to any payments under this section,
means the agency or other entity of the Government (including
an agency referred to in section 2302(a)(2)(C)(ii)) with
respect to which such employee has reemployment rights under
chapter 43 of title 38; and
``(3) the term `basic pay' includes any amount payable
under section 5304.''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
55 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 5537 the following:
``5538. Nonreduction in pay while serving in the uniformed services or
National Guard.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to pay periods (as described in
section 5538(b) of title 5, United States Code, as amended by
this section) beginning on or after the date of enactment of
this Act.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, more than half the men and women serving
the United States now in Iraq and Afghanistan are members of Guard and
Reserve units. Not that long ago they were working civilian jobs with
regular payroll and, of course, performing their responsibilities in
the Guard and Reserve on weekends and during summer duty. They
understood when they volunteered that they could be activated. They
have been. In my State, 80 percent of the Guard units have been
activated. They have served this Nation bravely, selflessly. They have
done it at great sacrifice to themselves and their families: The pain
of separation to be away from your family for a whole year, sometimes
longer, to be gone when important family events occur, and an
additional hardship that comes with this service.
Some of these service men and women find that when they are activated
in the Guard and Reserve units, they are paid less by the military than
they were receiving in their civilian capacity. So the expenses they
incur, the bills they have to pay--whether it is for a mortgage,
utility bills, education expenses for their children--continue, even
though as they serve our country they receive less money. We are
fortunate that many of their civilian employers have stepped up and
said: We will protect you. If you will stand up for America, we will
stand up for you. We will make up the difference between your pay as
you serve our country in the Guard and Reserve and what you would have
earned if you would have stayed here.
We appreciate that. As a nation, we should be grateful, thankful that
these companies stand by these men and women when they need it most so
that as they worry about the pain of separation and coming home safely,
they don't have to worry about whether the bills will be paid. We
create Federal Government Web sites paying tribute to these companies
that stand by Guard and Reserve Units. Some of the companies and some
of the entities involved include Ford Motor Company, IBM, Verizon,
Safeway, the State of California, Los Angeles County, and Austin, TX.
The list goes on and on. There are some 23 different States that have
said: If any of our State employees are activated, we will make up the
difference in pay.
So why do I rise today with this amendment? Because the largest
single employer of Guard and Reserve members in the United States fails
to make up that difference in pay. There is one huge employer that will
not say to these activated men and women: We will stand by you. If you
are going to lose money, we will make up the difference.
Who could that employer possibly be? The United States Government.
The Federal Government does not make up the difference in pay for these
Guard and Reserve members. Why? If we value their service, if we praise
these private entities and State governments and local governments that
stand by these men and women, if we say they are setting a great
example for America, why aren't we setting an example as the Federal
Government? Why aren't we making up the difference in pay?
Some would argue there may be a disparity, that you may have two
sergeants serving in the same place: one is in the active military
being paid less than one who is having a supplemented salary as a
former Federal employee, now activated as a sergeant serving overseas.
Think about the current disparity, a disparity where this soldier, in
private life a few weeks or months before, incurred expenses for his
family which he thought he would be able to pay, and now, because he is
serving his country, he cannot. I don't think the active military
soldier will resent this. They will understand it and be glad they have
a fellow soldier standing by them, leaving the comfort and security
[[Page S3555]]
of a civilian life to serve our country so well.
What this amendment says is that the Federal Government will stand
behind its employees activated in the Guard and Reserve to make up the
difference in pay for them. It is a reasonable suggestion--in fact, so
reasonable it has passed in the Senate several times, last time by an
overwhelming vote. More than 90 Senators voted for it. Sadly, when it
goes to conference where the House and Senate come together, it doesn't
have a good fate. It turns out the Department of Defense and this
administration don't care for the idea much, and they usually kill it
once it gets to conference.
I am going to give them another chance for this Government to stand
behind these soldiers. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will join me,
as well as my other colleagues--Senator Mikulski of Maryland, who is a
cosponsor, Senator Allen of Virginia, Senators Biden, Bingaman,
Landrieu, and Lautenberg. We offer this amendment and hope that it will
be adopted.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment, as the Senator
points out, which has been before the body before. We have approved it
by a substantial margin on a recorded vote. We are prepared to
recommend that the amendment be accepted on a voice vote, so we can
proceed to that unless there are other Senators who want to be heard on
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3632.
The amendment (No. 3632) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. DURBIN. 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.
Energy
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am concerned about the increase in
gasoline prices. They are indicative of other increases in natural gas
and diesel fuel. It is an important national issue. A family that may
have been paying $150 for a month for fuel, $200 a month, may be paying
$50, $75 dollars more a month than they were several years ago. It is
real money out of real working Americans' pockets. It is an issue we
need to confront. We have talked about it on the floor for many years.
Unfortunately, we have not done enough to confront the problem and deal
with it in a way that actually makes a difference.
We did recently pass an energy bill that is better than most people
realize, that did a lot of good things. For example, it took us from
zero preliminary applications for a nuclear powerplant to now 18. Since
last fall, we have had 18 or 19 applications which would reduce the
demand for natural gas that we are using so much now to generate
electricity. But we failed in a number of important issues.
It is surprising to me, but the strength of the economy and the
increase in productivity of our workforce is such that we haven't seen
a surge in inflation across the board as a result of these increasing
energy prices. But it could happen. It could begin to happen and could
affect our economy adversely. We went through the last spike without
serious consequences. But when you absorb this much extra cost, it does
have some impact.
Unfortunately, what I have been hearing on the floor is a lot of
politics, a lot of blame game from people who oftentimes are the very
ones who have blocked key decisions that we should have made that would
have made our energy situation far better.
I see my colleague from Idaho. Few people--as a matter of fact,
virtually no Senators--have steeped themselves in energy issues more
than he. When he speaks on this issue, we should listen. He has
historical perspective and knowledge of the issues. I compliment him
and will follow up on some of the things he said.
There is some bipartisan work going on. I am part of the energy
security caucus that believes we should treat energy as a national
security issue and even take steps that might in the short run seem not
to be economically as wise but in the long run will be wise and help
our economy. I care about this. I believe we should work in a
bipartisan way.
I want to push back a little bit and talk about how we got in this
fix and what it is going to take to get out of it. A few months ago
this bipartisan group and others were invited to the White House. We
met with President Bush. He passionately argued and excited all of us,
Republicans and Democrats, about his vision for ethanol and hydrogen
and biodiesel. It was a good give-and-take session. He heard
everybody's ideas. He is moving forward in many different ways. It is
good to have the President engaged personally in these issues. He has a
lot of things on his plate, but I am glad he has chosen--and has for
several months now--to personally push the development of better energy
supplies.
How did we get here? A number of things are important to note. I just
saw a report about the world economy. The world economy is growing at a
great rate, 4 or 5 percent internationally. This is so much better than
the downturn that they suffered several years ago. I was recently in
Peru and the Dominican Republic. Their growth rate has exceeded ours,
although we have had the highest growth rate of any industrialized
nation in the world, higher than any single European Nation, at least
of the larger economies in Europe. But the Dominican Republic has
exceeded our growth--9 percent growth. You know about China and India's
sustained growth, and they are using more oil and gas in all these
areas, and we are using more as a result of that economy. It has
increased demand, and we do have political instability around the
world.
We have had problems in Nigeria and problems with Venezuela. The
lines are still open there, but that is an area which causes some
problem. There is concern and speculation that we could have a shutoff
from any number of areas in the Middle East. So those are things which
have curtailed supply while demand has been increased.
I wish to talk about some of the key votes we have cast in the
Senate--votes that are very important. I have to say that in the votes
I will be talking about, my Democratic colleagues provided the bulk of
the votes that blocked decisions that should have been made, some of
which I think go beyond the pale. I have said that for years.
Let's talk about ANWR. We have heard that discussed time and time
again. It was passed one time. President Clinton vetoed it. We came
within a vote or two of passing it several times since. Ninety percent
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against opening
up ANWR to exploration. The ANWR region of Alaska is so large, it is as
large as the State of South Carolina. The area they want to drill in,
propose to drill in, where they have identified huge reserves of oil
and gas, is the size of Dulles Airport. That is how small it is. With
directional drilling and the scientific skills we have developed, we
have a proven track record that oil can be produced safely in these
kinds of regions. It is beyond my comprehension that we would deny our
Nation these large amounts of oil in the ANWR region.
I will show you what we would have to move CAFE standards to, which
is the mileage standards for automobiles, to equal the impact of the
ANWR oil and gas. You would have to raise CAFE standards to 39 miles
per gallon for cars and 29 miles for light trucks. The amount of oil
there is equivalent to the energy that would be generated by a 3.7
million-acre wind farm. It would be the size of the entire States of
Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. That is how much energy we are
talking about. Or solar energy from 448,000 acres of solar panels. A
fifth of America's domestic oil could be produced out of ANWR by 2025.
We should have done this 10 years ago. It should be flowing today. We
should hold companies and producers accountable and make sure there
will be no spills. We are producing oil and gas so much safer than we
ever have. We are not having a problem, frankly, anywhere with oil and
gas spills.
I will say one more thing about this issue. It is very offensive to
me when you say to those of us who have advocated ANWR drilling and
other areas,
[[Page S3556]]
like in the gulf: Oh, you are for the oil companies. You are doing this
for the oil companies.
Let me make one thing clear. My proposal to drill in ANWR and the
gulf and other areas is for the American people. Now, the oil companies
which own oil interests around the world--sometimes I think they don't
have enough interest in finding new reserves. They have their reserves.
They will sell it at whatever the market price is. If the supply is low
and demand is high, they will charge every dime they can charge. That
is what they have always done, and that is what they will always do.
But when we deny our people the ability to produce oil and gas in our
own country and keep that money at home--it has been estimated by union
groups that support this drilling that 600,000 jobs would be created in
America. Why would we not do that? Why would we send our money off to a
foreign nation that is hostile to our interests, perhaps, and let them
spend it and create jobs in their nation? You tell me why.
This is not a political issue. It has always been about accessibility
of oil and gas for the American people. It is not for the oil
companies, it is for the American people, to keep our wealth at home.
You may say: We care about the environment. Do you care about Lake
Maracaibo in Venezuela where they are drilling perhaps thousands of
wells or the Persian Gulf--aren't those nice areas for the environment?
What about the hundreds and thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico
off of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas?
We have to get real here. Ninety percent of the votes cast to block
the drilling in ANWR came from our Democratic colleagues. They are the
very ones in this Chamber right now who are complaining and blaming
President Bush because we don't have enough oil and gas and the price
is going up. Let's just say that is what it is. That is a plain fact.
Now, Senator Larry Craig really talked about something I know a good
bit about, just because of my location. I live in Mobile, on the Gulf
of Mexico. This past weekend, I visited my brother-in-law, who has a
house on Fort Morgan, out toward the peninsula there on Mobile Bay.
Right off of his pier, in the bay, is a producing oil well. Friday, we
got up early and went fishing; it was the first day of snapper season.
We didn't catch any snapper. We caught some redfish. Where did we go?
We went out a few miles into the gulf and fished around the oil well.
There were four boats fishing around that oil well. We caught four nice
redfish. We threw them back. That is where people fish. It provides
good structures for fish.
Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama are providing the Nation a
tremendous amount of production. Twenty percent of that production was
lost as a result of Hurricane Katrina. They have shut off the valves,
so if the rigs are damaged, the shutoff valve doesn't allow oil and gas
to spill. Many of the rigs' valves are still shut off. They are not
connected. But oil is not being spilled.
My point is that we lost 20 percent of our offshore production, and
we have a 5-percent problem still as a result of Katrina's damage to
refineries. The Senator from Mississippi knows that so well. So just
those factors right there make a demand for oil and gas to exceed the
supply. When that happens, the people who have the supplies can
manipulate the price and can charge whatever they think they can get.
That is what is happening. It has impacted us adversely. That is the
way the world works. I am not prepared to try to fix the prices on
this. I am willing to look at what has happened and ask tough questions
of the oil companies, like: Do you really have enough interest in
exploring new reservoirs and finding new reserves and bringing that on
line? Maybe you do not have enough interest. Maybe you are happy to not
confront the environmentalists or the Democratic obstructionists and
sit on what you have, and if the price goes up, charge it. We are not
getting enough production, in my view. A big part of the problem is
political; it is Congress.
Let me show you a couple of things. ANWR is a big deal. I read off
how much ANWR has. If I am not mistaken, ANWR is less than a half
billion barrels of oil. The Gulf of Mexico, according to our best
estimates, has about 3.65 billion barrels of oil, but they are under
moratorium; we cannot drill there. This is a pocketbook issue, not a
political issue. Whole regions of the gulf are not available for
drilling today. What is happening? Fidel Castro in Cuba is partnering
with China and is moving forward with plans that could allow him to
drill within 50 miles of Florida, off the Florida coast. He can drill,
but we cannot. He can take the money and fund his adventures around
South and Central America and complain against the United States. And
we are going to buy oil from him? Is that who we pay? And the Chinese
company that produces it--is that what people would like to see?
This is reality. That is all I am saying. It is not a pleasant
thought. It is unfortunate. I suggest that if we had moved forward out
there, we may not be seeing such activities now.
I will show you another chart. This shows what Secretary of the
Interior Norton said about Hurricane Katrina, one of the most powerful
hurricanes ever to hit the United States:
Despite such intense winds and powerful waves offshore, we
experienced no significant spills from any offshore well on
the outer continental shelf.
See these dots on the chart? They represent oil platforms. There are
hundreds and hundreds of them there, and we are getting a tremendous
amount of oil and gas from them. It is important to the American
economy. If we weren't buying it there, who would we be paying for it?
Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria? So we have been getting it here
in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Look over at this area of the gulf, where 3.65 billion barrels of
reserve is expected to be, and there is a moratorium on that; we cannot
drill out there. Why? Because somebody in Florida believes it might
impact their coastline adversely. But we have had no impact, and they
are drilling a mile off of our shores, in our bay, in little Mobile Bay
right here, up in the bay, where there are wells. And there are wells
off of the Texas and Louisiana coasts by the hundreds. We are not
having oil spills. Do you think you would not see it on television if
there were a spill? They would have it on the front pages, whether it
was significant or not. We are just not seeing that. They have learned
to do this in such a safe way that we have been able to avoid any
significant spills.
So, as Senator Craig noted, right here on the chart there is a little
lease area--some area we can drill in--and we are working on that now.
Some are trying to block that. I want to repeat that the votes we have
cast on the floor that deal with that issue have fundamentally involved
party-line votes on so many of these issues--although not totally. Our
Presiding Officer cares about this issue. He is from Florida, and I
admire him so much. We just disagree on this issue. I fish around these
rigs. I am not so much worried about it. I would like my Florida
friends to get more comfortable with the wells, and they would be less
concerned about them. So these wells are there, and we have an
opportunity to drill a tremendous amount of them, and then that natural
wealth will be returned again and again in our own economy so that we
can keep it in our Nation instead of sending it to nations around the
world, many of which are hostile to our political interests or to our
national security interests. It is important. That is why we have a
national security caucus, because we are concerned about the transfer
of American wealth to nations whose interests are not harmonious with
ours.
It is a big deal. I point out a story I told a year or so ago on the
floor. My hometown of Mobile produces natural gas offshore, and there
is a pipeline there. Our friends in Florida down in Tampa and other
places on the beach have nice houses and they have to keep them cool.
So they took our natural gas that we produce and put a pipeline all the
way to Florida so they could generate electricity to cool their fine
houses on the beach where they can have their mint juleps out there in
the breeze. It is such a beautiful area down there.
I think they ought to start asking themselves: Would it hurt if we
had some wells out in this area of the country? Would it help the
American economy? Wouldn't it make us a healthier, stronger nation? I
think so.
[[Page S3557]]
So we had some debates about this last year with the Energy bill and
a modest proposal came up.
I will conclude with this, because I am pushing back a little bit at
some of my colleagues who are screaming about the high price of oil and
gas. Somebody came out with a proposal to survey the Atlantic Coast
where we haven't surveyed to see if there is oil and gas out there. The
religious crowd, the anti-oil production religious crowd opposed that.
They opposed even doing a survey. Seventy percent of the votes against
that amendment were provided by my colleagues on the other side.
I assure you, a good percentage of those who voted against even
surveying our coastline to see if there is any more oil and gas
available, if we ever decided to drill, are some of the same ones who
are yelling the loudest about high oil prices.
I thank the Chair for this time. We need to move away from politics.
We need to think through this issue carefully and see what we can do to
improve the method of production, to improve conservation, and to deal
with the scientific breakthroughs and accelerate those so we can
confront the problems we face and reduce these high oil and gas prices.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to speak as
in morning business for 8 minutes to introduce a measure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. BOND. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Bond pertaining to the introduction of S. 2658
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes. There was objection to setting aside the
pending amendment.
Mrs. MURRAY. We just want to see what it is.
Amendment No. 3641
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will
report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 3641.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, at this time I ask the amendment be
divided in the form which I send to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be so divided.
The amendment is as follows:
At the appropriate place, add the following:
Division I
``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 9 of this Act, for the Federal Railroad
Administration under the heading ``Capital Grants for Rail
Line Relocation Projects'' may be available for the Rail Line
Relocation Capital Grant program, and the amount made
available under such heading is reduced by $700,000,000.
Division II
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to implement seafood promotion
strategies, and the amount made available under such heading
is reduced by $15,000,000.
Division III
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Sec.
7030(b) of this Act shall not take effect.
Division IV
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Sec. 2303
of this Act shall not take effect.
Division V
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 9 of this Act, for the Federal Highway
Administration under the heading ``Emergency Relief Program''
may be available for the projects listed in the Federal
Highway Administration emergency relief backlog table, and
the amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$594,000,000.
Division VI
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to study for three years the
profitability of shrimp and reef fish fisheries, and the
amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$20,000,000.
Division VII
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 7 of this Act, for the Corporation for National
and Community Service under the heading ``National and
Community Service Programs, Operating Expenses'' may be
available for the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community
Corps, and the amount made available under such heading is
reduced by $20,000,000.
Division VIII
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
I, chapter 3 of this Act, for the Navy under the heading
``Aircraft Procurement, Navy'' may be available for the
procurement of V-22 aircraft, and the amount made available
under such heading is reduced by $230,000,000.
Division IX
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 4 of this Act, for the Army Corps of Engineers
under the heading ``Construction'' may be available for the
acceleration of the American River (Common Features) project
in California, and the amount made available under such
heading is reduced by $3,300,000.
Division X
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the
National Marine Fisheries Service to equip fishing vessels
with logbooks to record haul-by-haul catch data, and the
amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$10,000,000.
Division XI
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 8 of this Act, for the Armed Forces Retirement
Home under the heading ``Major Construction'' may be
available for the Armed Forces Retirement Home, and the
amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$176,000,000.
Division XII
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to equip the off-shore shrimp and
reef fishery with electronic vessel monitoring systems, and
the amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$10,000,000.
Division XIII
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to assist New England coastal
communities that were impacted by a red tide outbreak, and
the amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$20,000,000,
Division XIV
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 4 of this Act, for the Army Corps of Engineers
under the heading ``Construction'' may be available for the
acceleration of the
[[Page S3558]]
South Sacramento Streams project in California, and the
amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$6,250,000.
Division XV
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to develop temporary marine services
centers, and the amount made available under such heading is
reduced by $50,000,000.
Division XVI
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service for replacement of private fisheries
infrastructure, and the amount made available under such
heading is reduced by $90,000,000.
Division XVII
Notwithstandmg any other provision of this Act, none of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title II,
chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to employ fishers and vessel owners,
and the amount made available under such heading is reduced
by $25,000,000.
Division XVIII
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 2 of this Act, for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the heading ``Operations,
Research, and Facilities'' may be available for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to replace damaged fishing gear, and
the amount made available under such heading is reduced by
$200,000,000.
Division XIX
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, none of
the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in title
II, chapter 4 of this Act, for the Army Corps of Engineers
under the heading ``Construction'' may be available for the
acceleration of construction of the Sacramento Riverbank
Protection Project in California, and the amount made
available under such heading is reduced by $11,300,000.''
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that this point, division 1 of the
original amendment, be pending, and I will withhold my time until I
have noticed both Senators Lott and Cochran--and I see Senator Cochran
here--because I know they will want to be active on this debate. I
would ask their guidance on when I should bring this up for
consideration of this first amendment which has to do with the railroad
and supplemental moneys for the movement of the CSX railroad in
Mississippi.
I ask their advice and desire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Division 1 is pending.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have no
advice to give him except to withdraw the amendment. I disagree with
it, the part I have read, so that would be my advice.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
I want to talk first about this. Our country is facing some pretty
significant financial difficulties, and we find ourselves with a
supplemental bill, as requested by the President. Basically, the whole
idea of this supplemental is something the American people should
reject. We have been in a war now going into the fourth year. We should
have the money for funding this war as part of the regular budget. It
should not be in an emergency supplemental. Of what we know about the
Katrina results, that should have been budgeted this year as well, but
it was not.
It is important for everybody to know why it was not. It is not
budgeted because it becomes part and parcel of the debt your children
and grandchildren will have to pay, without ever getting on the books
of the Federal Government. So when you hear the deficit or the
surplus--which it has not been for some time, as a matter of fact not
since the early 1970s if you were honest in the accounting--you hear
the budget numbers this year, for what the budget will be, and it will
not count this money. This money will not be counted, although it will
be added to the IOUs that our children and grandchildren will be paying
back.
I am thankful for the leadership, in terms of giving us an
opportunity this June to talk about budget process reform. Nobody would
run their household this way. No business runs this way. This is a
gimmicky way under which we can disguise how much we put this country
in debt, and it ought not to be that way.
Most people understood that and would agree with it. Yet we find
ourselves here. I am not happy we are doing a supplemental emergency
bill in that regard.
The second thing is many of the things with Katrina we knew were
coming before the budget came through the Senate and the House, and
that should not be an emergency. Emergencies are supposed to be
reserved for true emergencies, unexpected costs facing the Federal
Government. This bill is loaded with things that are not unexpected. We
knew the war was going to be expected. We knew some of these costs
associated with Katrina and Rita and Wilma were expected. So we need to
address the integrity of our process. It is my hope in June we will be
able to do that.
I know this amendment will, in fact, not win when it comes to a floor
vote on the Senate floor. But I want to give a little background.
During Hurricane Katrina, large sections of the CSX railroad along the
gulf coast of Mississippi were damaged or destroyed. One 40-mile
stretch of track was completely destroyed. The railroad hugs the gulf
coast and stretches from New Orleans to Mobile, AL. It is one of only
two railroads that reach New Orleans from the east. The other passes
over Lake Ponchartrain and runs parallel to the I-10 Twin Spans Bridge.
Three railroads approach New Orleans from the west. Although the CSX
railroad was significantly damaged by Katrina, it was repaired; $250
million in insurance proceeds and I believe somewhere between $30
million and $50 million from CSX to repair it and bring it back up to
usable and safe status.
Governor Barber, following Hurricane Katrina, created a commission.
My hat is off to him. I think he has done a wonderful job for the State
of Mississippi and their response to this. This commission was to
review and recommend options for recovery and rebuilding in the State
of Mississippi. The report released by the Governor's commission
recommended purchase of the CSX right-of-way in order to create a new
east-west thoroughfare, relieve congestion on US 90, and to provide for
light rail or rapid transport through Gulfport. The report also
proposes to transform US 90, which runs directly along the gulf coast,
into a scenic, pedestrian, friendly beach boulevard. One of the
Commission's reports also states:
For many years, planners and local leaders have called for
the removal of freight traffic on the CSX railway, which runs
east-west through the region, roughly 800 feet from the
coast.
I actually went to Mississippi and visited this area after the
hurricane. You can see the hurricane damage, you can see this road, and
then you can see the rail.
Numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and ABC, have
stated local developers and planners have wanted this railway relocated
for years. I agree with that. I think this is a great development plan
for the State of Mississippi to enhance the value of their beaches,
their waterfront, and the wonderful coastal assets they have. I do not
object to the plans behind this. I think it is very good from a
developmental standpoint.
What is unknown at this point is where the existing CSX freight
traffic will be transferred. While the Governor's commission recommends
in some areas the relocation of the railroad somewhere north of I-10,
which is 3 to 6 miles from the coast, the Commission's final report
pegs the cost of that proposal at $795 million and states the idea is
no longer seen as practical. If the entire railroad right-of-way of
Mississippi is purchased by the State, rail traffic heading west from
Alabama would have to be rerouted northwest from Mobile to Hattiesburg,
into Mississippi, and then southwest into New Orleans and Lake
Ponchartrain. The additional distance of this route relative to the CSX
line along the coast is approximately 100 miles. There is currently a
railroad that runs from Hattiesburg into Gulfport, but if the CSX
right-of-way is surrendered, it would not be possible for a freight
train traveling along that line to go from Gulfport to New Orleans.
There are a lot of other things I will not go into. I think the
principles that
[[Page S3559]]
we ought to be asking about are, is this a bad idea? No, it is not a
bad idea. It is a good idea.
No. 2, is it an emergency? I would contend that this is not an
emergency, especially on the fact that this has been planned and
advocated for years in Mississippi in terms of the development--some
for safety. Some will argue the railroad line now has 70-plus
crossings. But the statistics on safety are that they are at a 5-year
low in terms of injury. For 30 years it has been a declining number. It
is not an emergency.
The railroad is vulnerable, where it currently lies, to hurricanes.
There is no question about that. But so will a five- to seven-lane
highway that is going to be put in its place be vulnerable.
The current budget resolution for 2006 explicitly defines what
constitutes an emergency, and it should be noted that all of the
following five criteria must be satisfied in order for something to be
considered an emergency: necessary, essential, and violent; sudden,
quickly coming into being and not building up over time; an urgent,
pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; unforeseen,
unpredictable, and unanticipated; and not permanent, temporary in
nature.
The proposal to move this railroad does not meet the definition of
emergency as defined by the Congress. The permanent removal of a
railroad to make way for permanent construction of a highway does not
qualify as an emergency either, as well. While the railroad may indeed
be vulnerable to hurricanes because of its proximity to the coast, it
makes no sense to replace it with a highway that is going to be just as
vulnerable in its proximity to the coast.
Despite the vulnerability of the railroad, CSX and its insurers
quickly repaired the lines such that it was fully operational within
months of its destruction.
There is no desire, I believe, by CSX to move this line, and it would
be good business sense if CSX thought it was vulnerable to the point it
should make a business decision to move the line interior to the State
of Mississippi.
According to Gary Sease, a spokesperson for CSX:
We rebuilt that line across the gulf coast as quickly as
possible because it is a critical artery for us. It serves
our purposes. It meets our customers' needs. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Furthermore, at a time when it is important more than ever to have
freight quickly delivered to devastated regions in New Orleans along
the gulf coast, it is inadvisable to remove one of the only railroads
into New Orleans from the east, one of two, thus forcing the remaining
freight over Lake Pontchartrain.
Within the emergency spending bill, the railroad funding is provided
through the Rail Line Relocation Capital Grant Program which was
created in the 2005 highway bill. That program requires the Secretary
of Transportation to analyze the effects of the railroad relocation on
motor vehicle, pedestrian traffic, safety, community, quality of life,
and area commerce. However, the language providing money for the
railroad specifically prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from
considering those factors as they apply to the CSX relocation.
If safety is a sufficient reason to relocate the rail, it is
incredibly odd that the Secretary of Transportation would be prohibited
from making judgments as to the effects of the railroad relocation on
safety and traffic. We will hear today that hurricane evacuation is a
reason to relocate the railroad so it will relieve congestion along
U.S. 90 and allow for a better evacuation route in the potential of
future hurricanes. They will also say at the same time that the
railroad's current location is too vulnerable to future hurricanes.
These claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same
time.
If the current location is too vulnerable to future damage, it makes
no sense to build a brand new highway in exactly the same place. It
will be wiped out in the next massive hurricane as well.
Both the railroad and the proposed new east-west thoroughfare are
located half a mile from U.S. 90 and the gulf coast. A major interstate
highway, I-10, is located only 3 to 6 miles farther to the north. Given
that the railroad was completely destroyed by Katrina at least over a
40-mile section, the argument that a new road in its place would be
safe is hard to fathom.
I have great respect for the Senators from Mississippi. They are
great advocates for their State. They are accomplished legislators.
They are experienced beyond all means in the operations of the Senate
and how to accomplish the best goal that they perceive for their State
and our country.
I have to say that at some point it has to stop. Americans have to
ask the question:
No. 1, is something truly an emergency?
No. 2, is it truly the responsibility of the rest of the country to
do an economical development project that was on the drawing table long
before Katrina and to use Katrina as the justification to have the rest
of us pay for it?
I don't believe that is fair for future generations of this country.
I don't think it is fair for the process.
I think you can see in the wording of this bill that the very
definition of emergency is not met. I think you can also see very
clearly that blocking the Secretary of Transportation from making an
evaluation on safety was designed because they may in fact not pass
that test. It has to stop. Our children and grandchildren deserve for
us to preserve the opportunities we have had. We cannot continue to
borrow money from their future standard of living so we can do what we
want to do today. The heritage of our country is one of sacrifice in
the present generation to create opportunity for the future.
This is a good plan for Mississippi; it is just not a plan that the
people of the rest of the country--especially on an emergency basis--
ought to be asked to do.
If in fact it is brought back through the proper process and channels
and looked at by the full committee and this body feels it should be
done in a prudent and thoughtful way, that would be far better than
putting it into this bill. Mississippi will win if this happens. But
the future of our country loses if this kind of thing continues to
happen.
This is called an earmark. It is placed in a bill to benefit one
specific area at the expense of everyone else. It has legitimate value
for the State of Mississippi. It is not an emergency. And it certainly
will be paid for through lost opportunities for our kids and our
grandkids. Think about what $700 million could do for everybody else in
Katrina. How many classrooms can be rebuilt? How many hospitals to
serve the poor and helpless can be made available? How much education
can we offer up that will create future opportunities and earnings?
The progress we seek to secure for the future is being limited by our
own inability to make the hard decisions that aren't pleasing, aren't
fun, but that are necessary to secure that future.
If you assume an interest rate on our debt--which is going to be very
soon 6 percent--this $700 million relocation will balloon to more than
$4 billion by the time we start paying it back. The net present value
of this isn't $700 million, it is $4 billion. That is what your
grandchildren will have to pay back for what we are proposing to do
today.
I respect a great deal the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.
He has a very difficult job. Everybody asks and nobody wants to give
when they come to see Chairman Cochran. Everybody has a need. He has
the job to find the best way to get a bill out of his committee. This
particular project just happens to lie within his home State, and he
advised me that his best recommendation would be for me to withdraw the
amendment. I understand why. But I cannot in good conscience withdraw
what I perceive to be and many are willing to debate on the floor
something that is truly not an emergency, and truly even though it will
offer great benefits for Mississippi in terms of economic development
is not something the rest of us in the country should be paying for.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S3560]]
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. 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. COCHRAN. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set
aside so the Senator from Hawaii can proceed to offer an amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3642
Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for permitting me to
discuss my amendment. I send my amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka], for himself, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Dayton, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Landrieu, Ms.
Mikulski, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Biden, Mr. Rockefeller, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Reed, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Pryor, and
Mr. Johnson, proposes an amendment numbered 3642.
Mr. AKAKA. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide an additional $430,000,000 for the Department of
Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient and inpatient care
and treatment for veterans)
On page 128, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
veterans health administration
medical services
For an additional amount for ``Medical Services'' for
necessary expenses for furnishing, as authorized by law,
outpatient and inpatient care and treatment to beneficiaries
of the Department of Veterans Affairs and veterans as
described in paragraphs (1) through (8) of section 1705(a) of
title 38, United States Code, including care and treatment in
facilities not under the jurisdiction of the department and
including medical supplies and equipment and salaries and
expenses of healthcare employees hired under title 38, United
States Code, and to aid State homes as authorized under
section 1741 of title 38, United States Code, $430,000,000
plus reimbursements: Provided, That of the amount under this
heading, $168,000,000 shall be available to address the needs
of servicemembers in need of mental health care, including
post-traumatic stress disorder: Provided further, That of the
amount under this heading, $80,000,000 shall be available for
the provision of readjustment counseling under section 1712A
of title 38, United States Code (commonly referred to as
``Vet Centers''): Provided further, That of the amount under
this heading $182,000,000 shall be available to meet current
and pending care and treatment requirements: Provided
further, That the amount under this heading shall remain
available until expended: Provided further, That the amount
provided under this heading is designated as an emergency
requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th
Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be yielded 10
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today with the Senator from
Washington, Senator Murray, and the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator
Kerry, to offer an amendment to address the costs of providing health
care to veterans. I am proud that 16 of our colleagues have joined us
in this effort.
Last year, we all recognized the need to provide supplemental funds
to VA. We did this to allow VA to absorb an influx of new patients from
Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom. It is time to act once again.
This amendment we offer today allows VA to provide care for returning
troops without displacing those veterans currently using the system. It
provides VA with more tools to deal with those mental health issues
faced by returning veterans.
The amount of this amendment, $430 million, is largely directed
toward mental health needs, coupled with a modest level of funding to
eradicate waiting lists and existing shortfalls. Eighty million dollars
is directed to Vet Centers, readjustment counseling, and outreach. For
returning veterans who have suffered psychological wounds, the stigma
surrounding these types of injuries creates a barrier that oftentimes
prevents them from seeking the care they need. Vet Centers provide a
means to overcome this barrier because of the location in the community
and because veteran staff members can relate to the experiences of
veterans seeking services.
We are receiving information that our Vet Centers maintenance funding
is being depleted. We learned also that resources for equipment that is
needed by the centers cannot be bought because funds are not available.
In the year 2005, Vet Centers cared for 36,000 veterans. So far this
year, Vet Centers have seen more than 70,000 such veterans.
This chart shows in 2003 there were 1,936 veterans; in 2004 there
were 9,611 veterans; in the year 2005, 36,717. It is projected to be
70,547. Therefore, the need for assistance is there.
When we close the books on 2006, Vet Centers will have ended up
seeing nearly 140,000. That is a projection. Yet the budget for the
program has remained virtually stagnant.
Another component of our amendment aggressively targets the more
debilitating mental health issues of servicemembers. The experts
predict as many as 30 percent of those returning servicemembers may
need psychiatric care. Yet we are told that the system is nowhere near
ready to handle this type of workload.
Steady budget cuts over the years have diminished VA mental health
care capacity. GAO found VA has lagged in the implementation of
recommendations made by its own advisory committee on PTSD to improve
treatment of veterans who suffer from this very serious mental illness.
The GAO has questioned whether VA can keep pace with the demand for
mental health treatment from veterans of Operations Iraqi and Enduring
Freedom. In order to provide the VA health care system for these needs,
we believe $168 million should be sent to VA. The VA developed its own
comprehensive plan to reach all veterans in clinics or in VA hospitals.
This is the administration's plan, but we need to find a way to fund
it.
In addition to mental health needs, our amendment addresses the
existing shortfalls in the system. We know right now waiting lists have
begun to creep up. VA hospitals are running deficits. Yes, we are back
here again.
Let me share some specifics. In Phoenix, the supplemental funds
provided last year went almost entirely to help with the backlog of
patients and nary a dime was used for equipment purchases or
maintenance which was delayed previously.
In Network 22, they are still relying on management efficiencies to
balance the budget. These same efficiencies were decried by the GAO as
being fictitious.
In Texas, the VA is again using maintenance and equipment funds to
cover its current deficit.
Health care provider positions also remain open all across the
country, resulting in shortages of doctors, nurses, and medical
technicians, to name a few. We know we can do better.
I close by taking my colleagues back a year when we offered a similar
amendment to the last war supplemental. Armed with evidence that VA
facilities were operating in the red, we came before our colleagues and
asked that VA be given the funds necessary to care for returning
servicemembers. We had VA's own documentation which showed that higher
numbers of patients were seeking care than were expected.
The Bush administration, at the same time, assured all Members that
sufficient funds were available. Our amendment was rejected. Many were
led to believe VA could handle the unexpected workload. It took 4
months for the VA to come clean and admit help was needed from
Congress. With swift bipartisan action, the VA finally ended up with
more funding.
Let's be upfront about the fact that the costs of the war we are
fighting today will continue to add up long after the final shot is
fired, mainly in the form of veterans' health care and veterans'
benefits.
I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to see that
servicemembers are provided the care they are currently earning.
I yield to the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
[[Page S3561]]
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am very proud to be in the Senate today
to support the Senator from Hawaii, Senator Akaka, in offering this
amendment, the current pending business regarding adding additional
funds for our veterans who have served us so honorably overseas every
day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Can the Senator
yield to another Senator?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. He cannot yield, but the Senator can be
recognized on her own and she was recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, every day in Iraq and Afghanistan the men
and women of our Armed Forces make us very proud. Last year, I had the
honor of visiting our troops in Baghdad and Kuwait. I was personally
impressed with their commitment and their professionalism. We in this
Senate all agree that we support them and we stand with them as they
carry out the mission they have been asked to do.
However, they also deserve our support when they come home, when they
come home as veterans. We need to make sure they have the health care
they were promised, job training, and transition assistance. They
deserve all the things our country promised them when they signed up to
serve us.
Unfortunately, today our country is still falling short of meeting
those needs. We all have known for years that the demands on the VA
have grown considerably, but funding just has not kept pace. Senator
Akaka talked about what happened last year with the funding shortfall
we got into. We had to get back in place emergency funds to meet the
needs last year.
We are again offering this amendment to increase funding for
America's veterans, frankly, because they were there for us and now it
is up to us to be there for them.
We need this amendment this year again because veterans are still
facing tremendous shortages and delays in getting the care they need.
Veterans today coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan are able to get an
appointment initially with the VA, but then they have to wait up to 6
months for a consultation and another 7 months for surgery. So, as a
result, we are seeing veterans today take over a year before they get
the care they are seeking at our veteran services. A lot of our
veterans coming back from Iraq have to wait 18 months to get their
disability claims processed. Imagine returning from Iraq and waiting a
year and a half before you get the services you have been promised.
We all have met with veterans who have returned. We know many of them
are coming back with severe injuries. Many of them are facing
tremendous mental health hurdles. Today, the VA is operating on a bare-
bones funding. It is doing more and more with less and less. As the war
in Iraq continues, our heavy reliance on the Guard and Reserve has
affected the VA and utilization rates in our ability to keep our
promises to them for their health care and their services when they
return.
Last month, the Secretary of the VA came in front of the MilCon VA
Subcommittee and told us that OIF and OEF veterans accessing VA care
was 38 percent higher than expected halfway through this fiscal year--
38 percent higher than they predicted, than they had requested funds
for.
We have to make sure the VA has the funds it needs to care for our
veterans. I personally can think of no better way to honor those who
have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan and their
families than by taking care of them when they return.
All Senate Members have met with our veterans, their families and
spouses, those who serve them. We know the mental health care of our
veterans is not being met today. Recent reports have verified that 30
percent of OIF and OEF veterans are accessing mental health services.
That is much higher than anyone predicted.
We need to make sure those mental health care services are available.
That is why Senator Akaka is in the Senate today offering this
amendment to provide the VA with $430 million to enhance readjustment
counseling and outreach to returning servicemembers, to shore up the
VA's capacity to provide mental health services to veterans who need
them, and to address the current shortfalls we are facing across the
system.
Our amendment simply recognizes that caring for our veterans is and
should be part of the ongoing cost of war. The bulk of the VA's
readjustment counseling is provided through our Vet Centers, as many
Members know. These are storefront facilities that operate
independently of the rest of the VA health care system. That separation
from the institutional VA care makes them an invaluable resource in
reaching many of our returning servicemembers who today may be wary of
the VA system or in very remote locations.
Our amendment provides $80 million for these Vet Centers so they can
meet the needs they are seeing today. We know in the budget these Vet
Centers have been flatlined. Over the years, these centers have
provided services to a total of 118,811 OIF and OEF veterans. So far
this year, these Vet centers have provided services to 70,547 OIF and
OEF veterans. And these vet center services include outreach to our
returning servicemembers at their demobilization sites. So they are
very critical services, and we need to make sure they are funded.
I mentioned mental health a minute ago. I think we all know that men
and women who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering
serious mental health problems. So our amendment addresses that by
providing $168 million toward the implementation of the VA's own mental
health strategic plan. That will help serve our veterans who are
suffering from PTSD and other debilitating conditions.
We all know, and as I know from talking to our soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan, many of these soldiers are literally on the front line 24-
7, and we know the cost of that in returning. We have to make sure they
get the services they need for PTSD and other mental health conditions
because not only should we provide that for them because they need it
but because we need to make sure when they come home they get the help
they need so they can remain valuable members of our communities.
Finally, the amendment secures an additional $182 million for the
various regions in the country that are once again suffering from
shortfalls. Despite all of our work last year, and despite our efforts
on the floor last year, evidence has continued to mount that
demonstrates there is still a need for supplemental funds. The VA
medical centers are still millions of dollars in debt. We need to make
sure we provide the dollars within the supplemental to take care of
that.
So I am proud to stand with Senator Akaka as we offer this amendment.
I hope every Senator recognizes that part of the cost of war is paying
for the care of our men and women when they return home. I can think of
no more important promise to keep. I urge all Senators to join us in
supporting this critical amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the
Akaka amendment to increase funding for the Department of Veterans
Affairs by $430 million dollars.
We are offering this amendment on this emergency legislation composed
primarily of war funding for two simple reasons. In the first place,
this funding is needed urgently to meet the needs of America's
veterans. Second, caring for America's veterans is a continuing cost of
war.
Sadly, the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to have to
tighten its belt to meet the needs of its patients. Last year, after
warnings from Democrats, the administration was compelled by the
gravity of events to admit a shortage of more than $1 billion for
veterans health care. Congress made an emergency supplemental
appropriation of the needed dollars, but we know now that the
Department is still $182 million short. I don't believe that the VA
should have to squeeze budgets to provide patient care. So this
amendment rightfully provides $182 million to cover unmet needs.
Not all the wounds of war are physical. In July of 2004, the New
England Journal of Medicine reported that one in six combat veterans in
Iraq and Afghanistan showed symptoms of major depression, anxiety, or
posttraumatic
[[Page S3562]]
stress disorder. A more recent study in the Journal of the American
Medical Association found that 19.1 percent of returning veterans from
Iraq and 11.3 percent of veterans returning from Afghanistan reported
mental health problems. We know from historic experience that soldiers
will return from war having to navigate a range of emotional issues,
regardless of whether they are diagnosed with PTSD.
So this amendment will provide $248 million dollars to fund expanded
screening and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and other
mental health conditions. It will enable the VA to make use of
community-based outpatient clinics for PTSD screening and treatment. It
will expand innovative programs that link the work of Vet Centers with
National Guard units returning from combat.
We must never forget the veteran--that young American who stood up to
be counted when their country needed them. Now they need our
assistance, and it is our turn to stand with them. I urge my colleagues
to stand up and be counted on this important amendment.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to indicate my strong
support for the amendment by Senators Akaka, Murray and others to
provide an additional $430 million for the Department of Veterans
Affairs as part of the supplemental appropriations. I have asked to be
included as a cosponsor of this crucial amendment.
While I am recovering from recent surgery and unable to cast my vote
on the floor, I continue to monitor the work of the Senate and I want
to signal my continuous support for better funding for VA care. We
should make it a priority to care for all our veterans, the young
soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and the aging veterans
from previous conflicts including our WWII veterans.
This amendment is a strategic investment. It would provide $80
million for our vet centers that provide vital readjustment counseling.
The budget for vet centers has been flat for too long. In recent years,
the centers and staff have struggled to meet the needs of our returning
veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan. Since 2001, over 118,811 veterans,
including Guards and Reservists, have sought services and support from
our vet centers. I have visited vet centers in West Virginia and
privately met with returning veterans so I am very aware of the care
and support our centers provide. The work of our centers is truly
important for our veterans and their families throughout West Virginia
and our country.
This amendment also includes $168 million for a comprehensive VA
Mental Health Plan. Many studies indicate that as many as one out of
every three returning veterans will need some type of mental health
care, and many veterans will struggle with posttraumatic stress
disorder. Rumors persist throughout my state about delays in testing
and care for mental health issues for veterans after their initial
health care appointment. Every veteran who has served in combat
deserves the full range of health care in a timely manner, including
mental health care.
Another concern is a variety of shortfalls that our VA hospitals and
networks are reporting. Some areas need specialty doctors, while other
hospitals face nursing shortages. This important amendment would
provide $182 million to deal with current shortfalls in the system
based on local needs and problems.
For West Virginia veterans, and veterans across our country, this
amendment states that we fully support their service to our country,
and their return home and successful readjustment to civilian
life.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the
distinguished Senator from Texas has an amendment to the Akaka
amendment which she intends to offer. And I was going to be sure she
had that opportunity at this time. I am happy to yield to her for that
purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. ENSIGN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to
the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for a moment?
The Chair is corrected. The Senator cannot yield the floor to another
Senator.
The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I have the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.
Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. President.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. President, I want to thank Senators McCain, Graham, DeMint,
Sununu, and Coburn for joining me in a motion to commit that I will
raise in a minute. I believe the Appropriations Committee needs to go
back to the drawing board to come up with a bill that does not exceed
the President's request of $94.5 billion in emergency spending. Let me
be clear--I don't agree with everything in the President's request--I
do believe that we should not spend above the total level of his
request.
The emergency supplemental appropriations bill we are considering
today provides funds necessary to support our troops who are fighting
to make our nation more secure. This bill provides $72 billion for
defense. Much of this funding is absolutely critical. It will ensure
that our troops have the safest and most up-to-date equipment, as they
serve in harm's way, in order to protect each of us.
That is why I support many of the provisions of this supplemental
appropriations bill. I am, however, disappointed that this bill
includes so much unnecessary, and in fact wasteful, spending. Spending
that is not related to the emergency needs of the military. Spending
that was not requested by the President, the Commander-in-Chief of our
Nation's military.
In my opinion, this bill abuses the spending process. Certain
provisions in this bill clearly reflect that the Senate is using our
troops to push wasteful spending through Congress. That is simply
wrong.
Congressional spending is out of control. So much spending in
Washington is simply wasteful. We are running huge deficits as a result
of too much spending. The American public understands all of this. What
I can't understand is why Congress does not.
This bill has questionable and unnecessary spending. The purpose of
an ``emergency supplemental'' is to provide spending to address
national emergencies. Last year's budget contained a comprehensive
explanation of what constitutes an emergency. The budget states that an
emergency addresses a situation that is ``necessary, essential, or
vital.'' Much of the spending included in this emergency supplemental
appropriations bill does not meet the budget's definition of an
emergency. This bill shows that the Senate has no concept of what an
``emergency'' is.
Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
being spent wisely. We should not, in good conscience, continue to pass
off trillions of dollars in debt to our children and grandchildren in
order to fund extraneous nondefense spending. If we enact this bill,
Congress will not be acting as good stewards. I agree with the
President when he says ``taxpayer dollars should be spent wisely, or
not at all.'' Sadly, there is a great deal of spending in this bill
that should not be spent at all.
I make a motion to recommit the underlying bill to the Committee on
Appropriations with instructions that it be reported back with total
net spending not to exceed $94.5 billion.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I will yield to the Senator from Arizona
for a question without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Nevada explain exactly what his
motion is?
Mr. ENSIGN. I thank my colleague from Arizona for his question. It is
important for my colleagues to understand the substance of this motion.
This motion only sets the spending ceiling for this bill. We are not
singling out anyone's projects with this motion. We are not stripping
funding for any provision.
This motion sends the bill back to the Appropriations Committee for
further consideration. It preserves the rights of the committee to
determine the level of spending for each program.
[[Page S3563]]
We are not taking anything away from the committee's jurisdiction. The
motion lets the committee make their decisions but within the top line
number that the President called for yesterday.
If the Appropriations Committee wants to fund items in this bill that
were not requested by the President, they can do so. But they must pay
for it. They must find offsets. That is what this motion does. We were
sent here to make decisions, sometimes hard ones. This motion ensures
that this Congress makes tough decisions today rather than heaping debt
on to the backs of our children and grandchildren.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] moves to recommit the
underlying bill to the Committee on Appropriations with
instructions that it be reported back with total net spending
not exceeding $94.5 billion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit,
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be 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. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is
absent due to family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 28, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 97 Leg.]
YEAS--68
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--28
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
McCain
McConnell
Santorum
Sessions
Sununu
Thomas
NOT VOTING--4
Biden
Bingaman
Kerry
Rockefeller
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Texas is
recognized.
Amendment No. 3647 to Amendment No. 3642
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to
the Akaka amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 3647 to amendment No. 3642.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify the availability of funds)
Before the period at the end of the amendment insert the
following:
``: Provided further, That these amounts shall be available
only to the extent that an official budget request for the
entire amount is submitted to the Congress by the President
that includes designation of the entire amount of the request
as an emergency requirement.''
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the amendment is on behalf of myself
and Senator Burns. This second-degree amendment basically says that the
funds available in the Akaka amendment would only be expended if the
President requests of Congress such an emergency expenditure.
I certainly understand that the veterans need to have all of the
money that would cover their legitimate health care costs. That is
exactly what we have done in the underlying appropriations bills from
last year and this year. In fact, the Veterans' Administration, after
we put $1.5 billion in emergency spending in the health care account
last year, is 4.3 percent below last year's spending level. That is
because they now have better modeling for what is forecast to be needed
in the medical care-medical service area.
In the mental health area that is covered by the Akaka amendment,
there is already $2.8 billion from the 2006 budget which is $386
million over the 2005 level. The 2006 medical care account has $31
billion, and that is $1.1 billion over the 2005 level. We have also
added supplemental expenditures over the 2006 budget.
I think the prudent thing for us to do is to allow this money to be
made available only if the President and the Veterans' Administration
request it, and that is exactly what my amendment does.
I ask for support of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I want the Senator from Texas to know that
I do appreciate the changes made by her. I believe it is an approach
with which we can all live.
A letter was circulated last year to Senators in which the VA assured
Senators ``that the VA does not need emergency supplemental funds in FY
2005 to continue to provide the timely quality service that is always
our goal. But certainly for the remainder of this year, I do not
foresee any challenges that are not solvable within our own management
decision capability.''
We know that in the end, however, emergency funds were needed. With
this modification in my amendment, I expect the President to come
forward expeditiously and will not tolerate forestalling and
suppression of the facts. Our men and women are depending on us. We
will be watching.
I express my appreciation for the second-degree amendment. Following
the adoption of that amendment, I will ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment, as amended by the Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, let me answer the Senator from Hawaii
by saying I commend the President and Secretary Nicholson for coming
forward after the letter that had been written during our regular
appropriations process and saying they did need extra money. And,
Congress stepped right up to the plate. We worked together with the
Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Washington, and my colleague
Senator Feinstein to provide that money. We always will do that. We
will never skimp on veterans' care and, in fact, it is now acknowledged
that it is the best health care system in America.
This money Senator Akaka has proposed will be available, if needed,
if the President asks for it. It will certainly be there. I ask for the
adoption of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the second-degree
amendment? If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3647.
The amendment (No. 3647) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me speak briefly on what we have done
and why I suggest we do not need to do it. I have the great privilege
of being the chairman of the authorizing Veterans Affairs Committee.
The Senator from Texas has done the right thing to shape the Akaka
amendment that calls for, in an emergency spending bill, an emergency
of $430 million in this fiscal year, and yet, did you hear what the
Senator from Texas said?
Because of what I demanded last year, because of what she demanded,
because of what Senator Murray demanded, because of what Senator
[[Page S3564]]
Akaka demanded, we now have a much more accurate accounting system, a
quarterly reporting system of the Veterans' Administration. Right now,
based on the money we gave them for the 2006 budget, they are 4.3
percent under their spending levels as projected.
What does that mean? It means that over $600 million they thought
they would spend they are now not spending. So where is the emergency?
It doesn't exist. Why are we doing this? How can you spend more in a
program in the last half of the year than the whole program was
designed to spend in 12 months? And yet in three of the four programs
that the Akaka amendment deals with, it does just that.
It doesn't make any sense. Well, any fiscal sense. It may make
political sense. But the reality is this is simply wrong. In the 2007
budget, we increased their spending. It is the largest increase in a
single department spending than any of our Government. Why? Because
Congress--Democrats and Republicans--are phenomenally sensitive to the
needs of our veterans, and I am extremely proud of that.
In no way do I suggest that the Senator from Hawaii is less
sensitive. It is why he is on the floor and cares deeply about our
veterans and our veterans' needs, and we work closely together. But I
must tell my colleagues, how can we increase budgets halfway through
the year by 75 or 80 percent and spend them wisely, responsibly? We
cannot.
This money, if it were allocated, will not get spent. That is why the
Senator from Texas, who is the chairman of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on VA, said only if an emergency occurs.
Right now there is almost $600 million in unspent money that was
designated for the timeframe, and there is a $430 million contingency
fund already built into the VA, and we know that. That is a fact. It is
operated that way. Do the numbers, folks.
If there were an emergency, we have over $1 billion worth of
resources to assure that our veterans have what they need.
I will argue all the time for our veterans, but I do believe our
veterans expect us to be fiscally responsible, along with meeting their
needs. I cannot imagine that there is a veteran out there today who
would suggest that in most instances we are not meeting their needs. We
brought one of the finest health care systems in the world to the
forefront again. We have expended phenomenal amounts of money on it.
And this year, the VA budget is bigger than any other budget in our
Federal Government, including Defense during wartime. I am talking
about rates of increase, not total dollars.
Those are the realities with which we are dealing. I don't mind
standing up and talking about it. Why? Because I can go home to my
veterans and say we have been fair and we have been responsible, and I
am not willing to listen to the VSOs that ``you gotta, gotta, gotta
spend more.'' Is there a limit to how much we should spend? No, there
isn't, apparently.
I hope in the end, even though it has been effectively shaped so it
won't get spent and it won't get spent because it isn't needed, that
the President, as he should, and the Secretary of the Veterans'
Administration, as he should, will have the opportunity to declare an
emergency if it happens and this Congress will know it now because of
what we in a bipartisan way did to make sure what happened a year ago
never happens again. We are now reported to quarterly for the first
time in the history of the VA. By the last report, they are 4.3 percent
under their spending proposal and that $600 million--do the numbers,
folks. At a time of major deficits in this country, we are going to
spend more of this kind of money? No, we are just going to put it on
the books now.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin
be added as a cosponsor to my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment No. 3642, as amended. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is
absent due to family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Biden) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry)
would each vote ``yea.''
The result was announced--yeas 84, nays 13, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]
YEAS--84
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--13
Brownback
Coburn
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Gregg
Inhofe
McCain
Sessions
Sununu
Thomas
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Kerry
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3642), as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, now we are back on the pending amendment,
the Coburn amendment; is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The first division.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for some time now public officials in
Mississippi have been concerned about the vulnerability and safety of
the CSX rail line long the Mississippi Coast. These discussions have
taken on a sense of urgency as part of the overall dialogue about how
to rebuild the gulf coast region after Hurricane Katrina.
Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy, and making it less
vulnerable to future destruction while also making it safer should be a
priority. I am an unabashed advocate of safer roads, bridges and yes,
railroads--most recently lending my support to a $700 million plan to
move the Mississippi gulf coast's CSX railroad line north to higher
ground, away from people and storm surges.
In the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in American history,
any good post-Katrina reconstruction plan should consider moving these
tracks. Given the tracks' proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and to motor
traffic and flood waters, gulf coast residents and leaders would be
irresponsible if we did not consider a safer place for the railroad. At
some point we must move these tracks from the middle of busy, growing
communities like Biloxi, Gulfport, and Pascagoula.
Let me briefly discuss the rail safety problem in the 3 Mississippi
counties along the gulf coast. There are 185 highway-rail crossings on
the CSX line in those counties. That is more than 2 crossings per mile.
In some cases, there are more than 2 crossings in 1 mile of rail track.
In the last 10 years, 40 people have been killed in collisions
between vehicles and trains. In other words someone is killed every 3
months in a rail accident along the gulf coast. Another 68 people have
been injured. There have been 147 accidents over those 10 years. That's
more than 1 accident per month.
This is an authorized national program. The funds for this project
would
[[Page S3565]]
be appropriated under the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program.
I was a long time champion of the legislation to create this program,
and last year Congress finally passed it. This program was designed to
alleviate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety and on
communities. Now that funds are available for projects that can save
lives, such as this one in Mississippi, the program should be utilized.
Many have asked why this qualifies as an emergency project when the
rail lines have already been rebuilt. They are oblivious to the fact
that this strategic railroad--actually spans the length of our Nation
between California and Florida, handling vital cargo.
The simple answer is that this project is needed to prevent future
emergencies. There was no way that CSX could have waited on the Federal
Government to relocate the line. This project will not be completed
until 2008 at the very earliest. Therefore, there was never serious
consideration given to not rebuilding the line. The urgency to restore
rail operations for the benefit of customers along the corridor was
paramount. That is why CSX spent private dollars to rebuild the line as
quickly as possible. To be clear, no Federal money has been spent to
repair the existing line, as press reports lead you to believe.
It ultimately took CSX 143 days to get the line back in condition to
serve customers. Six major bridges and 40 miles of track had to be
rebuilt or repaired. During that time hundreds of businesses were
without service, 300 CSX employees were affected. Millions of citizens,
and numerous seaports depend on this critical rail artery for freight
and passenger services. The gulf coast corridor serves as the
Southeast's primary gateway for freight being shipped to the western
United States. Even with the new construction and rebuilt
infrastructure built to the best possible standards, this line would
still be significantly damaged in another storm given the proximity to
the storm surge.
It is also important to mention, there are significant national
security and energy security benefits to moving the current line away
from the Nation's highest density of defense--for example, Ingalls,
Keesler, Coast Guard, CBC Gulfport, CRTC Gulfport, Stennis Space Center
Federal Reservation, and energy--for example, Chevron refinery, fuel
transfer pipelines--infrastructure.
The fact is this is not solely a Mississippi project. Remember, the
CSX line runs form Jacksonville, FL, to the Port of New Orleans before
continuing on to Los Angeles. The Federal investment required to
relocate the line will benefit Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and
Louisiana by upgrading tracks within those states. Factually, this is a
Southeast United States project, not a Mississippi project.
Our State has not asked for anything that is unreasonable or that the
people in this devastated region do not deserve.
Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late and Senators have
commitments. This is an issue which I feel very strongly about. It is
one we have to address. These are the problems which have been created
by the CSX transportation rail line across the Mississippi gulf coast.
I thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
for taking the initiative to address this issue.
I would like to correct several misunderstandings. First, this would
provide the funds to relocate the railroad track from right along the
coastline, including crossing significant bodies of water in three
different places, and it would then be relocated to an area north of
there, connecting several railroad tracks. It would run like this, to
New Orleans, instead of all the way along the gulf coast. Keep in mind,
this is a major corridor that runs from Jacksonville, in Florida, all
the way to California. This issue needs to be addressed.
Senator Cochran and I and our Governor and our officials in
Mississippi have tried to be restrained and responsible and
conservative in the requests we have made. This Congress has been very
helpful, the Senate has been very helpful to meet a lot of our needs,
but we need to come to terms with this issue. That is why Senator
Cochran has chosen to put it in the supplemental.
Let me make sure you understand that this is Katrina related, No. 1.
Some people will say: Look, the old railroad tracks were rebuilt after
Hurricane Katrina at the cost of $250 million. But it was not one
nickel of Federal dollars in it. It was done by the rail company and
was done with insurance money, because this is a major thoroughfare
that serves a lot of companies that had to get back in business. If we
make this move, it will be 2008 at the earliest before it can possibly
happen. I wanted that corrected.
There has been some suggestion that it relates to the gaming industry
along the gulf coast. It does not, not at all. In fact, they would
probably like for it to stay in this area, which forces traffic along
Highway 90, along this coastline, instead of moving it off of the
coast. By moving, then, the highway which runs right along the coast,
it will be north of where the gaming area is. So there is no connection
there.
Why do we need this? Let me make it real clear. There are several
very good reasons. No. 1, it is exposed. It does run right along the
water and has been blown out several times in the past--three times. It
is there because it has been there for a hundred-and-something years.
This shows what happens every time we have a major blow. This is the
track. It is built in marshes and on sand. It cannot stand. It will not
stand. So we are going to have to do this repeatedly.
This shows the strength of the hurricane. This is a railroad bridge.
Look at how the railroad track is actually bent.
This is going to be repeated. It causes economic dislocation. They
shut down for 134 days just after this hurricane. That is one factor.
The second thing is, it is a major thoroughfare. We do not have
evacuation capability with the current location, where it is now. We do
not have east-west rails where people can get to the north-south lines.
We just do not have enough room to do that. We will take a railroad bed
and turn that into a five- or six-lane road across the major county
that is involved, Harrison County, MS.
It is also about safety. People are killed and injured here every
year. On this chart, the circles show deaths and injuries that have
occurred. I will just give you the numbers we are talking about. Over a
period of 10 years, there have been 147 accidents along this trackage.
There have been 40 people killed in the last 10 years. There are 185
highway and rail crossings that are involved here.
Some people say you should do it through the authorization process.
That has been done. Last year, as part of the highway bill, we passed
for the first time the National Rail Relocation Act. This sort of thing
needs to be done in a lot of places in America, from State to State. We
have an authorization in place, so it is authorized. This provides the
funds through the authorization. But this is about hurricanes, it is
about evacuation, it is about safety, and it is about getting track out
right along the coastline and moving it north so we do not have this
repeated problem.
I ask my colleagues to look at it seriously. There are also going to
be some 18 amendments to follow that will knock out various and sundry
things in the bill. This is an important part of the Katrina recovery.
We are still going to be able to get into New Orleans with the trackage
coming north and move that transportation traffic on farther to the
west coast. But I just wanted to rise and speak briefly in support of
what is in the bill and against the motion to strike.
I thank Senator Cochran for his leadership in providing this
opportunity.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator has very ably explained the
challenge that is faced to restore and rebuild and recover in terms of
transportation assets on the Mississippi coast, but this applies and
will have an effect across the breadth of the area of the gulf coast
that was damaged, including Louisiana, Mississippi, as well as Alabama.
Somebody cavalierly noted the other day that this is like the bridge
to nowhere--this is the railroad to nowhere.
It is a transportation corridor that links New Orleans; Bay St.
Louis, MS; Pass Christian; Gulfport, MS; Biloxi, MS; Pascagoula, MS;
Mobile, AL, and
[[Page S3566]]
beyond--as the Senator said--all the way to California on the west
side. This is a very important part of the transportation system across
the southern United States, and on this line of transportation
facilities the Stennis Space Center, where our rockets are tested for
the space program, and many other military activities in that part of
the gulf coast area--the ship yards at Pascagoula, the Keesler Air
Force Base along U.S. Highway 90 in the Biloxi, MS, area, and on and on
and on. The Coast Guard facilities and the former naval station at
Pascagoula have other activities there.
There are national security consequences for the failure to rebuild
and recover and restore these important transportation facilities. That
is why it is appropriate to do it now.
This is authorization. The committee recommended $700 million for the
Rail Line Relocation Capital Grant Program. That is the entity where
the money goes, and through that money to mitigate damages and restore
transportation under the provisions of that authorization, the funds
will be used to relocate.
This is what our committee report says:
To relocate tracks that are currently located along the
coast of Mississippi, the damaged railroad line----
These are findings of a committee of Congress----
is a major east and west freight corridor adjacent to the
Mississippi gulf coast.
It is vitally important to numerous Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Alabama industries, and essential to the successful operations of major
Gulf of Mexico ports.
The rail line sustained major damage and total destruction in some
areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina's winds and water surges. Eleven
bridges were destroyed. More than 38 miles of track were completely
lost. Signaling and safety systems were demolished and many track beds
were completely washed out along the rail corridor. The rail line has
been out of commission for 143 days.
Progress is being made, but these funds will be used to accelerate
the reconstruction and the recovery that is essential for that area of
the gulf coast of the United States.
We have made a case for it in committee. The committee agreed to
provide these funds. The Senator from Mississippi, my colleague, has
adequately and impressively described the consequences to the gulf
coast area. This amendment should be defeated. It would strike all of
these funds that have been approved by the committee.
I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I would like to speak a few moments
discussing why we are all here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma should be informed
that the motion to table is not debatable. Is the Senator seeking
consent to debate?
Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent to answer the questions raised in
the debate by the Senator from Mississippi.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I never asked any questions. The Senator
has had an opportunity to describe his amendment. He did that earlier
in the day. He used information that I presume he will present all over
again. I don't have any objection to his proceeding, but I don't want
him to talk too long. We have Members who are waiting to vote. They
have read comments in the paper and the debate that has been carried
throughout the press for the last 2 weeks while the Senate wasn't in
session. I think the Senate has heard enough about it and is ready to
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will do this quickly.
First of all, what is the definition of ``emergency'' by our own
budget rules? Necessary, essential, vital, suddenly, quickly coming
into being, not building over time, urgent, pressing, compelling need,
requiring immediate action, unforeseen, unpredictable, and
unanticipated, not permanent, temporary in nature.
That is the first point I would make.
The second point is the committee's own report says:
Even prior to Katrina, Presidents, business leaders and
local and State officials seriously considered relocating the
rail line from its present location to alleviate burgeoning
traffic which continually worsened as the region's tourism
industry grew.
This is $700 million. It is a great project for Mississippi. I agree.
It is probably something that should be done. The question is, Is it an
emergency and should everybody else in this country pay for it?
I could go into all the details. I will not do it in deference to the
chairman's request that I be brief.
But Mississippi people have spoken. This was planned long before this
hurricane. The fact is, if we are going to replace this rail line with
Federal money which is going to come in and build a new road, that is
going to be susceptible to the same hurricane damage. We have to figure
out how we should go through a regular process.
The final point I would make is the committee report eliminates the
ability of the Department of Transportation to say whether it is a
safety issue. They specifically take it out so they cannot stop it.
The point is, we are leaving the regular process to do something
which is maybe a great idea, but our grandchildren shouldn't be paying
for it. If we continue to do this, this is going to be costly. This
$700 million will cost $4 billion by the time we start paying it back,
if we want to sacrifice the next generation--not in terms of trying to
take it away from Mississippi but setting a standard of which we can
behave in a manner that secures the future. That is what I am asking
for.
I am sorry it is against two Senators I really like. I want
Mississippi to be a hit. This is not the way for us to conduct business
in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to table amendment No. 3641, division I.
The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily
absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is
absent due to family illness.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 48, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 99 Leg.]
YEAS--49
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Burns
Byrd
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Domenici
Dorgan
Feinstein
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lincoln
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Pryor
Roberts
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Vitter
Warner
NAYS--48
Allen
Bayh
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Conrad
Cornyn
DeMint
Dodd
Dole
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Graham
Hagel
Inhofe
Isakson
Kohl
Kyl
Levin
Lieberman
Lugar
McCain
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Salazar
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Biden
Kerry
Rockefeller
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
[[Page S3567]]
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to ask unanimous
consent to lay aside the pending amendments so that I may call up four
rather minor amendments, outline them very briefly, and basically put
them in order for consideration on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object only because we have not seen
the amendment. If we can see it fairly quickly, then I am sure we can
proceed with it. So I would just call for a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Louisiana retains the floor.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I will be happy to send copies over to the
Senator. I will resume consideration in a few minutes when she has a
time to peruse them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suggest the absence of a
quorum?
Mr. VITTER. In the meantime, 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. VITTER. 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. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I rise seeking
consideration of four specific amendments. All of them are hurricane
related very directly, and none of them add to the cost of the bill.
Amendment No. 3627
Mr. President, the first amendment I call up and ask for its
consideration is amendment No. 3627, which has been filed at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 3627.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To designate the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or
Hurricane Rita as HUBZones and to waive the Small Business Competitive
Demonstration Program Act of 1988 for the areas affected by Hurricane
Katrina or Hurricane Rita)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF FROM HURRICANE KATRINA AND HURRICANE RITA
Sec. 7032. (a) Section 3(p)(1) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632(p)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'';
(2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) an area in which the President has declared a major
disaster (as that term is defined in section 102 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of
August 2005 or Hurricane Rita of September 2005.''.
(b) Section 711(d) of the Small Business Competitive
Demonstration Program Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``The Program'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Program''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Exception.--The Program shall not apply to any
contract related to relief or reconstruction from Hurricane
Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.''.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment would do something very
specific, very narrow, but also very important in terms of making sure
that small business, including local business, gets a full opportunity
to participate in the recovery throughout the gulf coast region. This
would designate the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane
Rita as HUBZones and would waive the Small Business Competitive
Demonstration Program Act of 1988 for those specific areas.
This idea has been fully vetted in the committee of jurisdiction, the
Small Business Committee, on which I serve. It was an important element
of a larger small business package that was reported out of the
committee to the floor, to the full Senate. However, because of other
unrelated matters in that bill package, that overall package has some
objection and has not passed through the Senate. So I simply chose to
remove out of the full package these narrower HUBZone provisions to
include in the supplemental bill.
I would also note that the leadership of the Small Business Committee
supports this move in terms of this legislation and has no objection to
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Is there further debate
on the amendment?
Amendment No. 3626
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I now call up amendment No. 3626 and ask
for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself and
Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 3626.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase the limits on community disaster loans)
On page 166, line 12, insert before the colon the
following: ``, and may be equal to not more than 50 percent
of the annual operating budget of the local government''.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the
Community Disaster Loan Program. That is a preexisting program that
existed well before these hurricane events that in particular
situations loans money to communities in dire straits that have major
disasters and therefore revenue problems.
Obviously, in this hurricane, there are many communities in that
situation--the city of New Orleans, St. Bernard Parish, and others. The
community disaster loan program has been utilized to help them through
this very difficult time. Already in the supplemental appropriations
bill is $300 million for this program, additional dollars to use in the
disaster area. My amendment would simply tweak certain language that
would say rather than the upper limit of a jurisdiction, which
jurisdiction is subject to be able to borrow being 25 percent of its
annual operating budget, my language would raise that upper limit to 50
percent, so it would change language. It would not add money to the
bill. The appropriations and the money are already in the bill.
This is very important for the hardest hit communities, such as St.
Bernard Parish, such as the city of New Orleans, because they have
virtually no revenue for the foreseeable future. This is absolutely
necessary to help them get through these very difficult times for the
next several months.
Amendment No. 3628
Mr. VITTER. With that, Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3628.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 3628.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To base the allocation of hurricane disaster relief and
recovery funds to States on need and physical damages, and for other
purposes)
On page 253, insert between lines 19 and 20, the following:
allocation of hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to states
Sec. 7032. (a) In this section the term ``covered funds''
means any funds that--
(1) are made available to a department or agency under
title II of this Act for hurricane disaster relief and
recovery; and
(2) are allocated by that department or agency for use by
the States.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including
title II of this Act)--
(1) before making covered funds available to any State, the
head of the department or agency administering such funds
shall apply an allocation formula for all States based on
critical need and physical damages; and
(2) not later than 5 days before making such covered funds
available to any State, submit a report to the Committees on
Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives
on the allocation formula that is being used.
[[Page S3568]]
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is language only. It does
not add dollars or cost to the bill. It is important language to make
sure that all of our activity and all of our spending in the disaster
area goes to important needs. This language would base the allocation
of hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to States on need and
physical damages rather than by other arbitrary allocation formulas.
This is specifically in the situation where Congress, in a particular
issue area, allocates a fund for the entire disaster area and leaves it
to the administration to disburse those funds between the various
localities and States affected. This language would simply say that
when you do that, the administration has to think about a fair formula
that is based on actual objective criteria that is based on actual
objective need or statistics that make sense and then would have to
publish that formula with regard to the specific funds we are talking
about several days in advance of the money being disbursed. This would
make sure that the money is used appropriately in the disaster area and
is not allocated in an arbitrary or purely political way.
That explains this amendment. Again, it is language. It does not add
any additional cost to the bill.
Amendment No. 3648
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up
amendment No. 3648 which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter] proposes an
amendment numbered 3648.
Mr. VITTER. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide assistance to damaged fishery vessels in
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita)
On Page 139, line 8, insert after ``and'' the following:
``replace or''. On Page 139, line 17, insert after ``docks''
the following: ``vessels''. on Page 140, line 22, after
``repairing'' add ``vessels and''
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this has to do with the fisheries
component of the bill. Thanks to the leadership of the chairman of the
committee, a fisheries component was included in this supplemental
appropriations bill because the fisheries industry was truly devastated
along the gulf coast. Before this general fisheries provision was
added, I believe this is the first instance in U.S. history where an
administration has made a declaration regarding fisheries losses but
has not followed that declaration of loss with a request for funds.
The chairman's committee action would, in a general sense, remedy
that. My amendment No. 3648 would tweak the language--again, not add or
increase any dollars--so that that money could be used in part for the
repairing of vessels in situations where those repair costs go beyond
insurance proceeds available and other available funds.
This is a very large component of the need that exists in the
fisheries of the gulf coast. Passing this fisheries aid package without
making any of that money available under the proper circumstances for
repairing vessels would leave a huge hole in our attempt to get that
industry up and running once again.
To reiterate, this is language that would not change or increase the
spending level of the bill.
I have explained my four pending amendments. I look forward to any
further discussion on them as well as votes, hopefully tomorrow.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The
distinguished Senator from Kentucky is on his way. He wishes to present
wrap-up, and then I have an amendment to offer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________