[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.

                          ____________________