[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 48 (Thursday, April 27, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3639-S3692]
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:
Harkin/Grassley amendment No. 3600, to limit the
compensation of employees funded through the Employment and
Training Administration.
McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3616, to strike a provision
that provides $74.5 million to States based on their
production of certain types of crops, live-stock and or dairy
products, which was not included in the Administration's
emergency supplemental request.
McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3617, to strike a provision
providing $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which
was not included in the Administration's emergency
supplemental request.
McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3618, to strike $15 million for
a seafood promotion strategy that was not included in the
Administration's emergency supplemental request.
McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3619, 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.
Warner amendment No. 3620, to repeal the requirement for 12
operational aircraft carriers within the Navy.
Warner amendment No. 3621, to equalize authorities to
provide allowances, benefits, and gratuities to civilian
personnel of the United States Government in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Coburn amendment No. 3641 (Divisions II through XIX), of a
perfecting nature.
Vitter amendment No. 3627, 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.
Vitter/Landrieu amendment No. 3626, to increase the limits
on community disaster loans.
Vitter amendment No. 3628, to base the allocation of
hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to States on
need and physical damages.
Vitter modified amendment No. 3648, to expand the scope of
use of amounts appropriated for hurricane disaster relief and
recovery to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration for Operations, Research, and Facilities.
Wyden amendment No. 3665, to prohibit the use of funds to
provide royalty relief.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Wyden amendment
numbered 3665.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on my
amendment, which is the pending business, after the Senator from
Pennsylvania offers his amendment, which I am told is going to take
around 5 minutes or thereabouts. I propound a unanimous consent request
we go back to my pending amendment and I be recognized next to speak on
it after the Senator from Pennsylvania has had a chance to offer his
amendment and speak for about 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 3640, as Modified
(Purpose: To increase by $12,500,000 the amount appropriated for the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, to increase by $12,500,000 the amount
appropriated for the Department of State for the Democracy Fund, to
provide that such funds shall be made available for democracy programs
and activities in Iran, and to provide an offset.)
Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his indulgence. I
call up amendment numbered 3640 and I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an
amendment numbered 3640, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES IN IRAN
Sec. 7032. (a) Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The people of the United States have long demonstrated
an interest in the well-being of the people of Iran, dating
back to the 1830s.
(2) Famous Americans such as Howard Baskerville, Dr. Samuel
Martin, Jane E. Doolittle, and Louis G. Dreyfus, Jr., made
significant contributions to Iranian society by furthering
the educational opportunities of the people of Iran and
improving the opportunities of the less fortunate citizens of
Iran.
(3) Iran and the United States were allies following World
War II, and through the late 1970s Iran was as an important
regional ally of the United States and a key bulwark against
Soviet influence.
(4) In November 1979, following the arrival of Mohammed
Reza Shah Pahlavi in the United States, a mob of students and
extremists seized the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran,
holding United States diplomatic personnel hostage until
January 1981.
(5) Following the seizure of the United States Embassy,
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the repressive
revolutionary movement in Iran, expressed support for the
actions of the students in taking American citizens hostage.
(6) Despite the presidential election of May 1997, an
election in which an estimated 91 percent of the electorate
participated, control of the internal and external affairs of
the Islamic Republic of Iran is still exercised by the courts
in Iran and the Revolutionary Guards, Supreme Leader, and
Council of Guardians of the Government of Iran.
(7) The election results of the May 1997 election and the
high level of voter participation in that election
demonstrate that the people of Iran favor economic and
political reforms and greater interaction with the United
States and the Western world in general.
(8) Efforts by the United States to improve relations with
Iran have been rebuffed by the Government of Iran.
(9) The Clinton Administration eased sanctions against Iran
and promoted people-to-people exchanges, but the Leader of
the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Militant
Clerics' Society, the Islamic Coalition Organization, and
Supporters of the Party of God have all opposed efforts to
open Iranian society to Western influences and have opposed
efforts to change the dynamic of relations between the United
States and Iran.
(10) For the past two decades, the Department of State has
found Iran to be the leading sponsor of international
terrorism in the world.
(11) In 1983, the Iran-sponsored Hezbollah terrorist
organization conducted suicide terrorist operations against
United States military and civilian personnel in Beirut,
Lebanon, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans.
(12) The United States intelligence community and law
enforcement personnel have linked Iran to attacks against
American military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia
in 1996 and to al Qaeda attacks against civilians in Saudi
Arabia in 2004.
[[Page S3640]]
(13) According to the Department of State's Patterns of
Global Terrorism 2001 report, ``Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and Security
continued to be involved in the planning and support of
terrorist acts and supported a variety of groups that use
terrorism to pursue their goals,'' and ``Iran continued to
provide Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist
groups--notably HAMAS, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the
[Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command]--with varying amounts of funding, safehaven,
training and weapons''.
(14) Iran currently operates more than 10 radio and
television stations broadcasting in Iraq that incite violent
actions against United States and coalition personnel in
Iraq.
(15) The current leaders of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
and Hashemi Rafsanjani, have repeatedly called upon Muslims
to kill Americans in Iraq and install a theocratic regime in
Iraq.
(16) The Government of Iran has admitted pursuing a
clandestine nuclear program, which the United States
intelligence community believes may include a nuclear weapons
program.
(17) The Government of Iran has failed to meet repeated
pledges to arrest and extradite foreign terrorists in Iran.
(18) The United States Government believes that the
Government of Iran supports terrorists and extremist
religious leaders in Iraq with the clear intention of
subverting coalition efforts to bring peace and democracy to
Iraq.
(19) The Ministry of Defense of Iran confirmed in July 2003
that it had successfully conducted the final test of the
Shahab-3 missile, giving Iran an operational intermediate-
range ballistic missile capable of striking both Israel and
United States troops throughout the Middle East and
Afghanistan.
(b) Congress declares that it should be the policy of the
United States--
(1) to support efforts by the people of Iran to exercise
self-determination over the form of government of their
country; and
(2) to actively support a national referendum in Iran with
oversight by international observers and monitors to certify
the integrity and fairness of the referendum.
(c)(1) The President is authorized, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, to provide financial and political
assistance (including the award of grants) to foreign and
domestic individuals, organizations, and entities that
support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran.
Such assistance includes funding for--
(A) the Broadcasting Board of Governors for efforts to
cultivate and support independent broadcasters that broadcast
into Iran;
(B) cultural and student exchanges;
(C) the promotion of human rights and civil society
activities in Iran; and
(D) assistance to student organizations, labor unions, and
trade associations in Iran.
(2) It is the sense of Congress that financial and
political assistance under this section be provided to an
individual, organization, or entity that--
(A) opposes the use of terrorism;
(B) advocates the adherence by Iran to nonproliferation
regimes for nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and
materiel;
(C) is dedicated to democratic values and supports the
adoption of a democratic form of government in Iran;
(D) is dedicated to respect for human rights, including the
fundamental equality of women;
(E) works to establish equality of opportunity for people;
and
(F) supports freedom of the press, freedom of speech,
freedom of association, and freedom of religion.
(3) The President may provide assistance under this
subsection using amounts made available pursuant to the
authorization of appropriations under paragraph (7).
(4) Not later than 15 days before each obligation of
assistance under this subsection, and in accordance with the
procedures under section 634A of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2394-l), the President shall notify the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives.
(5) It is the sense of Congress that in order to ensure
maximum coordination among Federal agencies, if the President
provides the assistance under this section, the President
should appoint an individual who shall--
(A) serve as special assistant to the President on matters
relating to Iran; and
(B) coordinate among the appropriate directors of the
National Security Council on issues regarding such matters.
(6) It is the sense of Congress that--
(A) support for a transition to democracy in Iran should be
expressed by United States representatives and officials in
all appropriate international fora;
(B) representatives of the Government of Iran should be
denied access to all United States Government buildings;
(C) efforts to bring a halt to the nuclear weapons program
of Iran, including steps to end the supply of nuclear
components or fuel to Iran, should be intensified, with
particular attention focused on the cooperation regarding
such program--
(i) between the Government of Iran and the Government of
the Russian Federation; and
(ii) between the Government of Iran and individuals from
China, Malaysia, and Pakistan, including the network of Dr.
Abdul Qadeer (A. Q.) Khan; and
(D) officials and representatives of the United States
should--
(i) strongly and unequivocally support indigenous efforts
in Iran calling for free, transparent, and democratic
elections; and
(ii) draw international attention to violations by the
Government of Iran of human rights, freedom of religion,
freedom of assembly, and freedom of the press.
(7) There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Department of State $100,000,000 to carry out activities
under this subsection.
(d) Not later than 15 days before designating a democratic
opposition organization as eligible to receive assistance
under subsection (b), the President shall notify the
Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
International Relations and the Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives of the proposed designation.
The notification may be in classified form.
(e)(1)(A) The amount appropriated by chapter 2 of title I
for the Broadcasting Board of Governors under the heading
``international broadcasting operations'' is hereby increased
by $12,500,000.
(B) The amount appropriated by chapter 4 of title I for
other bilateral assistance for the Department of State under
the heading ``Democracy Fund'' is hereby increased by
$12,500,000.
(2)(A) Of the amount appropriated by chapter 2 of title I
for the Broadcasting Board of Governors under the heading
``international broadcasting operations'', as increased by
paragraph (1)(A), $12,500,000 shall be made available for
democracy programs and activities in Iran.
(B) Of the amount appropriated by chapter 4 of title I for
other bilateral assistance for the Department of State under
the heading ``Democracy Fund'', as increased by paragraph
(1)(B), $12,500,000 shall be made available for democracy
programs and activities in Iran.
(3) Of the amount appropriated by chapter 2 of title 1
under the heading Department of State and Related Agency,
excluding funds appropriated for Educational and Cultural
Exchange Programs and Public Diplomacy Programs, $42,750,000
shall be available for the Broadcasting Board of Governors
for Democracy Programs and Activities in Iran.
(4) Of the amount appropriated by chapter 4, title 1,
$47,250,000 shall be made available for the Democracy Fund
for democracy programs and activities in Iran.
Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, this is an amendment to add $25
million to the money that the President requested for prodemocracy
efforts for Iran within the Iraq-Afghanistan supplemental. It is
vitally important to understand how important this effort is in the
face of what we are dealing with in Iran today.
We have heard lots of talk in the press about military options, given
the potential nuclear threat from Iran. This is not a military option;
this is a diplomatic option. It is a vitally important option. It is an
option that says we in the United States are going to step forward and
provide funding, a robust level of funding, for efforts through
telecommunications as well as by seeding prodemocracy movements within
Iran to effect change within the country of Iran so they do not move
forward with this technology, do not move forward and continue to
support terrorism, do not move forward and continue to be a disruptive
force in Iraq, do not move forward and continue to be a disruptive
force in the world, by having a more prodemocratic regime in this
country.
What this amendment does is add $12.5 million for the Broadcasting
Board of Governors--again, for public diplomacy in Iran--as well as
$12.5 million for the Iran Democracy Fund. It is a total of $25 million
in addition to the 75 in the bill. We also authorize using the language
from the Iran freedom and support bill. This is a bill that has strong
bipartisan support, close to 60 cosponsors, I think 56 or 57 as of this
date. It is very strongly bipartisan. It is supported by a lot of the
groups with interests in the Middle East.
We put authorizing language in here to make sure this money is spent
in conformity with how the Congress would wish it to be spent. This is
Congress putting its imprimatur on this supplemental appropriation
language the President has put forward.
Having spoken to Secretary Rice and the President about this
language, one of the reasons they put forward this money in the
supplemental is because of the strong support Congress has shown both
in the House and the Senate for the Iran Freedom and Support Act. We
are using this opportunity to provide more direction for the use of
this fund from the Congress, which I think is vitally important.
[[Page S3641]]
In my opinion, today there is no more important foreign policy area
than in dealing with the emerging and present threat of Iran. To be
very honest, the Congress has done nothing to address this issue. We
have not stepped forward and articulated what our policy is within
Iran. We do this with this amendment. We say as a sense of the Senate
that we express support for a transition to democracy within Iran. That
is language included in this amendment. We make clear statements about
what we intend and what our direction is, what this money is to be used
for. We provide a broader outline than what is in the current
legislation.
I hope this language would be supported. We fence this money within
the money for the State Department in this legislation so we are not
stealing money from anywhere else. We are just making sure that the
$100 million is spent in this area and we provide more guidance for the
administration to do so.
I am hopeful this language can be accepted by both sides. As I said
before, this is a bill that has strong bipartisan support and this
language also has very strong bipartisan support.
I thank again the Senator from Oregon for his indulgence.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 3665
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the pending amendment which I offered last
night and discussed briefly with the distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Cochran, is before the Senate at this time. It deals
with the most expensive and the most needless giveaway that taxpayers
ladle out to the oil industry. It is something called royalty relief. I
will take a few minutes to explain to the Senate how this works.
The oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal
Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. In order to
stimulate production when the price of oil was cheap, the Federal
Government reduced the amount of royalty payments the companies had to
make, certainly a logical argument for doing something such as that
when we are not getting the production we need. When prices are cheap
and we do not have incentives, then there is an argument for some kind
of royalty relief. But now that the price of oil has soared to over $70
a barrel, the discounted royalty payments amount to a needless subsidy
of billions and billions of dollars.
Now, to his credit, the President has essentially said, look, we do
not need this huge array of incentives for the oil industry when the
price is over $50 a barrel. Now we are looking at $70 a barrel. So a
program that one could argue on behalf of when the price of oil was
cheap has lost all its rationale at this critical time when we, of
course, are seeing record prices, record profits, and now record
royalty subsidies to the companies, as well.
What we have before the Senate is truly a bizarre situation. The
Senate is working on a supplemental spending program that is designated
as emergency spending because our Government does not have the money to
pay for it. Yet the Senate is still willing to distribute, needlessly,
billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
This program, by the General Accounting Office, is designed to lose
at a minimum $20 billion. There is litigation underway with the oil
companies surrounding this program. If that litigation is successful,
it is possible this program will cost our Government $80 billion; $80
billion then becomes twice the amount that the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi has in the legislation that is considered emergency
spending.
Experts in and out of Government have said recently this subsidy
makes absolutely no sense. For example, from the other body of the
Congress, Congressman Richard Pombo, the chairman of the natural
resources committee, is not a person that anyone would call anti-oil in
his views about Government. This is what Congressman Pombo, the
chairman of the natural resources committee, had to say a little bit
ago about royalty relief: There is no need for an incentive. They have
a market incentive to produce at $70 a barrel.
Michael Coney, a lawyer for Shell Oil--again, not a place one would
normally look to hear anti-oil rhetoric espoused, said that under the
current environment, we don't need royalty relief.
Even the original author of this program, the very respected former
colleague Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana, essentially the person
who put this whole thing together, thinks this program is out of whack.
Senator Johnston said:
The one thing I can tell you is this is not what we
intended.
So I come to the Senate today with a simple proposition. My
proposition is, royalty relief can only be obtained if it is needed to
avert a supply disruption or prices drop and there is no incentive for
people to produce in the United States.
The distinguished Senator in the chair, Senator Coburn, knows a great
deal about the oil business. I want to make sure there are incentives
for production. But the President of the United States, to his credit,
has said you don't need incentives when oil is over $50 a barrel. It is
at $70 today.
(Mr. McCain assumed the Chair.)
Mr. WYDEN. Not long ago when the oil company executives came before
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I went down the line and
asked them if they needed the various tax breaks. To a person, they all
said no. So now we are seeing a bit of discussion about whether all of
these tax breaks are needed by people in the oil business.
It is one thing to talk about new initiatives--and we will be
debating a variety of additional approaches, windfall profits taxes and
the like--and it is quite another to be spending billions and billions
of dollars out the door when those subsidy payments defy common sense,
defy essentially what the President of the United States said, that we
ought to get out of the subsidy business when oil is over $50 a barrel.
That is what I am proposing in this particular amendment.
What it comes down to is the U.S. Government ought to stop adding
sweetener to the Royalty Relief Program. At every opportunity over the
last few years--and I see the distinguished Senator in the chair has
zeroed in on wasteful programs, to his credit, for a long time--at
every opportunity we have seen this program sweetened and sweetened and
sweetened, all at the taxpayers' expense. To give the Senate an idea of
how out of control this particular program is, as I understand it, the
previous Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Norton, actually went out
and sweetened up the old contracts to provide even more royalty relief
at a time when prices, again, were way above the threshold that the
President of the United States has indicated we should not be offering
subsidies to.
This is an important debate in this whole question of tax breaks and
windfall profits tax and the like. It is clearly going to spark a lot
of debate and differences of opinion among colleagues.
This, in my view, is not even a close call. When Congressman Pombo
from the other body, the chair of the natural resources committee, says
we did not need this incentive, when we have people from Shell Oil
saying we do not need the Royalty Relief Program, when we have the
original author of the program, our former colleague Senator Bennett
Johnston, saying this is not what he intended, I sure hope that is a
wakeup call to the Senate. This is not a close call.
We are going to see, according to the General Accounting Office, a
minimum of $20 billion head out the door as a result of this program.
By the way, it was sweetened up also in the energy conference last
year. In fact, it was done almost in the dead of night because nobody
could make a case for sweetening up this program anymore in broad
daylight. So essentially, with virtually no debate, even last year, in
the Energy bill, after the previous Secretary of the Interior,
Secretary Norton, had kept adding to the program, the Congress
continued to enrich this program and needlessly offered these
subsidies.
Mr. President, I think a little bit of history is in order.
Certainly, back in the middle 1990s--this program is, essentially, one
that is a decade old--you could make an argument for the Government
being involved in an incentives effort. Certainly, when the price of
energy was low and we needed opportunities to incentivize production,
so
[[Page S3642]]
be it. That was a case where some targeted efforts on the part of
Government to stimulate production could make some sense.
The Government is now out of the targeting business. For example,
there are no limits on who gets royalty relief. The President of the
United States did not say: Oh, we ought to draw distinctions between
people who get these various subsidies. The President of the United
States said: We don't need Government subsidies when the price of oil
is over $50 a barrel.
So what happened, essentially, after the program got off the ground
in the early 1990s is folks who were supposed to be watchdogging the
program did not do their job. They did not pay attention to it. So
there was an original threshold for this program of about $34. The
price of oil today is $70-plus a barrel. They were talking, in the
middle 1990s, about $34 being the threshold level for the subsidy.
But what happened is, during the Clinton administration, some folks
in the Government agency, the minerals program, who were supposed to be
watchdogging this program just missed it. Some have described it as a
bureaucratic blunder. However you want to call it, the reality is,
Government, in the middle 1990s, was not doing right by the taxpayers.
The Government should have been watchdogging this program. They should
have seen there would be an effort by some in the oil industry to
enrich themselves and use the taxpayer to essentially create an
incentive that was unjustifiable and inexplicable, if you looked at
what we are seeing today. Yet the money just kept pouring out the
doors.
So what we have is a brandnew subsidy--new because it was added
during the energy legislation, at a time when the price of oil was
already above $55 per barrel. Certainly, the industry cannot make a
claim they need this kind of incentive, as they have said in the past.
They have been drilling, and drilling without this particular
incentive. In fact, we have seen, fortunately, some increase in
drilling and production over the past 2 years without this particular
incentive. There is no doubt in my mind, if you look at the record
prices and if you look at the record profits, the drilling is going to
continue if and when the amendment I have before the Senate is adopted.
I wish to emphasize, this legislation does give the Bush
administration a significant amount of discretion in terms of operating
the Royalty Relief Program. If the President, if the Secretary of the
Interior, for example, determines that an absence of royalty relief
would cause a disruption in oil supply, they set it aside, go back to
the Royalty Relief Program. If the price of oil were to drop
precipitously again, once more, you can provide oil royalty relief. But
when the companies make record profits, when they charge record prices,
it seems to me they do not need these record amounts of subsidies.
So the supplemental we are on the floor debating now involves $35
billion. The amendment I hope to have adopted today would pick up a
significant portion of the costs of the supplemental that have been
designated as emergency spending.
If the litigation that is now taking place surrounding this program
is successful--and I do not think anyone can divine the results of that
litigation--it is possible the Government will be out $80 billion for
this particular program. That is twice the amount--twice the amount--of
the money this legislation involves.
Now, colleagues--and I see a number of Senators on the floor--this is
the granddaddy of all the oil subsidies. This is the biggest and this
is the most unjustifiable of all the breaks.
By the way, we have had good ideas coming from colleagues. And
probably the best single idea--and the distinguished Senator from
Arizona has had an interest in these issues for some time--the Senator
from Wyoming has said, to his credit, he wants to target the tax
incentives for oil drilling to get more out of existing wells. There is
a lot of evidence that perhaps a third of the oil that is in these
existing wells is being left behind because we have never retooled the
tax laws to get more from existing wells.
So there are good ideas, Mr. President and colleagues, and Senator
Thomas from Wyoming deserves credit for one of the best. But I will
tell you, there are some real turkeys out there. And one of them is
this existing program which provides royalty relief where there is no
case to do so. This is an out-of-control program. This is a program
which has lost its historical moorings. It made sense in 1995, when the
price of oil was cheap, but it sure does not make any sense today.
When I asked the executives who came before the Energy Committee
recently--the CEOs of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Texaco, ConocoPhillips, BP,
and Shell--I asked them specifically if they needed these new
incentives. All of them said they did not.
So I am offering this amendment today that prohibits the Department
of Energy from providing any additional royalty relief so long as the
price of oil is above $55 per barrel. That is the price at which the
President said oil companies do not need incentives to explore.
The amendment, as I have indicated, provides an exception in cases
where royalty relief is needed to avoid supply disruptions because of
hurricanes or other natural disasters or if the price of oil were to
fall. But with oil selling for more than $70 a barrel--way above the
price for which the President said incentives were not needed--Congress
ought to stop giving away more taxpayer money for unnecessary
subsidies. We ought to prohibit further royalty relief, use this money
to pay down the deficit, as the distinguished Senator from Arizona has
suggested on this floor on more than one occasion, and save our
citizens' hard-earned tax dollars for more worthy uses.
Consumers of this country are already paying more at work. They are
paying more at home and as they drive everywhere in between. It seems
to me we certainly ought to give them a break in their personal energy
bills before we continue the operation of a program that the General
Accounting Office has said will cost taxpayers a minimum of $20 billion
and could end up costing taxpayers $80 billion, if the litigation over
this program is successful.
Mr. President, I see other colleagues on the floor. I have not had
anybody come to the floor and say they are going to oppose my
amendment. If no one does--and I am not going to yield quite at this
point--I am anxious--and the chairman of the committee, Senator
Cochran, has been very gracious in his discussions with me. I am
anxious to go to a vote. I know the Senator from Mississippi treats all
Members fairly, and I have told him I am ready to go to an up-or-down
vote on my amendment and get the Senate on record as making sure we
save this money which is being needlessly frittered away.
No one has come to the floor of the Senate to say they object to the
amendment. The amendment is very straightforward. It says we are not
going to have royalty relief unless the President says we have to have
it to avoid a disruption or the price of oil falls. This is a program
which does not make sense. We ought to save the money.
I, at this point, would like to propound a request to the
distinguished chair of the committee. I would be prepared to allow the
Senate to move on to other business if we could agree upon a time when
there could be an up-or-down vote on my amendment. Would the
distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Mississippi,
give me his thoughts? And can we enter into an agreement so you can
move ahead with the important work you are doing and we can lock in a
time for a vote on my amendment?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I will be
happy to respond.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am willing to yield so that the chairman
of the committee can respond to my question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent. The Senator
from Oregon should request unanimous consent.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, be allowed to
respond to my request, and that after he has completed his response I
reclaim my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
[[Page S3643]]
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to the
Senator's inquiry. Responding to the Senator's inquiry, I am not, as
manager of the bill, deciding who offers an amendment or what the
content of the amendment is or how long the amendment can be discussed,
whether or not there will be a tabling motion offered to any amendment
or reaching an agreement with each Senator as to when a vote would
occur on the amendment. The Senate rules control all of those issues.
As manager of the bill, I am not going to inject myself in trying to
manage to the extreme minutiae of the procedures of the Senate the way
this bill is considered. I think we have rules that are here for a
purpose. We ought to follow the rules.
We have other Senators who have offered amendments already which are
pending and were pending before the amendment of the Senator from
Oregon. They have a right, and I am not going to do anything that would
abridge or infringe upon that right, to call for the regular order at
any time. And the Senate would go back to the consideration of those
earlier amendments.
So I cannot give the Senator any assurance, except you should be
treated like any other Senator; no different whatsoever. You have the
right to talk about your amendment, and eventually it will be disposed
of in some way. But I am not going to put it ahead, reach an agreement
that it should go ahead of any other issue before the Senate.
This an emergency, urgent supplemental appropriations bill to fund
the war in Iraq, the global war on terror, provide the Department of
Defense and Department of State with funds that are needed now to
protect the national security interests of our country, and to assist
in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina and other such events.
That is the business of the Senate. I wish to see it handled in an
expeditious way, under the rules of the Senate, and then we wind up the
business of the Senate on this bill and any amendments thereto in a
workmanlike way, with fairness to all, Republicans and Democrats.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Under the unanimous consent
agreement, the Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is going to be a long day
because I intend to stay here and make the case for this outrageous
rip-off being eliminated. This is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer
money. Colleagues know I always try to work in a bipartisan way. I
always want to expedite the business of the Senate.
The last time the Senate looked at energy, after midnight, in the
middle of the night, there was an effort to sweeten this program and
add more cost to taxpayers that cannot be justified. As I understand
it, I may have misspoken on this point; the total amount of the
supplemental bill is $100 billion. The cost of litigation over this
program, if successful, could be $80 billion. The General Accounting
Office estimates that at a minimum, the Government is going to be out
$20 billion. My amendment alone could pay a significant portion of what
is needed to cover this emergency spending legislation.
The Government is here talking about an emergency spending bill
because there isn't the money in order to pay for these essential
programs. Yet at a time when we have an emergency spending bill and we
don't have the money in order to take care of needs, the Government
keeps ladling out billions of dollars. All I want to do is prevent what
we saw last year in the Energy bill. We are now going to do it
differently. We are going to stay here, and we are going to stay at
this discussion until the Senate votes up or down as to whether we want
to keep sweetening a program with billions and billions of dollars at a
time when there is no commonsense reason for this particular program.
I have come to admire the Senator from Arizona. We serve together on
the Commerce Committee. I particularly appreciate his tenaciousness. He
has taught me an awful lot about it. Frankly, that is what is needed.
Somebody has to stay here and stay at this until we drain this swamp.
To continually shovel out billions and billions of dollars, when the
President of the United States has said we don't need these incentives
when oil is over $50 a barrel, I don't see how anybody can argue for
the continuation of this program in its current form.
I said I am not going to chuck the program in the trash can. All I am
going to say is, you get royalty relief if the price of oil goes down
or we need royalty relief to avoid disruptions. That is a
straightforward proposition. It certainly ensures that we go back to
what was originally contemplated. Even the authors of this program,
people such as our former colleague Senator Bennett Johnston, are
scratching their heads and saying: This program is completely out of
control. It makes no sense in its current form.
I don't see how you can argue something that at its outset was
designed to promote production when prices were cheap. By the way, a
lot of the sponsors of this legislation always said this program was
cost free. I was amazed to hear that.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. Through the Chair, I ask unanimous consent to have Senator
McCain propound his question, and when I have responded, I would be
able to reclaim the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, if the Senator yields for a question, then
he maintains the right to the floor. I by no means want to deprive him
of that.
Is the Senator from Oregon concerned that he is not going to get a
vote on this amendment? Because it seems to me if the amendment is
proposed and it is in order, at some point, after disposing of the
pending amendments, unless there is something I don't understand, the
amendment of the Senator from Oregon would then be subject to a vote.
As the Senator from Oregon knows, there are several other pending
amendments that we think are important as well, particularly having to
do with earmarks.
I note this morning in a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, the No. 1
concern of Americans is earmarks. I find it very interesting that they
are sick and tired of the absolutely incredible stuff we have loaded
into this bill. The Senator from Oklahoma and I have an amendment about
seafood marketing. The Senator from Oregon, I am sure, probably
remembers that last year they spent some half a million to paint a
giant salmon on a 737. The same money would go to that same outfit in
this bill that is supposed to be for the war in Iraq.
I am sorry for the long question. I apologize to my friend from
Oregon. Is it his concern that he will not get a vote on this amendment
or that he needs a vote now? Perhaps for the rest of us who are waiting
to offer amendments, he could clarify. I thank the Senator from Oregon
for his courtesy.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend. Before we got into seafood marketing
and the question of earmarks, it seemed to me that your point was a
very logical one, sometimes too logical for the Senate. That is, how do
you get a vote around here? What I was asking the distinguished
chairman of the committee is if we could get agreement to have a vote
at a time certain or conceivably to have my proposal included in the
next group of amendments to be voted on. But, yes, I say to the
distinguished Senator from Arizona, without that commitment, I am very
much convinced that we won't get an up-or-down vote on this outrageous
boondoggle, a huge expenditure of many billions of dollars that as
recently as the energy conference, there were no votes. It was done in
the middle of the night. It was snuck in after midnight.
The reason why: Because nobody was able to do what I am trying do
right here on the floor of the Senate, which is to say, we are going to
do this in broad daylight. If Senators want to vote in favor of a
program that subsidizes, when we are over $70 a barrel and the
President of the United States says we don't need those subsidies, then
Senators can so vote.
Mr. McCAIN. If I may, if the Senator will yield for an additional
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not require unanimous
consent. He retains his time.
Mr. WYDEN. Very good.
Mr. McCAIN. My understanding from talking to the floor staff, I say
to the Senator from Oregon--and the distinguished chairman can probably
help
[[Page S3644]]
out on this--is we have a number of amendments in order which are going
to be voted on, I think by an agreement between the two leaders, which
is the general procedure around here.
Nothing is more outrageous, as the Senator from Oregon pointed out,
than these things that are stuffed into conference reports. But this
isn't a conference report. This is an initial bite at an appropriations
bill. I hope that perhaps we could work out something so we can
continue with the amendment process and set a time for votes on all
amendments, with the amendment of the Senator from Oregon in order
following the others, as is the normal procedure. Maybe the Senator
from Oregon could ask for that again, we could move forward. We all
know that everybody's time is limited.
I thank the Senator for responding to my question.
Mr. WYDEN. To respond to my friend from Arizona, he is very good at
working out arrangements to get votes on these matters that are so
important to the public interest. Perhaps it is possible, through his
good offices, to persuade Senator Cochran and others that we can make
arrangements. I am not anxious to hold up the time of the Senate. By
the way, I was here late last night, and I would have been prepared to
vote last night. So this Member was prepared to vote last night. I am
prepared to vote now. I am prepared to give up the floor as long as
there is a commitment that we get a vote. But the handling of this
program is a disgrace.
You cannot make an argument for having no accountability whatsoever
at a time when billions and billions of taxpayer dollars are used. That
is what happened during the energy legislation where in the dead of
night, not only was the program preserved, the program was sweetened at
a time when the President says you cannot make the case for these kinds
of subsidies.
We will continue with this discussion. My door, as always, remains
open to colleagues. I would like to think I was bipartisan before it
became fashionable to be bipartisan. I note that Senator Kyl is a
cosponsor of the legislation. Senator Lieberman has joined on as a
cosponsor of the legislation. I remain anxious to work with Senators to
get this worked out.
We have been talking a lot about lobbyists. We have had a lobbying
reform bill and the Senate has acted. It was not all I wished it were,
but at least it was a beginning. Talk about special interests and about
the clout of lobbyists, this program is a textbook case of how a
handful of savvy lobbyists can hotwire the political process and end up
costing taxpayers billions and billions of dollars. The law itself,
through the handiwork of all these lobbyists, is full of confusing
language, language that has lent itself to a wide variety of
interpretations. We are almost running a lawyers full employment
program with this particular initiative. It will be in court endlessly,
as far as I can tell. It was a program that was sweetened by the
administration, even at a time when the President said you didn't need
added incentives when oil was over $50 a barrel.
I have mentioned some of the problems we saw in the previous
administration. I guess nobody was home watchdogging the particular
program there in the minerals department because they were supposed to
have a threshold in terms of when subsidies would be dispensed. But
what you have seen with this particular program is how a handful of
insiders, very clever lobbyists, have been able to get the Government
to give away billions and billions of dollars. I don't understand how
any Member of the Senate could go home, face a town meeting in their
particular community, and make the case for having this program in its
current form at this crucial time. Do Senators want to go home, meet
with folks in grange halls and senior centers and the like--I just got
clobbered on the way to a meeting about these prices--and say, gosh, we
have to continue this royalty relief program? Essentially what you have
is a multiyear fiasco.
It began in 1995. At that time, with the price of energy low, you
could make a case for this particular program. But over the years, and
particularly in the last few years with high prices, what you have is a
situation where you have a program mushrooming in cost, mushrooming in
terms of the toll it takes on taxpayers. The Bush administration has
even confirmed that the Government will lose billions of dollars in
royalties.
So this argument some have made that this program costs nothing--we
heard that in the energy debate last year. It is an argument that the
Royalty Relief Program costs nothing. Now that is contradicted by the
Bush administration itself, which has indicated that it is going to
have to waive billions and billions of dollars in royalties.
There is a lawsuit underway, as I have noted. The lawsuit challenges
what amounts to one of the few restrictions on the cash drawer the oil
companies look to, and I gather that the oil companies have a pretty
good chance of prevailing there. So we would see even more money
shoveled out the door in the days ahead. Some have called this program
one that was noncontroversial. I will tell you that I don't think you
can explain this to anybody in broad daylight. That is why the actions
with respect to sweetening the program were taken in the middle of the
night. After the CEOs of all of the major oil companies have come
before a joint hearing of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committees,
saying, in response to my question, that they agreed with the
President's position that when the price of oil is more than $55 per
barrel, they don't need incentives to explore for oil and gas, I wish
one Senator would come to the floor today and say here is why we need
the Royalty Relief Program.
I note that I have been trying to get a vote on this particular
amendment since last night. Not one Senator has come to the floor and
said that they oppose my amendment. I cannot get a commitment for a
vote up or down. And given what has happened with these oil interests
and this program, that is not acceptable to me, and I cannot imagine
that it is acceptable to the American people.
We have a supplemental that is going to cost $100 billion. If the
litigation is successful, we will see the Government out of up to $80
billion. The General Accounting Office estimates the minimum cost of
this program will be $20 billion. So at some point, it seems to me, the
Senate has to step in and say we are going to have some accountability
here for taxpayer money; we are not going to sit on our hands when the
money pours out the door.
In terms of the timeline, there are a couple of dates that I think
are particularly important. In January of 2004, the Department of the
Interior apparently expanded the royalty incentives--the incentives the
companies would be getting under this particular program. About a year
after that, the President of the United States made his statement with
respect to what kind of incentives there should be for people in the
oil business. He said, as I have noted today, with oil at $70 a barrel,
the Government ought to get out of the business. That is the President
of the United States. The President said we don't need these
incentives. By the way, he made no distinction in terms of the kind of
companies involved. He just said the Government doesn't need to be
pouring out subsidies when the price of oil is $70 a barrel.
The next key date was in the summer of 2005----
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to my colleague for a question and
then continue discussing my amendment.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon for
yielding for this question. I appreciate what my friend brings to this
issue in trying to make sure we are dealing with the budgetary
situation that faces our Nation in a straightforward manner. I
appreciate his advocacy here this morning.
My question to my friend from Oregon is whether he would be willing
to yield time for me to simply offer an amendment that I could do at
this point in time.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am under the impression that I cannot
yield to my friend--I certainly would like to--without in essence
losing my right to stay on the floor. As I said earlier when we had
questions from the Senator from Arizona and others, I would very much
like to get a time commitment, because I know the Senator has important
legislation he
[[Page S3645]]
would like to have considered, and I also see my friend from Texas,
Senator Cornyn. This is not my favorite way of getting the business of
the Senate done. But my understanding is I cannot give up the floor to
another Senator for purposes of their having consideration of their
amendments.
Reluctantly, I tell my good friend, a wonderful addition to the
Senate, that I cannot do that at this time. I also see our friend from
Arizona here. He may be working his magic with the leadership and the
Chair so as to be able to at some point lock in a vote. I would be
happy if I could get a commitment that the Senate would vote on this
amendment. I would be happy to let colleagues proceed for several hours
and have a chance to do their important work.
I note once again that not one Senator of either political party has
come to the floor and said they want to defend this multibillion dollar
program in its current form. That is an astounding thing. I was very
pleased to get Senator Kyl this morning as a cosponsor of the
legislation, and Senator Lieberman and others. But what is stunning is
in this place you can hardly get everybody to agree to go out and get a
soda pop. Yet in discussing this legislation, nobody has stood up and
said they are going to defend the Royalty Relief Program in its current
form.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask my friend if he would yield for
another question.
Mr. WYDEN. Once again, as part of the unanimous consent agreement, I
do yield for a question.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, to my friend from Oregon, I ask if he
would object to a unanimous consent request on my part to offer an
amendment concerning a fire emergency disaster we are facing across our
Nation in the West--something that also affects the State of Oregon--
and to agree not to object to my unanimous consent request to offer
this amendment and to speak to this amendment for a period of no more
than 3 minutes.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me propound this to the Chair. My
understanding is if I yield to the distinguished Senator from Colorado
for purposes of these unanimous consent requests, I would lose the
opportunity to be considered, after he discussed this, automatically.
My understanding is I cannot yield to the Senator from Colorado without
losing my place. Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It requires unanimous consent to yield for
anything but a question. So it could be propounded as a unanimous
consent request that the Senator from Colorado would be recognized,
followed by the recognition of the Senator from Oregon, as long as no
other Senator objected.
Mr. WYDEN. Again, I tell my friend from Colorado that this is not my
preferred choice of doing business in the Senate. I was ready to vote
last night. I am ready to vote now. I am ready to vote as part of a
package of amendments. My understanding is I cannot yield the floor at
this time without losing my place. I reluctantly have to decline.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I ask another question of my friend. All
I am attempting to do, as many colleagues here are attempting to do, is
put an amendment on file so we can make them part of the pending
business. We can have a unanimous consent for you to yield to me for 2
minutes so I can offer my amendment. Part of that unanimous consent
would be that we then go back to the Senator's amendment. I think we
can get down to at least offering one more amendment.
I ask the Chair whether I am correct in my assumption that if there
is no objection to my unanimous consent request, then I can offer my
amendment and then return the floor to the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: However much I would
like to do what the Senator from Colorado has suggested, I cannot do
that without losing my place on the floor, is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator could do what the Senator from
Colorado is talking about by unanimous consent, as long as no other
Senator objected to what he was asking.
Mr. WYDEN. So if the Senator from Colorado propounds a unanimous
consent request asking that he be allowed to speak for a couple of
minutes so as to be able to offer his amendment, at the end of those 2
minutes, what he has offered is set aside and the business of the
Senate would once again be my amendment, the Chair is advising that
that could be done?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It first takes unanimous consent for the
Senator from Colorado to even ask for unanimous consent while the
Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, let me say I am going to have staff work
with the Parliamentarian for a bit--my staff and Senator Salazar's
staff, and others--to see if we can address the concern of the Senator
from Colorado. Maybe we can get a number of Senators involved in this
so we can lock in some actual votes.
I would be very pleased to get a commitment from the distinguished
chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran, to have my amendment
included in the next group of votes. That is a pretty simple request--
something that goes on here very often. It seems to me if we cannot do
that, and I am not included, then I guess I have to stay at my post
here and say that I think the taxpayers ought to get some protection
and we ought to stop the ripping off, the persistent plundering of tax
revenue, at a time when the President and everybody else says you
cannot justify these kinds of incentives. If I can get a commitment
from the distinguished chairman from Mississippi to have my amendment
included in the next group of votes, and we will get an up-or-down
vote, I would certainly like to save my larynx and let the Senate get
about its business.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question,
without his losing the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator asked if I would agree that
he could have an up-or-down vote at a specific time or in a certain
order. That in itself treats the Senator in a way that is different
from the way every other Senator would be treated under the rules of
the Senate.
We have opportunities for making points of order against an amendment
that every Senator has under the rules. Any Senator could move to table
the Senator's amendment and get the yeas and nays. But he is insisting
that his amendment be treated different from that required under the
rules in that he wants an up-or-down vote and he wants it in a certain
order.
His amendment was not in the first order of business when the Senate
started its work today. There were other amendments pending. But the
Senator, by unanimous consent, proceeded with his offering of an
amendment.
All I am suggesting is, I cannot be the referee for the duration of
the handling of this bill and decide whose amendments get up-or-down
votes, whose amendment can be tabled or a motion to table can be made,
whether parliamentary objections can be made to proceeding on an
amendment. Any person can be recognized to debate the amendment and
talk without interruption until 60 Senators vote to cut off debate of
that Senator who is talking.
So I am not going to make, I can't make, it is not appropriate for me
to make rules that, in effect, limit all of the other Senators in the
rights they have under the rules of the Senate.
This is just plain and simple. He is asking for special treatment of
his amendment, and I don't have the power to do that and be fair at the
same time to every other Senator. So that is why I am not agreeing to
the unanimous consent request. I don't think it is appropriate that I
do that.
His amendment ought to be treated just like anybody else's amendment.
But he comes out here after amendments are being set aside at his
request and offers his amendment and asks that we agree to vote up or
down at a particular time. I have heard from some Senators who have
concerns about the amendment.
The Energy Committee has jurisdiction of this legislation. I am
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, not the Energy Committee. The
Energy Committee has the right to review any suggested change in
current law on matters coming within the jurisdiction of their
committee, and that is being denied by offering this amendment to
[[Page S3646]]
an appropriations bill and then asking the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee to guarantee that there be an up-or-down vote
at a particular time. So I can't agree.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, by way of responding to the distinguished
Chair, the Senator is not asking for special treatment. What we do in
the Senate again and again--it is the common practice, something that
goes on every week--is we have debates on amendments and then Senators
have those amendments put into a group, and when there has been a group
of amendments put together and all Senators on both sides of the aisle
have been notified that there will be votes, then there are votes.
That is all that I have asked for. There is no request for a specific
time. Do it at 1, 2, 3. Do it whenever we have a block of amendments so
we can get on and hear from Senator Cornyn and Senator Salazar, and I
now see the Senator from North Carolina and the Senator from
Pennsylvania here as well.
I don't understand why we can't get a commitment that at some point--
what goes on here regularly, that Senators get votes as a group of
amendments is considered--that be done.
I come back to the point, having had now considerable amount of
discussion, that not one Senator has said they want to defend the oil
royalty relief in its current form. I think that is incredible. I
certainly expected some opposition. I was pleased when Senator Kyl and
Senator Lieberman said they wanted to be cosponsors. I expected people
to come on over here and oppose it. And I think the reason there is no
vocal opposition to this program is exactly what we saw in the energy
conference committee last year. You can't defend this program in broad
daylight. That is why it was sweetened in the middle of the night. A
program that made no sense, was already a boondoggle, got even sweeter
with additional sums now going out the door.
I have noted that if the litigation of this program is successful, it
is possible that the Government will be out a sum close to the entire
cost of the supplemental program.
So I repeat to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, nothing
would please me more than to enter into an agreement to allow others to
go forward, and my amendment could be voted on in exactly the way the
Senate customarily does business; that is, when we have a block of
amendments, a group of amendments that Senators have had a chance to
discuss and consider, we would then take a vote. But for some reason,
we are not going to do that with respect to this multibillion-dollar
subsidy program, a program that has the Government subsidizing these
companies through royalties when oil is $70 a barrel, and the President
of the United States says we ought to be out of the subsidy business
when oil is over $50 a barrel.
I have a unanimous consent request ready to go so I can satisfy
colleagues. I now see the distinguished Senator from New Jersey is
here, the Senator from Florida is here, and the Senator from
Pennsylvania is here. There are a lot of folks who would like to have a
chance to speak, and nothing would please me more than to let them get
about that business.
I have not been here as long as the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi, but I have not had an instance such as this ever happen to
me in the Senate when I ask: Can I get a chance, as part of a group of
amendments, or at some point, an up-or-down vote, and no efforts are
being made to work something like that out. I think it is unfortunate.
I am going to have to remain at my post, and colleagues who want to ask
questions--does the Senator from Florida seek to ask a question?--I
will be able to respond and reclaim my time.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for
purposes of a question and that he retain the floor.
Mr. President, to the Senator from Oregon, I certainly commend him.
Something is out of whack where we have a system of payments, royalty
or otherwise, or tax credits, otherwise can be characterized in the
vernacular of the street as giveaways, to an industry that at this
point is reporting their first quarter profits. It is expected today or
tomorrow that ExxonMobile will report a profit in excess of $9 billion
for 3 months. That is profit for 3 months. That doesn't include the
other major oil companies.
So I ask the Senator from Oregon, he has made a proposal--I don't
know if it is the one that is on the floor right now--to eliminate the
$1.5 billion giveaway. Will the Senator flesh out that particular
proposal?
Mr. WYDEN. That is not the amendment that I offer. I will tell the
Senator that I am trying to roll back the subsidy program that is the
granddaddy of all of them. This is the one that is going to fleece
taxpayers the worst. This is the one that the General Accounting Office
says at a minimum will cost taxpayers $20 billion.
So the Senator from Florida, who has had a great interest in energy
policy and serves on the committee, is talking about something else,
but he has made the point again that there are a host of these
subsidies. But the billion-dollar program that the Senator from Florida
is talking about is peanuts compared to what we are talking about here.
What we are talking about here--I see the distinguished Senator from
Alaska, Mr. Stevens, is here. He was, I know, a close friend of Senator
Johnston, who was the original author of this program. Senator Johnston
has said that he didn't intend anything like what this program has
turned out to be. Congressman Pombo, the chair in the other body of the
natural resources committee, said: You don't need this incentive.
Nobody has ever called Congressman Pombo anti-oil. Even the people at
Shell Oil say you don't need this kind of incentive in this climate.
The Senator from Florida makes a good point that there are a variety
of subsidies that go out to oil companies, but the one that the Senator
from Florida is talking about is really small potatoes compared to what
we are talking about here. I appreciate the question.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. Once again, under our unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. STEVENS. I wonder if the Senator from Oregon would agree, I have
heard the comment that the normal process is for a Senator to offer an
amendment and to have an opportunity to get a guarantee of a vote. I am
sure, would the Senator agree, that the Senator's amendment is subject
to an amendment?
Mr. WYDEN. Of course. I will tell my good friend from Alaska, I have
been surprised that somebody hasn't come to the floor to speak against
my amendment or to second-degree it, or anything of the sort. I have
been here since last night, I will say--reclaiming my time--I have been
here since last night discussing this, and no Senator, Democrat or
Republican, has come and opposed the amendment that I am offering. No
one has tried to second-degree it.
I think at this time what I would like to do----
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. WYDEN. I will be happy to.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been trying for 25 years to get a
vote on ANWR. I fully intend to offer ANWR as an amendment in the
second degree to the Senator's amendment, and then I want to help him
get a vote. I want to help him get a vote right now. That is exactly
what I have been waiting to do for 25 years.
So I serve notice, I will offer an amendment in the second degree,
the ANWR bill. I do hope we will vote on it today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, just so we can make
sure all the dots are connected, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment be voted on during the next group of amendments.
Mr. STEVENS. Reserving the right to object, will that bar my offering
of my amendment on ANWR? Is the amendment still subject to an amendment
in the second degree?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is nothing in this agreement that would
bar a second-degree amendment.
Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
[[Page S3647]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. COCHRAN. Further reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Alaska has
propounded a question that has not been fully answered--at least I
didn't understand the answer--to permit him to offer the amendment he
would seek to offer to this amendment. So before I yield for that
purpose, I want to be assured that the Senator's rights are protected
on this side of the aisle and that we are not guaranteeing an up-or-
down vote in so doing on the underlying amendment.
I don't want to treat that amendment any differently from any other
amendment that might be offered. That is my concern. Maybe I should
frame that in the form of a parliamentary inquiry. I do so inquire of
the Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair said before, there is not
anything in the unanimous consent request that would stop somebody from
offering a second-degree amendment to the amendment of the Senator from
Oregon.
Is there objection?
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, again reserving the right to object, this
does not bar an amendment in the second degree; is that correct?
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my
amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.
Mr. STEVENS. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I repeat my parliamentary inquiry. Does
the Senator's request----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair's answer is there is nothing in the
unanimous consent request that would stop the Senator from Alaska from
offering the second-degree amendment.
Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I am going
to withdraw----
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How does the
Senator seek to clarify--
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAHAM). The Senator has the right to
withdraw his unanimous consent request.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I intend to withdraw my unanimous consent
request at this time, and my staff is happy to work with Senator
Stevens, as we have done on so many issues, to see if we can work
something out that is acceptable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request is withdrawn.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, having said that, I want to state once
again that I am anxious to work with all of the Senators who are on the
floor, and I am sure there are others hovering about the Chamber, to
get on with the business of the Senate. All I want to be able to do is
what I think is pretty customary in the Senate, and that is to get a
vote at some point--at the time when we have the next set of
amendments. But clearly, there are those here who don't want to allow
that. So I think I will just have to persist.
One additional area I want to focus on, I say to my colleagues, is
that I and others, particularly a bipartisan group on the Energy
Committee, have been trying to get an explanation from the Interior
Department for months and months about what is going on with this
program. What we would like to do is see if we could get some
accountability.
A number of Senators wrote back in January to express our concerns.
We never got an answer. And what I would like to do is highlight a few
points of the Senators' concerns because I think, once again, they go
to this point about whether there is going to be some accountability in
a multibillion-dollar program that has been costly to our taxpayers.
The Senators said, in a January 24, 2006, letter:
There is a series of steps the Interior Department can take
to remedy the flaws with this program. For example--
The letter notes--
you could reinstate the full audits of the royalty relief
program that have been scaled back during the Bush
administration.
Now, as to auditing this program, auditing a multibillion-dollar
program that you can't justify at a time of $70-a-barrel oil costs, you
would think that having these audits would be pretty much a no-brainer.
You would say that the Interior Department, particularly after they
have been criticized by their Inspector General on this particular
point, would be willing to step up the audits. They would be willing to
take some steps, some concrete steps, to make sure that so many
taxpayer dollars weren't being wasted. Unfortunately, that has not
taken place. We haven't seen the audits that even the Inspector General
has called for in the program.
Another step that has been noted by the Senators would require
enforcement of existing rules for this program, such as those requiring
companies to start paying royalties when market prices reach a
threshold level. Again, we have seen no response--no response--to
practical, concrete suggestions that Senators have made to make sure we
get some accountability into this particular program.
I also note that Senators have indicated they would be supportive of
legislation that would require greater accountability for this program
so that, in effect, it would be possible for people to see how it
actually works in broad daylight. That, too, is probably too logical,
and I would only say that given the fact that this program was
sweetened--and expensively so--behind, essentially, closed doors last
year, it seems to me that at a minimum we ought to have greater
openness for this program, additional funding for auditors, and that,
too, has not been forthcoming.
So concrete suggestions made by Senators to better watchdog this
program and to protect the billions and billions of taxpayer dollars
that are needed are highlighted by our challenge right here, which is:
As we debate an emergency spending bill, a bill that is an emergency
because the Government really doesn't have the money to pay for it, we
are still seeing billions of dollars go out the door needlessly.
In addition, the letter from the Senators states:
We are troubled by the suggestion that companies involved
in the program have made differing representations of the
costs to the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Department of Interior.
These are both Federal agencies. In order for the Congress to carry
out its own oversight responsibilities and probe the magnitude of these
discrepancies, what the Senators asked is for information with respect
to oil and gas prices over the last few years. Once again, it looks to
me like a very reasonable kind of request, and I want to highlight
again that when you have an out-of-control program, when you have
Senators making practical suggestions like having better audits, like
having better enforcement of existing laws, saying we ought to follow
up on discrepancies in the information that is furnished to the
Government, that strikes me as a no-brainer. Every Member of the Senate
should say: Of course, we want to watchdog the way these monies are
being spent.
I would like to read a little bit about these disparities in the
costs of the program. Johnnie M. Burton, Director of the Interior
Department's Minerals Management Service--I am just going to read from
a report, a news report on it--said the disparities, the differences in
the information that was furnished by the industry ``were mostly the
result of deductions that the regulations let companies take, reducing
the sales price they report to the government.''
Now let's just think about that. The companies take these deductions;
that reduces the sales price that is reported to the government; and
still the Department of Interior won't step in and say: We are going to
try to straighten out these discrepancies in the information about this
program.
To read further, the Director of this program said that she, ``had
not known and could not explain why companies were reporting higher
sales prices to their shareholders and to the Securities and Exchange
Commission than to her office.''
Once again, that is an extraordinary statement, a statement that
comes from the Director of the Minerals Management Program. And she
wraps it up,
[[Page S3648]]
when she is asked by the news media to respond--and I will quote here
from the news reports:
I can't answer because I don't know. We don't look at SEC
filings. We don't have enough staff to do all of that. If we
were to do that, then we would have to have more staff and
more budget. You know, there is such a thing as budget
constraint, and it has been real tough, let me tell you.
So what we have is the Government not even getting the straight story
about the program. You have Senators saying that different
representations of costs by the companies are being given to the SEC
and the Department of Interior, and yet the person who runs the program
says: I don't know, can't do it. Can't get to the bottom of how a
multibillion-dollar program operates.
Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, this is the granddaddy of all
of the oil subsidy programs. My friend, Senator Nelson from Florida,
came to the floor to talk about a particular subsidy he was concerned
about and said that the cost of the subsidy was about $1 billion. That
is certainly a lot of money to the people of South Carolina and the
people of Oregon. This program that I am saying we ought to rein in and
get some accountability over involves, according to the General
Accounting Office, a minimum--a minimum--of $20 billion. And, if the
litigation that surrounds the Royalty Relief Program is successful, we
would see the cost to the Government be $80 billion.
I have been at this for several hours. No Senator of either political
party has come to the floor and made a case against my amendment. I
have been pretty surprised about it. I was pleased to have Senator Kyl
and Senator Lieberman sign on as cosponsors of my particular effort.
But I would sure like to have a dialogue in the Senate with respect to
the program. I think we have a good handle on how to reform it.
We would say: You can have royalty payments when you need them. It is
not rocket science. It is very straightforward. If the price of oil
goes down, if the President of the United States says we are going to
have a disruption of our oil markets, then you can stay royalty relief.
It is not a complicated proposition. But all I can conclude is that
Senators--we have had a number of Senators come over and yet nobody has
said anything against my amendment. That seems to say, well, just chew
up our day letting this fellow from Oregon hold forth.
I have not had to do this in my time in the Senate. It is not a whole
lot of fun when you have colleagues and friends who obviously put in a
lot of work, a lot of time into amendments that they feel strongly
about. I have asked on several occasions to see if I could just get an
opportunity to have a vote, up or down, in some kind of fashion, at
some point when we do the next block of amendments. But we haven't been
able to get that agreement, so here we are, working through lunchtime
on this particular program.
I will also tell the Senate with respect to where we are right now
that the amount of the subsidy that is out there today could increase--
this is in an article from U.S. News and World Report--fivefold. So we
are talking about billions of dollars that go out the door today, and
if the litigation is successful, then we will see vast additional sums
going out.
In the speech that the President made earlier in the week, the
President, to his credit, said that he really didn't see the case for
subsidies with the price of oil well over $70 per barrel. I don't see
anybody making that argument. I don't see anybody making it outside of
the Senate. And as I have said over the course of the morning, I don't
see anybody making it in the Senate today. I wish somebody would
because maybe then we could begin a real discussion and we could get on
with what the Senator from Mississippi desires, which is to complete
his important legislation. But we have not been able to have that kind
of debate, nor have we been able to get a commitment to have this
amendment come up as part of a block.
About the only thing we know for certain is we have a program that is
completely out of control, and even the original author of the
legislation, our former colleague, Senator Johnston, has indicated
that.
Under the Energy bill that was signed into law last summer, the
companies were given new subsidies in the form of reduced royalty fees.
The way that came about is we did not have any floor votes, we didn't
have extended debate as we are having this morning; it was done after
midnight in the conference committee. It was done after the claim was
made that this would not cost anybody anything. That is pretty
farfetched. The General Accounting Office says it will cost a minimum
of $20 billion.
The Senate has indicated that we are concerned about the practices of
lobbyists. I say to Senators, this is a classic case. This is one you
would write in the textbooks, of how a small group of lobbyists can
figure out a way--essentially behind closed doors and in the dead of
night when people are not exactly following debate about energy policy,
after midnight--to work their will. So I am doing something I have not
done in the Senate and that is to say I am going to stand here and try
to do my very best to protect taxpayers. I think it is critical right
now, when we are dealing with emergency spending legislation. This
program alone uses up a decent portion of the tab for this piece of
legislation.
Colleagues have talked a bit about tax breaks and the like, but we
have not had any real discussion before today about royalties under the
Minerals Management Program. That is what we are talking about here.
The House discussed it in its legislation. I think that is why we ought
to discuss it.
I don't think this is going to harm in any way the incentives to
produce oil in this country. We certainly need to do that. We are as
dependent on foreign oil as we were 20 years ago. I personally think
getting a new energy policy is about the most patriotic thing we can do
in our country. Getting a new energy policy is about as red, white, and
blue as it gets. But you sure don't get a new energy policy if you are
going to keep sweetening, with billions of dollars, a program that
doesn't work, a program that has lacked oversight, lacked
accountability.
By the way, I have mentioned it has been bipartisan. I see the
distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens. I have highlighted
the fact that the previous administration, the Clinton administration,
somewhere, someplace in the bureaucracy, was not watchdogging this
program, was not watching the threshold that was needed to ensure that
this money would be used wisely.
By the way, they were talking about $34 a barrel at that time. Now
the price of oil is over $70 a barrel. The President of the United
States says we don't need subsidies when it is over $50 a barrel.
My hope is we can get this Minerals Management Program under control.
It needs to be under control. The bill that came over from the House
addresses the royalties issue as well. I think it is time for the
Senate to step up. This is a subsidy that is not needed at this time. I
wish some Member of the Senate would come to the floor and say, Let me
tell you why the subsidy is needed. We have three Senators on the floor
and certainly a lot of others have been coming through at various
times, but Senator Johnston, who made the case years ago that this
program was needed in the 1990s--I think Senator Stevens probably knows
the most about the history of the program of any of us--I think Senator
Johnston's argument in the 1990s was the gulf coast was hurting. The
gulf coast had gotten clobbered. Senator Johnston and others were
concerned about how things were going to go in the future. The price of
energy had dropped very dramatically. The concern of Senator Johnston
was that you were going to see very little investment unless you had
changes in the Government's policy.
I know people at that time--I have seen the press reports--were
comparing the Gulf of Mexico to the Dead Sea. We are not faced with
anything like that. In fact, the program worked well in those middle
1990s.
Now we have a very different situation. Now we have a very different
climate. In fact, those are virtually the words that were used by one
of the lawyers from the Shell Oil Company. The lawyer from the Shell
Oil Company said we don't need royalty relief in this kind of
environment, in this kind of climate.
[[Page S3649]]
I hope we will get the Senate to dig into the merits of this. I have
read the comments from news reports, from Senator Johnston. Senator
Johnston told the press recently:
The one thing I can tell you is this is not what we had
intended.
Given all of the fuzzy and confusing language that was in this
program, what we have seen is the companies, those that have tried to
milk this program in every way possible, have been able to do it. I was
particularly troubled by some of the changes the Secretary of Interior,
Secretary Norton, made administratively. But I think the Senate, in
going forward with this discussion, ought to reflect on some of the
comments that have been made by people who I think have been about as
supportive of the oil industry as they possibly could be. In the other
body, the chair of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo,
says:
There is no need for an incentive. They've got a market
incentive to produce at $70 a barrel.
Think about that comment of Congressman Pombo. Congressman Pombo is
saying there is no need for incentives right now.
I wanted to be sensitive in my amendment to the fact that things can
change. We always have to deal with that in any legislative proposal.
What I said is, look, the President of the United States says we could
have a supply disruption. If the President of the United States says,
for example, that with prices going down we need to reinstitute the
program, so be it. But that apparently is not acceptable to some here
in the Senate so we cannot get an opportunity at some point to get a
vote.
But this is high-stakes stuff, folks. This is not small sums of
money. Senator Nelson raised a question that was important to him about
a particular subsidy program he was concerned about. It involved $1
billion. But as a number have noted, if the legal battles that are
taking place right now about the Royalty Relief Program are successful,
we are talking about upwards of $30 billion in additional royalty
relief over the next few years. How much more do we need to prod those
who care about this to look at reforming this particular program?
Certainly they don't need more incentives to go out and drill. Nobody
needs to prod the oil industry in that regard. We have seen a great
deal of effort on the part of the Senate to make it attractive to be in
the energy business. But what I am seeking to do, with the support of
Senators Kyl and Lieberman and I know other Senators, is to get this
program under control, is to have some accountability. It seems to me
what we are faced with is essentially a trifecta of subsidies.
First, you have the companies getting tax breaks. The Joint Tax
Committee has estimated that the costs of those would be in the
vicinity of $10 billion. I am beginning to think we are making some
headway on that particular point because we are hearing Senators on
both sides of the aisle say they want to review those tax breaks. When
we had the executives come before the Energy Committee, I went right
down the row and asked each one of them if they needed the tax breaks
in the new Energy bill. When it got to broad daylight, they said they
didn't need those particular tax breaks. So I think we are making some
headway.
I then went to the Senate Finance Committee and was able to get a
modest reduction in the tax breaks the companies would get. That is now
in the reconciliation bill. I think it is the only actual cut in tax
breaks the companies have gotten in quite some time. I am hopeful that
will make its way into the reconciliation legislation. Senator Grassley
and Senator Baucus have been extremely helpful in that regard.
But the first part of the trifecta is essentially the tax breaks. I
am hoping we can get Senators of both political parties at a minimum to
review them, review them comprehensively--something that hasn't gone
on. Yesterday, to their credit, Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus
indicated they would begin that particular review.
The second part of the trifecta is we have mandatory spending
programs. That was one that Senator Nelson spoke about earlier, one
that involves $1 billion.
Then we come to the Royalty Relief Program, which is the big daddy,
the granddaddy of all the subsidy programs. That is the one I have said
I am not going to let the Senate duck any longer.
It appears both the Chair and the ranking minority member have left
the floor. I think that is unfortunate because I want to try to work
out an effort to move ahead on this. But I will continue.
Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WYDEN. Again, under our unanimous consent.
Mr. STEVENS. I am the senior member of the Appropriations Committee
and former chairman, and I will be happy to work with you to arrange
consideration of ANWR at any time.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the distinguished Senator. I know the Senator,
having chaired the Appropriations Committee, is anxious to try to work
this out. My door is open to try to do that. If the Senator can do what
apparently we couldn't get worked out with Senators McCain, Salazar,
Nelson, and others, no one will be happier than I.
I want to note exactly what the amendment does. It blocks the Federal
Government from sweetening the already sweetheart royalty deals that
are being dispensed under this legislation. This is needed because even
as the prices have shot up, the previous Secretary of Interior was
giving more royalty relief to the companies. It has been reported in
the press that the Secretary of Interior made the incentives more
generous by raising the threshold prices. Her action allowed drillers
to escape royalties in 2005, when prices spiked to record levels. She
also offered to sweeten the contracts that were not generous enough, in
her opinion.
Think about that one. She went back and offered to sweeten the
contracts that she felt were not generous enough, contracts the
drillers signed before the new regulations were approved. What this
amendment does is it prohibits the kind of sweetening of the deals for
those who are drilling when prices are high.
When prices are high and we have no threat of disruption, then I am
saying the Government has to step in and watchdog this program and do a
better job for the taxpayers.
These are royalty deals which are already laden with sugar. They do
not need any further sweetening. What is needed in the Senate is for
the Senate to say now we are going to do what has not been done; we are
going to step in and protect the taxpayers and the American people.
Under this amendment I am trying to get up in front of the Senate,
the next Secretary of Interior would not be able to do what was done
last year and give away more royalty relief when oil prices are above
$55 per barrel. That is what we are all about today.
I hope we will have discussion of other aspects of the oil business.
I know that colleagues have amendments of a variety of types they wish
to offer.
But these are the sweetest deals in town. They are laden with sugar.
They do not need any further sweetening. And at some point you have to
ask, Is the Senate ever going to draw the line and have some real
accountability in this program?
I have now been speaking about this for probably close to 3 hours. No
Member of the Senate has spoken in favor of running the Royalty Relief
Program the way it is. I want to repeat that. After 3 hours of debate
and a chance for anybody here in the Senate to come and say, Look, I
think it is important, I think we ought to keep the program the way it
is, nobody in the Senate has come before this distinguished body and
made the case for this program on the floor of the Senate.
I think that says it all. Nothing could better illuminate the history
of this out-of-control program than the fact that nobody has opposed it
here or has opposed my amendment on the floor of the Senate.
The way decisions are made with respect to this program is like what
happened with the conference committee in 2005 on the Energy bill.
After midnight, when nobody would have a chance to see what was going
on, an argument was made that this doesn't cost any money. A couple of
Senators were present. They said, You have to be kidding. There has
been one Government report and audit after another of
[[Page S3650]]
this program. Nobody can say with a straight face that this program
costs nothing. Yet that was the argument made after midnight in the
energy conference. So this legislation kept getting sweeter and sweeter
and sweeter.
Billions of dollars are at stake. We already have record prices. We
already have record profits. The question becomes, Are we going to have
record royalty payments?
I think it is important now for the Senate to draw the line. I want
to make sure the Senate is aware of how my amendment would work. Right
now the oil companies are supposed to pay royalties to the Federal
Government when they extract oil from Federal lands. To stimulate
production when the price of oil was cheap, the Federal Government
reduced the amount of royalty payments the companies had to make. Now
that the price of oil has shot up to over $70 a barrel, the discounted
royalty payments amount to a needless subsidy of billions and billions
of dollars.
So the practical effect of all of this is the Senate works on a
supplemental spending program. It is called an emergency because the
Government doesn't have the money. That is why we are in this situation
today. We have an emergency. The Government doesn't have the money, but
yet the Senate is still willing to look the other way when billions and
billions of dollars go out the door at a time when the President of the
United States has said you don't need subsidies when the price of oil
is over $50 a barrel.
Experts in and out of the Government share my view that this subsidy
defies common sense. I have described the views of the chairman of the
natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo, who talked about what
the folks at Shell Oil have said. Former Senator Johnston wrote this
particular program. There isn't anybody defending this program in its
current form. That is the amazing part of this debate. Nobody has stood
up and said, I want the Royalty Relief Program to operate just the way
it is. I thought for sure we would have some discussion about this
topic. I thought somebody would actually stand up and oppose what I am
talking about. Somebody might say, Look, just because you say it is the
granddaddy of all subsidies doesn't mean it doesn't do any good. But
nobody has done that. In the course of speaking at some length about
this particular program, nobody here in the Senate has said they want
to come to the floor and defend it. I think that tells a whole lot
about the situation we are in.
By the way, I think it says a lot about whether the Senate is willing
to hold these companies accountable and is going to watchdog the
program which costs billions and billions of dollars.
We have all had our phones flooded with folks concerned about the
price of oil. I heard a discussion from the distinguished Senator from
Arizona who said that earmarks were the top question he had heard about
from citizens. Like the Senator from South Carolina, I have an enormous
amount of respect for the Senator from Arizona. But I think while
earmarks are certainly important--and I don't want to get into some
kind of competition about what is the most important--I can tell you
everything I am seeing right now is that gasoline prices is the issue
the American people want to address.
I want a new energy policy. I am anxious to work with colleagues to
do so. As I have spoken here on the floor of the Senate, I would say
arguably the best idea we have seen in energy as it relates to
production comes from our friend from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, who has
pointed out that we are probably not getting a big chunk of the oil
production out of existing wells. It is an amazing thing; experts in
the field say we may be losing as much as a third of what is out there
in existing wells. If you go and get that oil, first, you begin to add
to the production that all Senators want to encourage but also you do
something that is sensible for the environment because you don't run
the risk of additional environmental problems.
As we have looked at on the Commerce Committee under the
distinguished chair, Senator Stevens, there is a lot of new technology
in the oil business. So it is possible to capture some of the gases
that are emitted and better protect the environment. There are good
ideas for getting a fresh energy policy and certainly increasing
production.
As I have said publicly and privately, I think Senator Thomas is one
of the best. But there are also some programs that make no sense. This
one doesn't. This one is the biggest of them all. If the Senate is
serious about reining in these practices that drain our Treasury, which
is a factor in our having to come to the floor and ask for emergency
spending programs, then I think we have to tackle this kind of program.
Government subsidies--sure, you can make a case for them when the
price is low, when you have to stimulate production, and when our
economy needs a shot in the arm. But billions of dollars of royalty
relief for the companies with these kinds of prices? I don't get it. I
don't think it is even a close call. Perhaps that is why we have not
seen anybody come to the floor and argue on behalf of doing business
this way.
My amendment would ensure that you have royalty relief when it is
needed. When you need royalty relief, under this particular amendment--
when there is a supply disruption or when prices fall--you would be
able to have that relief. But it ought to be targeted. It ought to be
targeted as it was in the middle 1990s. That was a period when the
price of energy was way down. Parts of our country that could produce
oil were hurting. There was a judgment made before my good friend from
South Carolina and I were in the Congress, there was a judgment made in
the middle of the 1990s to say, all right, let us give these companies
a break. If they go out and take some risk, if they will go out and
drill and take those chances as you do as part of the free enterprise
system because the Government wanted to encourage production at an
important time, there was bipartisan consensus that it be done.
The author of the program, Senator Johnston, our former colleague
from Louisiana, put together an impressive coalition to get it passed.
As I have quoted Senator Johnston here on this floor recently, what we
have isn't anything close to what was intended. He was kind of baffled
about the whole thing. He said the whole thing is confusing.
It is time for the Senate to say that on the biggest subsidy program,
the one that costs the most, which is going to be greater, as far as I
can tell, than all of the subsidies combined, and if the litigation
involving this program costs approximately what the whole supplemental
costs, this is the program we have to deal with.
I don't think it passes the smell test to keep dispensing billions
and billions of dollars of royalty relief at this time from the
taxpayers' wallet. This is a program that was useful a decade ago. But
nobody could say that we need these kinds of incentives at this time.
Back when they were talking about this program in the middle 1990s,
the price of oil was in the vicinity of $34 or $35 a barrel. That was
the threshold they were talking about at that time. Now the price of
oil is twice the threshold that was used back in those days, in the
1990s.
This is a program that it seems to me the Senate has to step in and
start watchdogging. One of the reasons I have come to the floor of the
Senate today is because the Department of the Interior won't even
answer questions from Senators. After there were news reports earlier
this year, a number of Senators asked very practical questions. They
wanted to know about additional audits; they wanted to make sure there
was an effort to enforce the law; they pointed out discrepancies in
reports on this program; that the Securities and Exchange Commission
was given one set of facts and statistics and the Department of
Interior was given another set of facts and statistics. Think about
that. We now have companies not even using the same information the
Government has so the Government can watchdog the program. Then they go
over to the person who heads the Minerals Management Office, which runs
this particular program, and what that person says is, Gosh, we don't
know. We don't have the auditors. We can't keep track of this. We are
not people with expertise. I guess I could see that point if it were
involving a small program; in other words, you would be talking about
something with
[[Page S3651]]
a modest sum of money, and they said they did not have enough auditors.
Senators could work on a bipartisan basis and beef up the program. But
it was not an emergency because you were talking about a much smaller
amount of money. We know the phrase a billion here, a billion there
starts to add up to real money. Everett Dirksen talked about millions;
now we are talking about billions.
The point is, this is not a small program. This is one of the biggest
programs, $20 billion minimum. The General Accounting Office says $20
billion minimum is involved. If the litigation surrounding this program
is successful, it could approach the amount that would pay for the
entire emergency supplemental program. That is pretty amazing.
One program subsidizing the companies with royalty relief--and no
Senator has come to the Senate over the last few hours to defend the
operation of the program in its current form--one program can pick up
the tab for most of the emergency supplemental. Yet we cannot get a
vote up or down as part of any kind of practice that resembles what the
Senator from South Carolina and this Senator have customarily seen in
the Senate.
We have a discussion over a batch of amendments. Usually a big batch
of amendments takes a reasonable period of time. I have done this. The
Senator from South Carolina has done it scores and scores of times.
Then the amendment you offer is put into a package of other amendments,
and there is a vote at a time when Senators of both political parties
have been notified and all Members are aware of what is coming up in
the Senate. We cannot do that. Somehow, we cannot do that.
I see the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Cochran,
has returned. I have propounded a variety of different questions to see
if we could at some point do what is the customary practice in the
Senate, which is at some point have a vote, at some point that is
convenient for all who want to offer their amendments. As far as I can
tell, we are not having any discussions about how to do that. I have
not heard any discussions about others who want to amend this in some
way. We have, essentially, a one-sided discussion. This side would very
much like to see if we can move forward and get about the business of
the Senate.
I have outlined the key questions about a program which is a classic
example of what happens when you do not have the Government
watchdogging the taxpayers' wallet. The money does not fly out of the
sky and land in Washington and all of a sudden get used for one program
or another. This is taxpayers' hard-earned money.
We have a situation in South Carolina, Oregon, and elsewhere where
people are getting clobbered at the pump. They are all up in arms about
the cost of gasoline. We have these record prices at the pump. We have
record profits people constantly read about, and the CEOs get pensions.
Some of the pensions the CEOs are getting come to sums that are greater
than whole communities, as far as I can tell, in terms of their pension
relief. So citizens hear about this sort of thing and want to know what
the Congress is doing to straighten out the priorities.
What this is about, folks, is straightening out the priorities. I
don't think the priorities ought to be to have a minimum of $20 billion
used for a royalty relief program when the price of oil is over $70 a
barrel. The priorities ought to be for the kinds of things the
distinguished Senator from Mississippi and his counterpart on the
Democratic side have been working to get done. We do have emergencies.
We have emergencies we have to address. I want to see it done. I will
tell the Senate when we are subsidizing an amount that could possibly
come to the full cost of this supplemental, this cries out for the
Senate to step in.
I am going to do everything I can do and will continue to try to
engage colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can do what is
necessary to protect the public; that is, essentially reining in a
program that has been driven by a small number of lobbyists. A small
number of lobbyists for a small number of companies has figured out how
to make off with the bank. That is essentially what has happened. We
have a program that very few know much about.
When it hit the newspapers a few months ago, Senators and others were
up in arms. It is fair to say very few knew a great deal about how the
program operated. Those headlines--``General Accounting Office Says
Minimum of $20 Billion Will Be Lost''--should have served as a wake-up
call.
After we saw those news reports, Senators began writing letters, some
of them bipartisan, saying to the Department of Interior: Give us the
facts about the program. They said: We have read all these reports
indicating what a waste of money, what a colossal waste of money this
is. Give us the facts.
The Department of Interior has stonewalled Senators who are trying to
get the facts about how the program works. The Senators pointed out the
discrepancies in the information furnished. Senators pointed out there
did not seem to be people watching this program and watchdogging
it, but still no response from the Department of Interior.
So we get to the point, it seems to me, that somebody ought to come
to the Senate and describe how an industry that is finding profit
everywhere it looks ought to be given more relief from the Federal
taxpayer. That is what it comes down to. This industry is doing
exceptionally well. Everyone understands the importance of energy
production. We understand the importance of seeing it produced in the
United States. But the good ideas for getting production going in this
country are not ones that drain the Treasury of billions and billions
of dollars. The good ideas are the kinds of ideas offered by the
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, who talks about getting
more production out of existing wells. That is the kind of thing we
ought to be doing to get a new energy policy, a red, white, and blue
energy policy that is patriotic.
Frankly, our energy policy does a great disservice to those who honor
us by wearing the uniform overseas. I know the Senator from South
Carolina has been a great advocate for those people. When I meet with
folks in the military, I say: You have honored us with your
extraordinary service by wearing the uniform and putting your health
and the well-being of your family on the line. I want to get a new
energy policy so it is less likely that your kid and your grandkid will
be off in the Middle East fighting another war where people are saying
it is about oil.
We owe it to those courageous people who honor our Nation by wearing
the uniform to get them a fresh energy policy from ideas such as those
offered by Senator Thomas. This program is not one of them.
I see one of my cosponsors of this legislation in the Chamber. I am
ecstatic he has arrived in the Chamber, and I yield to him under the
unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. KYL. May I ask my colleague a couple of questions with the
understanding he retains the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. I compliment the Senator from Oregon for bringing this
matter to the attention of the Senate. It is my pleasure to cosponsor
the amendment with the Senator. I also compliment the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations for his patience, his great patience, and
his willingness to work with everyone and try to get this bill to a
conclusion.
Let me first ask a couple of questions to make sure everyone knows
exactly what we are talking about. It is my understanding that back in
1995, the Congress passed something called the Deepwater Royalty Relief
Act designed to encourage the development of new sources of energy and
that there were some mandatory provisions in that act that required the
waiver of the payment of royalties from Federal land, from oil
extracted from Federal land. The concept was we wanted to encourage the
production of more oil and gas on these Federal lands and the best way
to do that would be to enable the oil companies to keep the revenues
and not pay the Government any royalties. Is that your understanding of
the original concept of this legislation?
Mr. WYDEN. The Senator has summed it up very well. And at least
reduce royalties.
Mr. KYL. And then what happened was in the Energy bill we adopted, we
thought, well, if it was a good enough
[[Page S3652]]
idea then, even though these mandatory provisions of the act expired in
2001, it would be a good idea to continue them, but the administration
at that time, observing the fact that oil prices were going up now,
came to the conclusion that the extension of this royalty relief was
not necessary and, in fact, issued its statement of policy on the
Energy bill on June 14, 2005, saying the President believes that
additional taxpayer subsidies for oil and gas exploration are
unwarranted in today's price environment and urges the Senate to
eliminate the Federal oil and gas subsidy and other exploration
incentives contained in the bill.
So when the President made his statement about whether we should
extend this mandatory royalty relief, he was saying at that time--this
was in June of 2005, not quite a year ago; the prices were up but not
nearly where they are now--but even at that level he was saying this
provision is not necessary to encourage more exploration. Is that the
Senator's understanding?
Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right. It is Congress that kept
ladling out this money and the President, to his credit, has been
making the point that these subsidies are not needed.
Mr. KYL. Might I ask further, the number that I have of the estimate
of how much this is going to cost the American taxpayer over the next 5
years is $7 billion. Does that number comport with what the Senator
from Oregon has?
Mr. WYDEN. The General Accounting Office has said this program will
cost, at a minimum, $20 billion. I am looking at the headline of the
newspaper that ``GAO Sees Loss in Oil Royalties of At Least $20
Billion,'' but one of the calculations has been $7 billion.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, $7 billion may be a very low estimate. Is $20
billion over a 5-year period?
Mr. WYDEN. That is over 25 years. And the cost, if the litigation
that is underway is successful, the evidence indicates that could add
up to $80 billion. The entire supplemental is $100 billion, so
depending on how this litigation turns out before too long, the amount
of money involved could be close to the cost of the entire
supplemental.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I noted that the Senator said something
earlier in his remarks that I thought was very important in the context
of our consideration of this supplemental appropriation. We all agree
we have to appropriate the funds not only for relief from the hurricane
to States such as that of the Presiding Officer, but also to ensure
that everything our troops need to conduct their activities in the war
against terror is provided to them and that the bulk of the money in
the supplemental appropriations bill is going for that purpose, but
that this is emergency spending we have not offset in any other way.
What the Senator from Oregon has pointed out is that actually, in
great measure, a great deal of this could be offset if we simply
eliminate some of the costly taxpayer subsidies such as that which is
the subject of this amendment, so that we are in total agreement that
we have to provide this funding for our military, and that one way we
can help to pay for it is for the taxpayers to not have to continue
this subsidy, which by all accounts is totally unnecessary to produce
additional oil and gas, at least at this time.
Let me ask the Senator further, I don't know what the crude oil price
was in June of last year when the President made his statement that
this royalty was simply not necessary, but it probably was somewhere in
the neighborhood of half of what it is today. Maybe the Senator has an
idea on that. But the estimates today, I think--when I last looked at
the market--were about $72 a barrel. Therefore, if it is true the
measure was not necessary a year ago, as lawyers say: a fortiori, it is
not needed today.
Does the Senator from Oregon have any thoughts on that?
Mr. WYDEN. Again, I think the Senator has summed it up. The price of
oil has doubled in the last 5 years. The Senator from Arizona asks
about last year. I think, again, speaking off the top of my head, it
was somewhere in the middle sixties somewhere, the price of oil per
barrel. But I think the bottom line is, the Senator from Arizona is
correct, it is now well over $70 a barrel. And that is vastly higher
than the amount the President says would warrant an incentive.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me ask another question of the Senator
from Oregon.
Your amendment does not just wipe out this provision that waives
royalties but, rather, allows for a situation, as I understand it, when
the price drops to a point where maybe some incentive is necessary to
provide for this production. It actually does not eliminate the
possibility of that incentive. Is that correct? Could the Senator
explain that?
Mr. WYDEN. I am very grateful for the Senator from Arizona getting
into this discussion because what I have tried to do is ensure we will
have royalty relief when it is needed. Essentially one of two
conditions would be met, and then you could have the royalty relief
resume. One is, as the Senator from Arizona has said, the price of oil
falls and you do need incentive.
The other, which, in effect, gives the President of the United States
the last word, is a stipulation that allows the President, through the
Secretary of the Interior, to say--if we need to prevent a disruption
of supply; if the President determines we would have a disruption of
supply at this crucial time when our country is at war--then the
President of the United States can say: We will resume the Royalty
Relief Program because we need this incentive for production; it is my
judgment that without this Royalty Relief Program we would have a
disruption in supply.
Mr. KYL. So, Mr. President, if I could kind of summarize this point,
it seems to me this amendment represents kind of a win-win situation in
that we have the opportunity now to save the American taxpayers a lot
of money--money that is not necessary to stimulate the production of
oil and gas at this time because the price of oil is so high. But it is
also a win in the sense that the Senator from Oregon has drafted the
legislation in such a way that should we need that ability to stimulate
production in the future--for example, should we be in a wartime
situation and the President determines we have to do everything we can
to produce more domestic oil--that the authority exists and would
continue to exist. The Senator from Oregon is not eliminating that
authority but noting that is one of the protections in his amendment.
So it seems to me that either way we have protected the American
taxpayer, the American consumer, and, of course, the American citizen
in a time of war. So it is a little hard to argue there could be a bad
result from this since at the time you might need this kind of
stimulus, it would be there or at least potentially would be there.
Let me make another point and ask a question. I happened to have been
watching television the other night late, and I believe it was the
Discovery Channel, watching the drilling off of our coast down to the
depths of--I have forgotten how many miles. It was incredible. The
people on the rigs were saying they never dreamed years ago they could
do that, that they would be able to do that. Certainly the Presiding
Officer, being from the State of Louisiana, knows a lot more about this
than I do. I was impressed with the ability of these people to explore,
to find the oil, and then to be able to drill at such great lengths,
and to be able to pull that oil out of the ground in a way that, while
very expensive, was still profitable and could, therefore, contribute
to the domestic oil production in the United States.
At a time when it does not appear it is at all necessary to provide
this kind of royalty relief, it seems to me we ought to be taking our
hat off to those who produce this kind of critical product in our
society during a time of war.
My understanding, at least from some folks I talked to, was that at
least the companies that were asked about this at the time said they
did not even need this royalty relief, that they could do this work,
that the price of oil was such that they could pull it out of the
ground.
So like the Senator from Oregon, I am a bit mystified about who the
folks were who came in, whether it was in the dead of night or
whenever, and extended this in the Energy bill. I would note this is
one of the reasons I voted against the Energy bill, by the way. I saw
the President's Statement of Policy saying we don't need this
provision. It was a mystery to me why it remained. It was clear it was
going to cost a lot of money.
[[Page S3653]]
The Senator from Oregon has now quantified how much that is. Again,
the estimate I have, over 5 years, is at least a $7 billion cost to the
taxpayers. At a time when we are looking for revenues to offset the
cost of the war, it seems to me to be a perfect opportunity to achieve
two good policy objectives: save some money for the American taxpayer,
avoid the bad policy of subsidizing something that does not need to be
subsidized, but retain the ability to continue stimulating our domestic
production if and when we need to have such a policy to do so.
So I commend the Senator from Oregon for his work. I am very pleased
to cosponsor it. I hope through the processes of the Senate at some
point we can get this matter to a vote.
Again, the distinguished chairman of the committee has left the floor
momentarily, but I want to commend him for his patience in trying to
work out all of these things. I suspect somehow or other we are going
to be able to sit down and work out a vote on this since it is pretty
hard for me to see where any opposition to this amendment could come
from based upon the fine arguments the Senator from Oregon has made.
So, again, I commend the Senator from Oregon. I am very pleased to
cosponsor this and will work in every way I can to bring it to a vote
so we can effect the policy.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, before he leaves, I hope the Senator can
stay a bit longer as well because I so appreciate his insight and input
on this issue.
The Senator from Arizona has been making these points ever since--in
the Finance Committee and in the Energy Committee we were talking about
this legislation. And you and I and others said: Let's think through
now how to use scarce taxpayer resources wisely. Let's take out a sharp
pencil and say there are going to be some areas that you set aside, and
there are going to be some areas you promote.
I have been talking about Senator Thomas's efforts at some length
here today because I think Senator Thomas gets it in terms of what we
ought to be looking at as far as our long-term needs in terms of
production.
The Senator from Arizona said we should be taking our hat off to
people who produce energy. I certainly second that. And I am glad the
Senator has done that. I want to say I think what we are trying to do
in our amendment--and you and I and Senator Lieberman in particular--is
we are saying not only do we want to be supportive verbally of what
people are doing to produce energy in our country, but we want to say,
as we have outlined in the royalty relief amendment we are talking
about here, is they can get royalty relief when it is needed. In other
words, this is not a bunch of verbiage where people come over to the
floor of the Senate and say: Oh, maybe you will be able to do this;
maybe you will be able to do that.
I think what we have spelled out, as a result of your thoughtful
questioning, is that when relief is needed--either the prices are down
or we have a threat of disruption--not only are we going to say we are
for the producers, we are going to back it up, and they will be in a
position of being able to secure that royalty relief support.
I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona for additional
questioning.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has made a very important
point I want to second; that is, at the time this was being debated, I
recall the Senator for Oregon, in his comments, making the same points
I made, which were that it is important for us to be supportive of
American industry being able to do the things we want it to do, but
that since we are talking about taxpayer dollars, we need to be very
careful that if there is some kind of support for industry, that it is
very well thought out, that it is not open ended, hopefully, it is not
mandatory, that we retain enough flexibility, let's say, so when the
conditions no longer warrant the support of a particular industry we
will no longer do that.
Now, all of us in this body can have different ideas about when that
is appropriate. I happen not to be a big fan of subsidies. Some others
may like them a little bit more. But at least the Senator from Oregon
and I have been consistent for a long time wanting to know the facts
about whether support for a particular good cause was necessary with
respect to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. If it was necessary for
the national good during a time of war, for example, then I think the
consensus is there to always do it. But what we said is: Is it
necessary at this time? We were talking about a situation where oil was
at least $10 a barrel cheaper than it is today. Even the President was
saying at that time: This particular subsidy is not necessary.
So it seems to me that colleagues who may have supported the bill at
the time would have no reason not to support our amendment here because
this is a very specific and differentiated item. It is not the entire
Energy bill; it is one very specific little provision. It is a
provision that will save us a lot of money if we can get it amended the
way we are talking about doing. And its relevance to this supplemental
appropriations bill--whatever the germaneness provision is--its
relevance is very clear.
It would be nice if we could offset some of the spending we are going
to have to engage in here to support our troops with real savings. This
is an area where we can achieve real savings because the royalty is
simply not needed at this time for the purpose that it was originally
put in the legislation.
So this would be consistent with the policy we have talked about for
a long time. And I think it makes very good policy sense for the
country to begin to put it into place in the future. When you need
something like this, fine. But when you do not need it, then don't
saddle the taxpayers of the country with an expenditure that simply
takes money out of their pocket and is not needed by the producers, who
are going to be producing the oil, in this case, in any event.
Again, I thank the Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my friend from Arizona.
I would also say with respect to this issue of relevance, not only
would we be able to save a significant chunk of the tab for this
overall emergency supplemental, but the House, the other body, at page
64 of their bill, talks specifically about the Minerals Management
Service. So we are already seeing some concern, at least on the part of
the other body, that the Congress ought to be looking at this program.
So it is my hope--and you were talking about making sure there is an
effort to watchdog this program. Now is when you watchdog it because
the spigot is on, and it is gushing taxpayer money. It is gushing
taxpayer money at a time when the Government does not have it. And the
Government's lack of funds has forced the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi to come and work on an emergency spending measure because
the Government does not have any money.
So I think that highlights why this is so important. And, once again,
well into 3 hours of discussion on this, I want to review for
colleagues that we have not been able to work out an arrangement to get
a chance to vote on this as part of a batch of amendments. No Senator
has come to the floor to speak against this amendment. No Senator,
neither political party, has said this amendment is off base.
What we just heard from the distinguished Senator from Arizona, who
sits on both the Finance Committee and the Energy Committee, is that we
need this. We need this to make sure we watchdog the use of taxpayer
dollars. This program worked in the 1990s.
It boosted oil production substantially. We were all glad to see it.
But the fact is, the President says we can get the production now
without these kinds of subsidies when the price of oil is over $70 a
barrel. I am hopeful we can continue to work--I see the chairman of the
full committee, Senator Cochran, here to get it worked out--so that we
could do what is customary in the Senate, and that is make this
amendment part of a batch of amendments.
I do want the Senate to know a little bit about the payment terms of
this program and how this program works in terms of royalties and
rentals. I will read a little bit from a Congressional Research Service
report that describes it. The leases are conditioned upon payment to
the Government of a royalty of at least 12.5 percent in amount
[[Page S3654]]
or value of oil or gas production that is removed or sold from the
leased land. Leases subject to rates in effect after December 22, 1987,
generally pay a 12.5-percent royalty, but this percentage can increase
if a lease is canceled because of late payments and then reinstated.
The Secretary of Interior also has the power to reduce the oil royalty
on a noncompetitive lease if it is deemed to be equitable to do so.
Once again, we are talking about very favorable terms for the
companies. We are talking about noncompetitive leases. We are talking
about something I don't think anybody sees in the private sector in
Mississippi or Louisiana or Oregon, but yet that is the way we do
business in this particular program.
The Congressional Research Service goes on to say: For oil and gas
leases, the royalty must be paid in value unless the Department of the
Interior specifies that a royalty payment in kind is required. Once the
royalty has been paid, the Secretary is required to sell any royalty or
gas except whenever, in their judgment, it is desirable to retain the
same for the use of the United States.
That is the heart and soul of how this program works. The Secretary
is given this extraordinary waiver authority to suspend or reduce
rentals and royalties under certain conditions. Unfortunately, we have
seen some problems in terms of the Secretary using that discretion.
That is one of the reasons I have come to the floor and raised this
concern.
Senators know who is getting the profits. I have tried to talk about
the trifecta: The profits that are being made, the mandatory spending
that goes out the door in terms of this program. Then we have the
granddaddy of them all, the question of royalty relief. What it really
comes down to is the Senate's saying, after years of decisions being
made about this program behind closed doors, we are actually going to
have a debate about this and at some point work out a way to take a
vote on it. I don't think that is an unreasonable position.
This is a program that is out of control. This is a program that
ensures that billions of subsidy dollars will fly out the door, even
when the President says it is not necessary. The price of oil is $70 a
barrel plus right now. The President said hold the line on the
subsidies when it is over $50 a barrel. The Royalty Relief Program
holds no lines.
Essentially, the Royalty Relief Program is a wish list for a handful
of very powerful interests who have figured out how, behind closed
doors, to have their way with the program. This is the sweetest of the
sweetheart deals. It needs to change. I would like to see a Senator
come to the floor and defend the Royalty Relief Program as it is
presently constituted. This involves billions and billions of dollars.
For example, think about what we could do for the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. That is a program about which many Senators
have been concerned. Think about what we could do for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program if we reconfigured the Royalty Relief
Program to one essentially based on need, with prices going down, or
supply disruption being the only factors in making a decision about
whether to have the royalty relief.
We could have plenty of money left over for deficit reduction, even
after helping the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
The Senator from Mississippi has a bill that has a number of
provisions in it I strongly support. But budgets are about choices. As
a Senator, I cannot explain to the people of my State how a program
like this is going to be run like business as usual. When billions of
dollars are shoveled out the door, when independent audits continually
site the lack of controls, when the companies that look to this program
give one set of facts to one agency and another set of facts to another
agency, that is unacceptable. That is what I want to change. I guess we
will be here on the floor of the Senate a while in order to try and get
it worked out.
I am reading again from news reports. The General Accounting Office
has said that the best case for the amount of money that would be lost
to the American taxpayer is $20 billion. The press has already reported
that this would involve an instance where energy prices are over what
is called the so-called threshold in the years ahead. The companies
that have sought this have won a huge victory at taxpayers expense.
They have won legal victories in the past. All the more reason for
Congress to step in and establish some accountability and ground rules.
There are prospects that if they win their next lawsuit, we could be
spending another $50 or $60 billion over the years ahead on top of the
most optimistic projection for the cost of the program, which would be
$20 billion. We are talking about big sums of money.
I would like to read from a report that shows how conservative these
numbers are. The New York Times said, in an analysis of this program,
that the General Accounting Office based its estimate on the assumption
that crude oil would sell for about $45 a barrel, a level well below
what was then the $66 cost in the futures market. So these are very
conservative projections. I am concerned that with the General
Accounting Office lowballing the cost of the program, the tab to the
taxpayers will be much greater than anyone has envisioned.
I hope Senators will want at some point to come to the floor and see
if we can work out a way to vote, look at further suggestions and
revisions. If they don't, we will have to stay at it and continue to
talk about this issue.
I want to address one of the issues that came up in the discussion
over the Energy bill, that somehow this program wasn't going to cost
taxpayers any money. Folks said that with a straight face. They said:
No, it is not going to cost people any money. We are going to have to
figure out a way to deal with this issue.
They said: It is not going to cost people any money. That statement
was made by some of the supporters of the program back in 1995. They
said in 1995 this would produce revenue for taxpayers, and they were
concerned that people were somehow saying otherwise.
The reality is, this has not been a no-cost program. This has been a
pricing program. This is a program that is going to cost the taxpayers
billions and billions of dollars. It is the biggest of the programs. I
am still struck by the discussion that we had with Senator Nelson
earlier. Senator Nelson was concerned about a program that cost a
billion dollars. That is a lot of money to taxpayers, a billion-dollar
subsidy. Here we are talking about a program that could go to $80
billion. Senator Cochran's supplemental comes in, I believe, in the
vicinity of $100 billion. Depending on how the litigation plays out,
the amount of money involved comes to an amount equal to what will be
spent in this emergency supplemental.
This is a subsidy that is more than a dubious use of taxpayer
resources. This is a subsidy for which there is no logical argument at
all. We are not seeing low prices. We are not seeing an investment
climate with ominous signs over it--quite the opposite. We are seeing
an investment climate in energy that is certainly promising. If we look
at stocks and profits and the like, energy prices have been very high.
We are not talking about crude oil selling for $16 a barrel. Back in
1995, that is what they were talking about. They were talking about
crude oil selling for $16 a barrel.
Let's think about that. In 1995, when this program was originated,
when there was a discussion about how to proceed and move ahead, the
price was $16. Now we have prices at over $70 a barrel. How can one
argue that a program that was conceived at a time when we were talking
about prices of under $20 a barrel is needed when the price of oil is
over $70 a barrel? That is what we are dealing with here, and that is
why I and others want to rein in this program.
To furnish all of this royalty relief on top of the record profits
and on top of the record cost, I don't get. I don't get how, when you
have the industry prospering as it is today, and taxpayers,
particularly the middle class, feeling the crunch, how do you make the
argument that you ought to use taxpayer dollars this way?
I have introduced tax reform legislation targeted to the middle
class. The reason I have is that the middle class today is being
squeezed as we have never before seen. Certainly, we have not seen it
in the last 50 years. For the last 50 years, when corporate profits
[[Page S3655]]
have gone up, when you have seen increases in productivity, the middle
class has benefited. We have seen them enjoy the fruits of expanded
profits and productivity. We are not seeing that today.
The middle-class folks from Mississippi, Louisiana, and Oregon are
getting shellacked. This bill cannot do everything that is needed for
the middle class, certainly, but it seems to me what we can say is the
middle-class person should not see their tax dollars used for a program
such as this that is totally out of control. I wish to see middle-class
folks get a break. When I have my community meetings at home--and, like
other Senators, I get to every part of the State--I have these open
meetings and folks can come in. Almost always the second word is
``bill.'' First, it is medical bill, and then gas bill, then home
heating bill, then mortgage bill, then tax bill. The middle-class folks
cannot keep up.
So if the Senate keeps this program going in its current form, as
opposed to what I am trying to do, which is to reconfigure it, target
it to where it is needed, what will happen when Senators go home and
middle-class people ask them about what is being done? In effect, what
is happening is that tax dollars from middle-class people, at a time
when they need a break and some relief--they would have to say that
essentially they go into the coffers of the Government and then out
they go in terms of billions of dollars of royalty relief, when the
President of the United States says it is not necessary. That doesn't
make any sense.
This is essentially a debate about priorities. What I think we ought
to be doing, especially on this middle-class issue, where people making
$40,000, $50,000, $60,000, or $70,000 have been hit so hard and they
are living payday to payday--that is how middle-class folks get by.
They get their paycheck and they use it until the next one comes along.
The Federal Reserve said not long ago that middle-class people have
seen virtually no increase in their net worth over the last 5 years.
Whose side is the Senate on? Are we on the side of those who want to
keep milking this Royalty Relief Program, at a time when it is not
needed, at a time when we are seeing record profits and record costs or
are we on the side of middle-class folks? I want to be on the side of
middle-class folks. I want to better protect the use of their tax
dollars. This is the most flagrant waste of tax dollars I have seen in
a long time. That is why no Senator comes to the floor of this body to
defend it.
This is such an exorbitant expenditure. This is such a waste of
taxpayer dollars that no Member of the Senate wants to come to this
floor and defend the way this program is now being run. That is what it
comes down to. Nobody wants to defend it, but somehow we cannot work
out a way to get a vote and to actually see where the Senate stands on
whether this program ought to continue as it is, or whether the Senate
is willing, as I am proposing, to try to change it and make sure that
instead of special interests and lobbyists being able to hotwire this
whole program behind closed doors and talk to people at the Department
of Energy, that we stand up for the public. It is all about choices.
At a unique time in our country's history, when we are seeing an
extraordinary economic transformation, when the people of Louisiana,
Oregon, and Mississippi are not just competing against somebody down
the road and we are competing against tough global markets--those in
China and India--I want to see us change our priorities. I want to see
us pay for this legislation responsibly.
Senator Cochran has a bill that in many respects, I believe, makes a
lot of sense. I am anxious to go forward with his legislation and see,
on a bipartisan basis, how we can deal with the emergency needs of our
country. What I am not willing to do, however, is to look the other way
on this program any longer. I am not willing to do it. We may have a
vote at some point. Maybe I will prevail and maybe I will not. When I
talked to Senator Cochran this morning, we were talking about the way
the Senate works. The Senator from Mississippi has always been very
fair in the past. He said: Look, the Senate debates and then the Senate
has, through its customs and rules, a way to ensure that the Senate
takes a position. That is all I am asking. I am asking that the Senate
do what it customarily does. What we do, as far as I can tell,
practically every single week we are in session--almost every week I
have been here, we deal with a variety of issues that come up from
Senators in the form of amendments. The amendments are debated and then
the Senators have an opportunity to have the Senate go on record on
their particular amendment as a part of a group of measures that are
considered. That is not what is going on here. I am curious why.
I wish we would hear from some who possibly oppose the legislation
why we cannot do what is done virtually every week in the Senate, which
is to have a debate, have a discussion, and then the Senate makes a
judgment on whether a particular amendment or effort is meritorious.
I see the distinguished Senator from Washington, who is such a
wonderful advocate for the Pacific Northwest. She has done
extraordinary work, particularly on infrastructure, on port security,
on making sure we have good investments in transportation. You cannot
have big league quality of life with a little league transportation
system. So what we find is when the Senator from Washington wants to
see scarce dollars go into infrastructure and into port security, and a
number of the valuable areas she has been advocating, we cannot do that
because a minimum of $20 billion is going to be lost to this particular
program, and if the litigation is successful, it will be $80 billion.
So, again, this is going to come down to choices. I like the kinds of
choices the distinguished Senator from Washington, Senator Murray, has
been talking about. I think she said we ought to focus on middle-class
folks, we ought to focus on infrastructure, we ought to focus on a
handful of choices in a difficult budgetary climate. But it is not
going to be possible to have the resources the distinguished Senator
from Washington has been talking about if you continue to throw money
out the door in a wasteful fashion. That is what it is all about.
This is not very complicated. It has been documented. How the Senate
can essentially stiff the General Accounting Office on its
recommendations to get some controls on this program is beyond me. I
guess that is still what some wish to do. But I am going to do
everything I can to prevent it. This program, as Senator Bennett
Johnston said some time ago, is not what was intended. Those are not my
words. Those are not the words of Senator Kyl or Senator Lieberman, my
cosponsors of this particular effort. Those are the words of the author
of the legislation, who hails from the same State as the distinguished
Senator in the chair. So with the author of the program saying it
wasn't intended, with people all across the political spectrum saying
you don't need royalty relief in this particular climate, I wish to see
the Senate take a position up or down as to whether this kind of
royalty relief is needed.
If the Senate doesn't, it seems to me what the Senate is saying is we
will do business as usual, in terms of all of these subsidies. In other
words, we talk a lot about tax breaks and the like and what we might be
doing on some of them. This is the biggest subsidy. This is No. 1. This
is the one that counts if we are serious about all of the speeches that
are given about cutting back needless subsidies to the oil sector.
Senator Nelson summed it up very well. He was concerned about spending
a billion dollars in terms of a subsidy program that was ill-advised. I
think Senator Nelson is on track, and I am anxious to find out more
about the program he is concerned about. But that is a tiny fraction of
what is at issue.
So I think if the Senate is concerned about changing our energy
policy, at a time of record profits, at a time of record prices, it
cannot duck the big ticket items. You cannot say you are serious about
using taxpayer money more prudently and then pass on the programs such
as this one at the Minerals Management Office that count. In
particular, you should not duck them when all of the evidence indicates
that the historical rationale for starting this program in the 1990s,
with low prices and a need to boost production, isn't present any
longer.
I see colleagues on the floor. I see my friend from Colorado, Senator
[[Page S3656]]
Salazar. He did extraordinary work in what was called, I think, the
Gang of 14, I believe, in terms of getting the Senate to come together
on some judicial nominations. Perhaps he can work his great talent into
finding a way for us to move ahead now. Senator Murray is also one who
is no weak soul in terms of parliamentary procedure. I see two good
friends on the floor.
I am happy to yield to my friend under the unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon for
yielding a few minutes to give him a break so he can take a drink of
water and continue his dialog. He raises a very important point in the
argument he has been advancing for the last several hours. I very much
respect his passion on the issue.
I request of my friend from Oregon to enter into a consent to allow
at least my amendment to move forward, and perhaps two or three others
of colleagues who have been waiting in the wings, with the
understanding that upon the offering of those amendments, then the
floor would return to him.
Mr. WYDEN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I am very anxious to
accommodate the distinguished Senator from Colorado. I will tell
colleagues I am vastly more interested in accommodating my colleague
than anyone can imagine at this point. But my understanding, and I need
to have this clarified by the Chair, is that if I were to do what the
distinguished Senator from Colorado has asked, I would lose my
opportunity to automatically come back to the floor; is that a correct
interpretation?
Mr. President, I hope it is not because I would love to do exactly
what the Senator from Colorado has asked.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that would
depend entirely upon the exact terms of the unanimous consent request
and that a unanimous consent request could be so structured to avoid
what the Senator is talking about.
Mr. WYDEN. That is probably one of the most encouraging things I have
heard in hours.
Mrs. MURRAY. Will the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. WYDEN. If I can respond, just to ensure that we are absolutely
correct on this point, what I would like to do--and, hopefully, we can
work it out in a matter of minutes----
Mrs. MURRAY. If the Senator from Oregon will yield for a unanimous
consent request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Oregon so yield?
Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator to yield without losing his right to
the floor immediately after----
Mr. WYDEN. Without losing my right to the floor immediately after the
question; of course, I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Colorado be allowed to call up his amendment and offer it, and at
the end of that time, to immediately return the floor to the Senator
from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. I am only stating this reservation to be able to propound
a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair. If the unanimous consent request
is propounded exactly as the distinguished Senator from Washington has
so stated, would it be possible for the Senator from Colorado to offer
his amendment and then the Senate would automatically return to
consideration of my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. As the Chair understands it, the pending
unanimous consent request would return control of the floor to the
Senator from Oregon but does not specifically address the issue of
whether his amendment will be the pending amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Washington to modify
her unanimous consent request so that at the conclusion of Senator
Salazar's offering his amendment, not only would I be recognized but
that we would again be dealing with my specific amendment so I would
not lose the opportunity to come back to my amendment which is before
the Senate after Senator Salazar has completed. So it would require a
unanimous consent modification.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I so modify my unanimous consent request
that the Senator from Colorado be allowed to offer his amendment, and
then at the conclusion of his offering that amendment, he would set it
aside, and we would return to the pending amendment, which is the Wyden
amendment, with the floor being under the control of Senator Wyden.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my
understanding of the unanimous consent request that this would give the
distinguished Senator from Oregon the right to have his amendment the
pending business after disposition of the amendment of the Senator from
Colorado. If that is correct, my conclusion is that we are placing in
the hands of one Senator by this action a decision as to what the order
of business is of the Senate, the order in which amendments can be
considered, specifically these two, and that they have priority over
any other motion or action that could be taken by any other Senator
under the rules of the Senate. Under that assumption, I am obliged to
object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I say to my colleague that I think the
attempt here is that the Senator from Colorado simply would like a few
minutes on the floor this afternoon to offer his amendment. I don't
think he is trying to supersede the order of any other amendments. The
pending business of the Senate is the Wyden amendment, so the intent of
the Senator from Colorado is simply to have a few minutes on the floor
to offer his amendment. He has been here numerous times throughout the
day simply asking for that time, and then we will return to the current
order of the Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. If that is a unanimous consent request, I reserve the
right to object to it and make a further observation. By this
procedure, if the unanimous consent requests--plural now--are approved,
no other Senator has a right to offer an amendment even to the
amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon. No one has the right to
move to table the amendment of the Senator from Oregon which
establishes his amendment by the request in a position that no other
Senator has a right to expect.
Everybody is governed by the same rules, but in this instance, the
Senator from Oregon is trying to construct a situation where he is not
under the same rules. His rule is that he is entitled to an up-or-down
vote without any further amendment, without there being an opportunity
to move to table by any Senator in the Senate. That is inappropriate.
That is a modification of the rules without discussion of it and is a
bad precedent to set. He is governed by the same rules as all Senators
are. We should not make any exception in that. There has been no cause
shown for that. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I very much regret the action of the
distinguished Chair of the committee because I am extremely interested
in having the Senator from Colorado be able to offer his amendment, and
I thought that what the Senator from Washington did was very
constructive.
I repeat, this Senator seeks no special treatment. I have been trying
since last night, when Senators went home and I came to the floor to
offer it, to do something that goes on in the Senate every single week.
I know of no week since I have been in the Senate when the Senate has
not done what it is that I hope to work out very quickly so that
Senator Salazar can offer his amendment.
[[Page S3657]]
We have debates--mine, Senator Salazar, and others--and then the
various amendments are clustered together so that at some point the
Senate goes on record. I haven't asked for anything other than that.
The Senator from Mississippi has talked about various issues I have
not addressed in any way. What I have said is, I would like to see the
Senate do with my amendment what the Senate does every single week the
Senate is in session, which is to bring together a group of amendments.
That is all I am asking for and still hope to work out.
I yield to the Senator from Colorado for the purposes of his
question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon. I ask him
the question as to whether a short period of discussion, perhaps
between the Senator from Oregon and the distinguished chairman from
Mississippi and the distinguished Senator from Washington may allow us
to work out some kind of procedural framework where not only the
amendment that I am proposing to offer is able to be offered, but in
addition to that, Senator Menendez, who has been here waiting several
hours to offer an amendment, might offer his amendment, as well as
several of my colleagues who are here, including Senator Conrad and
earlier Senator Byrd.
The suggestion I am making to my friend from Oregon is if we take a
breath, we might be able to get perhaps three or four amendments
offered on the Democratic side and three or four amendments offered on
the Republican side, allowing the Senator from Oregon to return back to
his amendment as the pending business of the Senate.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I wouldn't just like to
take a breath, I would like to take multiple breaths at this point.
Unfortunately, what we have been told by the Chair is that it is not
possible to work out some kind of format so that at some point, as part
of a batch of amendments, mine could be considered.
As to the question the Senator asked about working with the
distinguished Chair of the committee, I will tell you that half an hour
before the Senate came in, I called the distinguished Chair of the
committee, and I asked that we do exactly what the Senator from
Colorado said. In other words, I was concerned about just this
scenario. And so about 9:30 or so, I called the distinguished chair of
the committee, Senator Cochran, and said: I am willing to do
somersaults to work this out so as to be fair to all Senators because
having watched this program grow and grow behind closed doors, and
watch this sugar-ladened program get sweeter and sweeter over the
years, I have seen all the big decisions made behind closed doors. So
fearing exactly what the Senator from Colorado has talked about, I
called the chair of the committee at 9:30 in an effort to try to work
this out.
Ever since 9:30--and now I guess we are about at 2 o'clock--that has
been my interest. It will continue to be my interest.
The Senator from Colorado says I ought to have an opportunity to take
a breath. I will tell him, I wish it was more than one.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a response
since he referred to his conversation with this Senator this morning?
Mr. WYDEN. Without losing, again, my place, of course.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Senator did
call me, as he said, and asked if he could get a vote on his amendment,
be recognized to debate his amendment. I said I am not in the business
of picking out which Senator can speak first. This is the Senate. The
first Senator who rises when we go in today and says ``Mr. President''
gets recognition and can talk about anything that Senator wants to talk
about, for as long as he or she wants to talk about it, and can offer
any amendment to any pending amendment, can have the attention of the
Senate. But that is not my prerogative, it is the Presiding Officer's
prerogative to recognize Senators.
I told him I wished him well with his amendment in terms of getting
recognition, offering it, and talking about it and proceeding. Go
ahead, you don't have to get my permission.
That was pretty well the extent of the conversation. The fact is that
there are 21 pending amendments that come ahead of the Senator's
amendment. There are 21 in all; 20 come ahead of the Senator. His is
the last one that has been presented to the Senate.
I can read the list. We have had some that have been adopted, some
that have failed, and some that are still pending without action by the
Senate. Those Senators have a right to have their amendments
considered. So he is asking that we put his amendment to the top of the
list from 21 to 1 and that no amendment can be offered to his amendment
and that it can't be tabled on a motion of another Senator. That is not
fair to all the other Senators. That is not fair to the Senate. That is
why I am unable to agree to give him those rights.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if I can reclaim my time, the Senator from
Mississippi is a person of enormous integrity. I agree with the vast
majority of what the Senator has said with respect to our conversation.
The only part I take exception to is I did not ask to be put to the
head of the line. I have never asked to be put to the head of the line.
I told my friend from Mississippi that I had offered the amendment last
night, so it was the pending business, and I said, fearing exactly what
we have seen, that I was open to just about any possible way to do what
the Senate always does, and that is to have amendments considered, have
them put in to a batch, and voted. So I simply want to say, because I
do have the highest regard for the Senator from Mississippi, that I
agree with the vast amount of what he has said, but I do take exception
to the part where I asked to be put ahead of other Senators. I said I
am open to working this out in any way. Frankly, I don't really care
whether it is even in the first batch of votes that the Senate would
take. If we can work it out so it is in the second batch of votes, fine
by me as well.
I see now we have the Senator from New Mexico here who knows more
about this program than anybody else, frankly, on the planet. I am glad
he is here, and I hope we can have a discussion about this, because I
have been troubled by the fact that we are not having debate about it,
and maybe the presence of the Senator from New Mexico will get us to
the point where we can get to a vote.
Senator Kyl and I both serve on the committee. Like you, Senator
Cochran, Senator Domenici is very fair. He and I have disagreed on
loads of issues. When I think of Senator Domenici, I always think of
fairness--always. That is what I am interested in, having become a part
of all of this. To me, fairness--fairness--is when the Senate has a
debate, and we have had that now for many hours, and amendments are
pulled together in a cluster, and I am open to being part of the first
cluster or the second cluster. And maybe there are other ways to work
this out. I would have been very pleased to have done what Senator
Salazar and Senator Murray are talking about.
Would the Senator from New Mexico like me to yield to him for a
question? I yield to the Senator, again, under the unanimous consent
agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for the kind words.
I think we are wearing the patience of the chairman thin, so we ought
to get on with doing what we can. I want to ask the Senator--I want him
to take this fairly and squarely, and when I am finished, if you don't
believe what I am saying, then I would like very much for you to have
your staff go take a look to see if I am right or not.
First of all, Senator, I think you made a mistake with your
amendment. I think the amendment is wrong in that under current law--
and what the Secretary has done under current law--the oil companies
will pay more royalties than they are going to pay under your
amendment. You set a threshold, for instance, on oil of $55, if I read
your amendment correctly. Your staff is there and they can confirm
this: $55. The Secretary has already established the threshold for oil
at $36. So the difference is that at $34, they start--that is the break
point, and you have made a mistake in taking it all the way up
[[Page S3658]]
to $55. It shouldn't be $55 when it is much lower. It means that the
oil companies are going to pay much more at a much lower level of the
price under existing law than under your amendment.
So your amendment should not be adopted. I want to be fair, but I
just want to tell you it shouldn't.
Mr. WYDEN. Is the Senator asking a question?
Mr. DOMENICI. I will ask: Do you know that? I started off by asking
if you know that.
Mr. WYDEN. I do. And in response specifically to the Senator, nothing
in the amendment says that threshold couldn't be lower. Of course, the
threshold should be addressed in a responsible way. All we are saying
is that we are not going to shovel taxpayer money out when it is over
$55 a barrel. But nothing in my amendment says the threshold couldn't
be lower, and that is why it better targets the resources and would do
something about it.
Again, the General Accounting Office is not some group with a
political ax to grind; it is the Government Accountability Office, the
people we hire as our auditors who have been talking about all the
waste in this program.
As the distinguished chair of the committee knows because he has seen
the letter from the Senators, this program is so riddled--so riddled--
with questionable issues, the companies don't even give the same facts
to the government. They say one thing to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and say another thing to the Department of the Interior, and
the Department of the Interior people say: Well, we don't know what to
make of it.
So I am very glad the Senator is on the floor, and if the Senator
would be willing to work with me, I am interested in trying to do what
Senator Kyl and I and Senator Lieberman have been working on with this
bipartisan amendment. But in response to the particular point made by
the chairman of the committee, nothing in this amendment says that the
threshold couldn't be lower, and obviously it needs to be.
I think now the Senator from Colorado is next, and I yield to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. I thank the Chair, and I thank my colleague from Oregon.
I would like to ask a question of my friend from Oregon and a question
of the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran. If we can find an
agreement that will allow three amendments from the Democratic side and
three amendments from the Republican side, and then at the end of those
six amendments being sent to the desk, returning back to your amendment
as the pending business of the Senate, is that something that the
chairman of the committee would object to? If we were to offer a
unanimous consent agreement with respect to those six amendments and we
would agree to what those six amendments would be, would then the
chairman of the committee object to us moving forward with that kind of
a unanimous consent agreement, understanding that we would be returning
to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon at the end of that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator propose that as a unanimous
consent agreement?
Mr. SALAZAR. I do propose that as a unanimous consent agreement.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving my right to object, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, again, wanting very much to accommodate the
Senator from Colorado, could the Chair clarify that if we did what the
Senator from Colorado is talking about exactly as he has so stated,
that after that group of amendments, I believe it was six that the
Senator from Colorado talked about, we would return to the amendment
that I am offering being the pending business of the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the proposed unanimous consent agreement
of the Senator from Colorado, after the six amendments are read from
the desk and briefly discussed, the Wyden amendment would remain the
pending amendment and the Senator from Oregon would have the floor.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, as I
understand the Senator's request, this would prevent the Senator from
New Mexico from offering an amendment to the amendment offered by the
Senator from Oregon. It would also prevent returning to the first
amendments that were offered and that are the pending business of the
Senate; specifically, amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma,
Mr. Coburn.
I understand that he would like to have his amendments considered and
voted on in the regular order in which they were filed by the Senate.
An alternative to the proposal of the Senator from Colorado is to go to
the regular order. But as long as the Senator from Oregon has the
floor, if he doesn't ask for the regular order, no other Senator can,
as I understand it, because we don't have the floor for that purpose.
So, again, what the Senator from Oregon is trying to do is to design a
situation that benefits him, puts him in priority over all the Senators
who have amendments pending, and provides that he will get an up-or-
down vote on his amendment; that it won't be subject to any amendment,
that it can't be tabled. That is not fair. I can't agree to that. So I
am compelled to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. To clarify, the Chair
would note that the unanimous consent agreement proposed by the Senator
from Colorado does not address in any way votes on any amendments.
The objection is heard. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I want to again highlight that this Senator
very much wants to accommodate the Senator from Colorado and to do
exactly what he is talking about--what I wanted to do hours and hours
ago, but the chair of the committee is the one who has objected. I
called the chair a half an hour before we went into session, knowing
that we were really looking at the prospects of this kind of gridlock
because I know the decisions about this multibillion-dollar boondoggle
have always been made behind closed doors.
When I offered this amendment last night, and it was pending when he
came in this morning, I knew there was the potential for this. I called
the Senator from Mississippi a half an hour before we went into session
this morning in an effort to try to work out what is done in the Senate
all the time.
I see Senator Dodd here who is our leader on the Rules Committee and
knows vastly more about this than I. But what I tried to say is let's
do what is done in the Senate every single week. You consider a big
batch of amendments, and at some point after both sides have been
noticed, then you go to a vote. You go to a vote so that both sides are
aware of what is going on.
I have also offered here that I wouldn't even be in the first cluster
of amendments that were considered. So that, again, even though my
amendment was pending last night, when we came in, we could have
colleagues get the first votes. Colleagues would get the first votes
before my amendment. But what I am forced to conclude, and why I am
going to stay here and try to stand up for taxpayers, is that virtually
nothing is acceptable other than what we saw in the Energy Conference
agreement where oil royalty relief got sweeter for a handful of
companies, after midnight, in the middle of the night, with no
accountability.
This is a program with a minimum cost of $20 billion. If the
litigation involving this program is successful, the tab for this
program will be $80 billion. That is virtually the amount we are
talking about in terms of emergency spending.
So the Senate is looking at the bizarre situation of having an
emergency supplemental because the Government doesn't have the money.
Yet even though we have an emergency supplemental, we are sending out
the door billions and billions of dollars that the General Accounting
Office has deemed wasteful. I don't think that makes sense.
I am willing, again, to yield to my friend from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for
yielding, once again. I would like to ask a question of the Senator
from Mississippi, if I may.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
[[Page S3659]]
Mr. SALAZAR. To my friend from Mississippi, the unanimous consent
request that I made earlier would essentially allow the work of the
Senate to continue forward for a brief period of time while we would
have three Republican amendments and three Democratic amendments to be
offered.
As I understood your statement, you believe that would then allow my
good friend from Oregon to essentially control the floor throughout his
amendment to essentially supersede the other amendments that are
pending--some 21 amendments, as I understand that to be the case. I do
not think that was at all the nature of the unanimous consent request
that I made.
What I suggested that we would do with my unanimous consent request
is that we move forward with the filing and then move forward with the
pending business of the Senate with six amendments in total. And at
that point in time we would return to the amendment of the Senator from
Oregon, without prejudging whether or not there is going to be a vote
at all on the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. So I would like
clarification from the chairman of the committee as to what will happen
via the unanimous consent request that I previously made, which was
objected to by the chairman of the committee, with respect to the
pending business that is currently before the Senate.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a response?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to inform the Senator that this would
disadvantage some 10 Senators who have already filed and argued and had
their amendments pending for consideration. You would urge that we have
six more amendments offered from three Republican and three Democratic
Senators and add those to these and then have a vote, I guess, on the
Wyden amendment? Instead of voting on those which we would take up in
regular order, if we could ask for the regular order? It puts you in
charge of managing the business of the Senate, setting priorities for
the amendments that can be offered when that priority has already been
established.
I think what we should do is follow the regular order. That is all I
have said from the beginning. But Senator Wyden wanted to come in
today, get recognized, offer his amendment, and have an up-or-down vote
on it without any other intervening business--no amendments, no motion
to table. I don't know of anybody who has ever gotten a deal like that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor, what Senator Salazar
and I are both saying is we do not want to be at the head of the line,
but we want to have a place in the line, which is the custom of the
Senate. The custom is that you have these debates, you have these
discussions, and at some point the leadership on both sides gets
together. I see the distinguished leader, Senator Reid, and Senator
Durbin. What happens is they get together with Senator Frist and
Senator McConnell after everybody has had a chance to discuss their
amendments. Then at some point you get in the queue.
I have enormous respect for the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi. That is why I called him a half hour before we even went
in today, in an effort to try to work this out. He consistently says I
want to be at the head of the line; I want special treatment.
I don't want to be at the head of the line, but I think at some point
Senators ought to have a place in line. My amendment was offered late
last night because I stayed here, again anticipating the possibility of
this. So it was pending when we came in.
So Senators are very clear, I am interested in working out what
Senator Salazar wants to do. I am interested in amendments being
clustered as we traditionally have done in the Senate. What I am not
willing to do is this: At a time of record profits, at a time of record
costs, I am not willing to sit by while record amounts of royalty
relief are handed out while all of the independent auditors say it
ought to be stopped.
I have read to my colleagues, for example, that in the other body the
chair of the natural resources committee, Congressman Pombo--hardly
anti-oil, as our good friend, the chair of our Energy Committee, knows;
Congressman Pombo has consistently been proproduction--Congressman
Pombo says we don't need this incentive for production. Those are his
words, you don't need an incentive for production at a time when oil is
$70 a barrel.
Senator Dodd and Senator Dorgan have a variety of approaches they
want to explore with respect to the Tax Code, and Senators will weigh
in, one way or another. There is a trifecta of programs now. There are
tax breaks, there is mandatory spending, and there is royalty relief,
which is the granddaddy of all of these breaks. I do not see how we can
justify sweetening this sugar-laden giveaway again and again and do it
behind closed doors.
I have been out here I guess upwards of 4 hours. I sure wish this
were not necessary. I would certainly like to do what Senator Salazar
has been talking about, which is get an order for these amendments and
all of us find a reasonable place in line. But I am not going to sit by
while taxpayers get fleeced again. I am just not. I may lose when it
comes time, if we can get one, to vote, but until then I am just going
to hold forth.
We have colleagues here. Senator Dodd, for example, knew the author
of the program very well. Senator Bennett Johnston was the author of
the program. Senator Bennett Johnston has said nothing like what we
have seen was what he intended.
There are no people arguing on behalf of doing business as usual, as
I guess some in the Senate want to consider. But all of the independent
experts--the lawyers for Shell oil company--again not the first place
you look for anti-oil kinds of arguments--the lawyers for Shell oil
company say you don't need this kind of break in this sort of climate.
So you have Congressman Pombo, you have the folks from Shell oil
company, you have the author of the program, Senator Bennett Johnston--
all of them weighing in.
If the litigation that is now underway with respect to this program
is successful, I would say to colleagues, the tab for this program
could be $80 billion. The emergency supplemental is $100 billion. So
over the life of this program, it could come to a very significant
fraction of what we need to do in terms of the emergency spending. The
distinguished chair of the committee is on his feet, and I am glad to
recognize him for a question at this time, keeping my place here on the
floor.
Mr. DOMENICI. Senator, first of all, I don't quite know how to ask
the question, but I am going to try. Are you aware that the years of
1998 and 1999--for 2 full years, all the leases that were issued had no
thresholds in them? Are you aware of that, Senator?
Mr. WYDEN. To respond to the chairman, I am very much aware. It is
clear that some of those in the Clinton administration--and I have
talked about this at some length. Frankly, those omissions by midlevel
people in key level positions in the Clinton administration have
contributed mightily to this problem. If they had been doing their job
and been watching this threshold question, we would not be in this
problem.
Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.
Mr. WYDEN. I think the chairman knows, I believe energy policy has to
be bipartisan. We have the distinguished Senator from Tennessee in the
chair. I have been talking to him for some weeks on an innovative
approach we would like to explore. I want to do business in a
bipartisan way. I think I was bipartisan, frankly, before it even
became fashionable around here. But I am telling you this has to end. I
am glad the Senator from New Mexico has brought up the point about how
we got into the situation.
By the way, during the Clinton years when folks weren't watchdogging
this program, as I say--the Senator from New Mexico knows a lot more
about this than I do--the price of oil was $34 a barrel. We were
talking about a price that was a fraction of the cost right now. So
what you have is a program that was designed when the price of oil was
$16 a barrel. The folks in the Clinton administration muffed the ball
in the middle of 1990 when the price was $34 a barrel. Now the
President of the United States comes along and says, to his credit,
let's knock off the subsidies
[[Page S3660]]
at a time when the price of oil is more than $50 a barrel. That is what
I am trying to do in this particular amendment.
This program made sense in the middle 1990s, when folks in the oil
patch were hurting. Probably Senator Dodd remembers a bit of that
history. Senator Johnston, whom we all respect so much, came to people
in the Senate and talked about the need for the program. Folks in that
part of the country were hurting, and the price of energy was very low.
There was a good argument saying there was a role for Government.
I have sat in many hearings with the distinguished chairman of the
Energy Committee where we talked about the notion that there is a role
for the private sector, a role for Government. We want production. What
I have done in my amendment is say--Senator Kyl and I got a little bit
into this--not only are we going to put a lot of verbiage behind the
notion that we are going to support production, what I said is, if
there is any evidence this incentive is needed--the President says we
will have a disruption of supply--if the price of oil goes down, bingo,
the Government can get back into the royalty business. That is what we
are trying to do here.
I recall that energy conference committee, I say to my friend from
New Mexico. The decisions were made on this particular provision after
midnight. I am not even completely sure how it came about. I don't
believe I was even in the room. But this time, the Senate is going to
take a position, if I have anything to say about it. As colleagues
know, I have had plenty to say in the last 4\1/2\ hours. I very much
want this worked out so we can get to the point of a vote.
Did the distinguished chairman want the floor?
Mr. DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield in a different way, so I could
speak for 5 minutes and return the floor to you and you lose none of
your rights?
Mr. WYDEN. Let me propound a parliamentary inquiry. I would very much
like to do what Senator Domenici, the chair of the Energy Committee,
has asked for. If I yield to him to speak for any amount of time, will
I lose my place to be able, on the pending amendment, to speak on it?
Would the Chair so advise at this point?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The answer is yes, unless you ask by unanimous
consent that the floor be returned to you and it is approved without
objection.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, my understanding is that puts us in exactly
the same position as we had with Senator Salazar. I would like to make
the same offer to the distinguished chair of the committee, because I
would very much like to respond positively to his request, if we can
work with the staffs to propound a parliamentary request to deal with
what the chairman, the Senator from New Mexico, has asked. I would very
much like to do it. Perhaps we can get our staffs together and perhaps
work it out.
Mr. DOMENICI. I just heard the Chair say what it would take for this
to be appropriate. I ask unanimous consent that which he has just
articulated be the unanimous consent request before the Senate, and I
ask that the Senate grant it.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving my right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Again I think we have to be very clear on this. If the
Senator from New Mexico is granted his unanimous consent request and he
speaks for whatever time he desires--frankly, probably more power to
you if you go longer--if he speaks for whatever time the Senator from
New Mexico desires, does it automatically come back to me to speak on
my pending amendment? That is what I am asking the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding that the
Senator from New Mexico desires 5 minutes to speak, and when he is
concluded the floor will be returned to the Senator from Oregon and the
pending business will be his amendment, if the unanimous consent of the
Senator from New Mexico is approved without objection.
Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator
from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I say to fellow Senators and Senator
Wyden, if you would please lend me your ear because I would like to be
helpful.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. WYDEN. I wish to be clear that what the Senator from New Mexico
asked for was a request to speak for 5 minutes and then we would return
to consideration of my amendment specifically in its current form, and
I would be recognized to speak on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Nothing else will be in order
during the 5 minutes except that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have 5 minutes. I would like very much
for anybody who is trying to fix this parliamentary problem to just
listen for a minute.
First of all, most of the problem that has been discussed by the
distinguished Senator in terms of royalties that are allegedly not
being paid by oil companies which are indeed drilling successfully
offshore--most of those have occurred during the years of 1999 and
1998. Let me repeat, there are oil companies which are drilling and
would otherwise owe some kind of royalties, and those are companies
that did business during the years 1998 and 1999. They got leases those
years, and mistakes were made. I am not accusing the Clinton
administration because it is Democratic. The truth is, they made the
mistakes. They issued them without the right to collect royalties on
behalf of the Federal Government.
Along comes an auditing company that finds them and says: Look at
these companies. They are getting away with hundreds of millions of
dollars. Yes, they are. But read their contracts. They are not
obligated to pay any because the U.S. Government messed up. We didn't
obligate them to pay any. I don't know what to do about that.
I can come to the floor and yell and cry that we are losing revenue,
but these companies are going to have to gratuitously decide to pay or
they do not owe it. So we can come down here and talk forever about
that. Obviously, the amendment by my good friend from Oregon will do
nothing about the leases of 1998-1999, for if you tried to do something
about them you would be doing nothing. You cannot come to the floor of
the Senate and say leases already issued upon, which the work has been
done upon, which the Government sought not to charge anything, we have
changed our mind, and we are going to make them pay. That is not the
subject of his amendment. Read it. It doesn't purport to do that. That
is point No. 1.
Point No. 2, the amendment doesn't do what the Senator says it does.
This year, the Secretary--this Secretary--stopped royalty relief at
$35.86 per barrel. The amendment by the distinguished Senator is
talking about $55 a barrel. He is saying the same thing--that we will
stop royalty relief at $55 instead of $35. Obviously, his amendment in
today's market is a malady. It doesn't do anything. The Secretary has
already one-upped his amendment. The Secretary has put the relief line
at a lower price per barrel than his amendment.
I don't know, again, what he is trying to do with the amendment.
First, he can't affect the so-called Clinton year lease which he has
been talking about. And he deserves to tell the public that the
companies have gotten away with a lot of money there. That is a nice
speech. And it deserves to be given, but he isn't fixing that because
you can't fix it. He isn't fixing the existing leases because he is
setting a threshold that is higher than the price that the Secretary
had set, and the price of oil is higher than both of them. So we are
going to collect all the royalties we can get, and I do not know how we
are losing anything.
I don't know what the speeches are about in terms of losing that much
money, nor do I know what the amendment is doing. What I do know is
that from this point forward the Energy bill that we passed has some
language that could be fixed.
I have an amendment that fixes it. It makes it permissive. It says
the Secretary may in the future set these limits. The Secretary may in
the future set the dollar amount from which you base royalty relief. I
have an amendment that I think sooner or later we
[[Page S3661]]
should adopt that says it should not be made, but the Secretary shall
set these limits. That is an amendment that I have that I think the
good Senator from Oregon ought to take. I will give it to him. He ought
to put it in instead of his, and he will have solved one of the
problems by making it mandatory.
I thank you profusely for the 5 minutes which has turned into 7\1/2\.
I talked too long, but I thank you for it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask permission to propound a unanimous
consent request. May I propound a unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
3665 by the Senator from Oregon be made the last amendment in order and
that it be subject to no second-degree amendment; that is, when we
dispose of approximately 31 amendments, there would be a vote on his
with no second-degree amendments.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.
First of all, the Wyden amendment No. 3665, I think, was offered just
before the Santorum amendment last night. The Santorum amendment No.
3640 was offered on the subject of Iran. I am not able to agree to his
amendment being voted on without any amendment. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for
propounding that unanimous consent request because I think now it is
clear what has happened in the Senate; that is, it will not be possible
to get an up-or-down vote at any point on rolling back this outrageous
boondoggle that wastes taxpayer money.
My good friend from New Mexico made the point, and I want to kind of
summarize it because I think we are getting close to being able to wind
down.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question
without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. WYDEN. Of course, I yield to my friend.
Mr. REID. Is the Senator's understanding the same as mine, that no
matter how he tried to do all the different proposals which he has made
he is not being allowed a vote by the majority? Is that your
understanding?
Mr. WYDEN. The distinguished Democratic leader is exactly right. We
have done summersaults since last night. I called the chairman of the
committee, Senator Cochran, half an hour before we went in in an effort
to try to work it out. I have been supportive of Senator Salazar's
request. But what we saw in the last few minutes is the ball game--you
can't get a vote up or down in the Senate on a ripoff of taxpayer
money. It is not me who concluded it; the General Accounting Office has
done that. The Shell Oil Company says we don't need this particular
incentive right now.
In the other body, the chairman of the natural resources committee
says you don't need it. Even the author of the bill says it is not
working as he intended.
But what we saw as a result of the request of the Senator from Nevada
is that the Senate is not going to take a position on the granddaddy of
all oil company subsidies. This is the biggest, folks. This is the one
that really counts.
I want to respond briefly to the distinguished chairman of the Energy
Committee, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici essentially said a little
bit ago that there were great problems in 1998 and 1999 with some in
the Clinton administration who weren't watchdogging the program. I very
much share the chairman's view. I talked about this probably two or
three times over the course of the morning and early afternoon.
Where I take exception with my friend, however, is he essentially
said the Clinton administration caused all of these problems, and along
came Secretary Norton who cleaned it up. That was essentially the
argument.
I would like to read verbatim and then enter into the Record a
discussion in the New York Times of what happened under Secretary
Norton. While I respect the chairman of the committee tremendously, I
want the Senate to know what happened over the last few years.
Gale Norton, who stepped down this month as Interior
Secretary, moved quickly to speed up approval of new drilling
permits. Starting in 2001, she offered royalty incentives to
shallow-water producers who drilled more than 15,000 feet
below the sea bottom. In January 2004, Ms. Norton made the
incentive far more generous by raising the threshold price.
Her decisions meant that deep-gas drillers were able to
escape royalties in 2005 when prices spiked to record levels
and would probably escape them this year as well.
Continuing to quote:
She also offered to sweeten less generous contracts the
drillers had signed before the regulation was approved.
I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Mar. 27, 2006]
Vague Law and Hard Lobbying Add Up to Billions for Big Oil
(By Edmund L. Andrews)
Washington, March 26.--It was after midnight and every
lawmaker in the committee room wanted to go home, but there
was still time to sweeten a deal encouraging oil and gas
companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico.
``There is no cost,'' declared Representative Joe L.
Barton, a Texas Republican who was presiding over
Congressional negotiations on the sprawling energy bill last
July. An obscure provision on new drilling incentives was
``so noncontroversial,'' he added, that senior House and
Senate negotiators had not even discussed it.
Mr. Barton's claim had a long history. For more than a
decade, lawmakers and administration officials, both
Republicans and Democrats, have promised there would be no
cost to taxpayers for a program allowing companies to avoid
paying the government royalties on oil and gas produced in
publicly owned waters in the Gulf.
But last month, the Bush administration confirmed that it
expected the government to waive about $7 billion in
royalties over the next five years, even though the industry
incentive was expressly conceived of for times when energy
prices were low. And that number could quadruple to more than
$28 billion if a lawsuit filed last week challenging one of
the program's remaining restrictions proves successful.
``The big lie about this whole program is that it doesn't
cost anything,'' said Representative Edward J. Markey, a
Massachusetts Democrat who tried to block its expansion last
July. ``Taxpayers are being asked to provide huge subsidies
to oil companies to produce oil--it's like subsidizing a fish
to swim.''
How did a supposedly cost-free incentive become a
multibillion-dollar break to an industry making record
profits?
The answer is a familiar Washington story of special-
interest politics at work: the people who pay the closest
attention and make the fewest mistakes are those with the
most profit at stake.
It is an account of legislators who passed a law riddled
with ambiguities; of crucial errors by midlevel bureaucrats
under President Bill Clinton; of $2 billion in inducements
from the Bush administration, which was intent on promoting
energy production; and of Republican lawmakers who wanted to
do even more. At each turn, through shrewd lobbying and
litigation, oil and gas companies ended up with bigger
incentives than before.
Until last month, hardly anyone noticed--or even knew--the
real costs. They were obscured in part by the long gap
between the time incentives are offered and when new offshore
wells start producing. But lawmakers shrouded the costs with
rosy projections. And administration officials consistently
declined to tally up the money they were forfeiting.
Most industry executives say that the royalty relief
spurred drilling and exploration when prices were relatively
low. But the industry is divided about whether it is
appropriate to continue the incentives with prices at current
levels. Michael Coney, a lawyer for Shell Oil, said, ``Under
the current environment, we don't need royalty relief.''
The program's original architect said he was surprised by
what had happened. ``The one thing I can tell you is that
this is not what we intended,'' said J. Bennett Johnston, a
former Democratic senator from Louisiana who had pushed for
the original incentives that Congress passed in 1995.
Mr. Johnston conceded that he was confused by his own law.
``I got out the language a few days ago,'' he said in a
recent interview. ``I had it out just long enough to know
that it's got a lot of very obscure language.''
a subsidy of disputed need
Things looked bleak for oil and gas companies in 1995,
especially for those along the Gulf Coast.
Energy prices had been so low for so long that investment
had dried up. With crude oil selling for about $16 a barrel,
scores of wildcatters and small exploration companies had
gone out of business. Few companies had any stomach for
drilling in water thousands of feet deep, and industry
leaders like Exxon
[[Page S3662]]
and Royal Dutch Shell were increasingly focused on
opportunities abroad.
``At the time, the Gulf of Mexico was like the Dead Sea,''
recalled John Northington, then an Energy Department policy
adviser and now an industry lobbyist.
Senator Johnston, convinced that the Gulf's vast reservoirs
and Louisiana's oil-based economy were being neglected, had
argued for years that Congress should offer incentives for
deep-water drilling and exploration.
``Failure to invest in the Gulf of Mexico is a lost
opportunity for the U.S.,'' Mr. Johnston pleaded in a letter
to other lawmakers. ``Those dollars will not move into other
domestic development, they will move to Asia, South America,
the Middle East or the former Soviet Union.''
Working closely with industry executives, he wrote
legislation that would allow a company drilling in deep water
to escape the standard 12 percent royalty on up to 87.5
million barrels of oil or its equivalent in natural gas. The
coastal waters are mostly owned by the federal government,
which leases tens of millions of acres in exchange for
upfront fees and a share of sales, or royalties.
Mr. Johnston and other supporters argued that the
incentives would actually generate money for the government
by increasing production and prompting companies to bid
higher prices for new leases.
``The provision will result in a minimum net benefit to the
Treasury of $200 million by the year 2000,'' Mr. Johnston
declared in November 1995, denouncing what he called
``outrageous allegations'' that the plan was a giveaway.
He won support from oil-state Democrats, Republicans and
the Clinton administration. Hazel O'Leary, the energy
secretary at the time, said the assistance would reduce
American dependence on foreign oil and ``enhance national
security.''
Representative Robert Livingston of Louisiana, then a
rising Republican leader, declared that the inducements would
``create thousands of jobs'' and ``reduce the deficit.''
Many budget experts agree that the rosy estimates were
misleading. The reason, they say, is that it often takes
seven years before a new offshore field begins producing. As
a result, almost all the costs of royalty relief would occur
outside of Congress's five-year budget timeframe.
Opponents protested that the cost estimates were wrong,
that the incentives amounted to corporate welfare and that
companies did not need government incentives to invest.
``They are going to the Gulf of Mexico because that's where
the oil is,'' said Representative George Miller, Democrat of
California, during a House debate. ``What we do here is not
going to change that. We are just going to decide whether or
not we are going to give away the taxpayers' dollars to a lot
of oil companies that do not need it.''
Industry executives and lobbyists fanned out across Capitol
Hill to shore up support for the program, visiting 150
lawmakers in October 1995. The effort succeeded. A month
later, Congress passed Mr. Johnston's bill.
a missing escape clause
To hear lawmakers today, they never intended to waive
royalties when energy prices were high.
The 1995 law, according to Republicans and Democrats alike,
was supposed to include an escape clause: in any year when
average spot prices for oil or gas climbed above certain
threshold levels, companies would pay full royalties instead.
``Royalty relief is an effective tool for two things:
keeping investment in America during times of superlow
prices, and spurring American energy production when massive
capital and technological risks would otherwise preclude
it,'' said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of
California and chairman of the House Resources Committee.
``Absent those criteria, I do not believe any relief should
be granted.''
But in what administration officials said appeared to have
been a mistake, Clinton administration managers omitted the
crucial escape clause in all offshore leases signed in 1998
and 1999.
At the time, with oil prices still below $20 a barrel, the
mistake seemed harmless. But energy prices have been above
the cutoff points since 2002, and Interior Department
officials estimate that about one-sixth of production in the
Gulf of Mexico is still exempt from royalties.
Walter Cruickshank, a senior official in both the Clinton
and Bush administrations, told lawmakers last month that
officials writing the lease contracts thought the price
thresholds were spelled out in the new regulations, which
were completed in 1998. But officials writing the regulations
left those details out, preferring to set the precise rules
at each new lease sale.
``It seems to have been a massive screw-up,'' said Mr.
Northington, who was then in the Energy Department. No one
noticed the error for two years, and no one informed Congress
about it until last month.
Five years later, the costs of that lapse were compounded.
A group of oil companies, led by Shell, defeated the Bush
administration in court. The decision more than doubled the
amount of oil and gas that companies could produce without
paying royalties.
The case began as a relatively obscure dispute. Shell paid
$3.8 million in 1997 for a Gulf lease and soon drilled a
successful well. But the Interior Department denied the
company royalty relief, saying that Shell had drilled into an
older field already producing oil and gas. The decision
hinged on undersea geography and the court's interpretation
of language in the 1995 law.
A typical field, or geological reservoir, often encompasses
two or three separately leased tracts of ocean floor.
Interior Department officials insisted that the maximum
amount of royalty-free oil and gas was based on each field.
Shell and its partners argued that limit applied only to each
lease.
Perhaps shrewdly, the oil companies sued the Bush
administration in Louisiana, where federal courts previously
had sided with the industry in spats with the government.
The fight was not even close. In January 2003, a federal
district judge declared that the Interior Department's rules
violated the 1995 law. If the department ``disagrees with
Congress's policy choices,'' Judge James T. Trimble Jr.
wrote, ``then such arguments are best addressed to
Congress.''
What might have been a $2 billion mistake in the Clinton
administration suddenly ballooned into a $5 billion headache
under Mr. Bush.
But even as the Bush administration was losing in court, it
was offering new incentives for the energy industry.
Mr. Bush placed a top priority on expanding oil and gas
production as soon as he took office in 2001. Vice President
Dick Cheney's task force on energy, warning of a deepening
shortfall in domestic energy production, urged the government
to ``explore opportunities for royalty reduction'' and to
open areas like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
drilling.
Gale A. Norton, who stepped down this month as interior
secretary, moved quickly to speed up approvals of new
drilling permits. Starting in 2001, she offered royalty
incentives to shallow-water producers who drilled more than
15,000 feet below the sea bottom.
In January 2004, Ms. Norton made the incentives far more
generous by raising the threshold prices. Her decision meant
that deep-gas drillers were able to escape royalties in 2005,
when prices spiked to record levels, and would probably
escape them this year as well.
``These incentives will help ensure we have a reliable
supply of natural gas in the future,'' Ms. Norton proclaimed,
predicting that American consumers would save ``an estimated
$570 million a year'' in lower fuel prices.
Ms. Norton's decision was influenced by the industry. The
Interior Department had originally proposed a cut-off price
for royalty exemptions of $5 per million British thermal
units, or B.T.U.'s, of gas. But the Independent Petroleum
Association of America, which represents smaller
producers, argued that the new incentive would have little
value because natural gas prices were already above $5.
Ms. Norton set the threshold at $9.34.
Based on administration assumptions about future production
and prices, that change could cost the government about $1.9
billion in lost royalties.
``There is no cost rationale,'' said Shirley J. Neff, an
economist at Columbia University and Senator Johnston's top
legislative aide in drafting the 1995 royalty law. ``It is
astounding to me that the administration would so blatantly
cave in to the industry's demands.''
Incentives Keep Growing
Last April, President Bush himself expressed skepticism
about giving new incentives to oil and gas drillers. ``With
oil at $50 a barrel,'' Mr. Bush remarked, ``I don't think
energy companies need taxpayer-funded incentives to
explore.''
But on Aug. 8, Mr. Bush signed a sweeping energy bill that
contained $2.6 billion in new tax breaks for oil and gas
drillers and a modest expansion of the 10-year-old ``royalty
relief'' program. For the most part, the law locked in
incentives that the Interior Department was already offering
for another five years. But it included some embellishments,
like an extra break on royalties for companies drilling in
the deepest waters.
And energy companies, whose executives had long contributed
campaign funds to Republican candidates, pushed to block any
amendments aimed at diluting the benefits.
The push to lock in the royalty inducements came primarily
from House Republicans. The only real opposition came from a
handful of House Democrats, in a showdown about 1 a.m. on
July 25, according to a transcript of the session.
``It is indefensible to be keeping these companies on the
government dole when oil and gas prices are so high,''
charged Representative Markey of Massachusetts, who proposed
to strip the royalty provisions. ``We might as well be giving
tax breaks to Donald Trump and Warren Buffett.''
Mr. Barton, the Texas Republican, brushed aside the
objections. He reassured lawmakers that the new provisions
would not cost taxpayers anything.
When Mr. Markey proposed a more modest change--having
Congress prohibit incentives if crude oil prices rose above
$40 a barrel--Republicans quickly voted him down again.
``The only reason they waited until after midnight to bring
up these issues is that they couldn't stand up in the light
of day,'' Mr. Markey said in a recent interview. ``They all
expected me to give up because it was so late and I didn't
have the votes. But if nothing else, I wanted to get these
things on the record.''
A Royalty-Free Future?
It is still not clear how much impact the reduced royalties
had in encouraging deep-
[[Page S3663]]
water drilling. While activity in the Gulf has increased
since 1995, prices for oil and gas have more than quadrupled
over the same period, providing a powerful motivation,
experts say.
``It's hard to make a case for royalty relief, especially
at these high prices,'' said Jack Overstreet, owner of an
independent oil exploration company in Texas. ``But the oil
industry is like the farm lobby and will have its hand out at
every opportunity.''
The size of the subsidies will soar far higher if oil
companies win their newest court battle.
In a lawsuit filed March 17, Kerr-McGee Exploration and
Production argued that Congress never authorized the
government to set price cut-offs for incentives on leases
awarded from 1996 through 2000. If the company wins, the
Interior Department recently estimated, about three-quarters
of oil and gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico will be
royalty-free for the next five years.
Mr. Markey and other Democrats recently introduced
legislation that would pressure companies to pay full
royalties when energy prices are high, regardless of what
their leases allow.
But Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration have
signaled their opposition.
``These are binding contracts that the government signed
with companies,'' Ms. Norton recently remarked. ``I don't
think we can change them just because we don't like them.''
____
Giving Away $7 Billion in Royalties
November 1995--Deep Water Royalty Relief Act is passed,
allowing companies to avoid paying some royalties on oil and
gas produced in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. Bill has
bipartisan support.
1998-99--Interior Department makes big mistake on leases
awarded in these two years. The department omits price
thresholds that would cut royalty relief if oil and gas
prices rose above about $34 a barrel for crude and about $4
per thousand cubic feet of natural gas.
2000--Interior realizes the error and quietly adds price
thresholds into new leases--but the old leases remain valid.
2001--A vice presidential task force issues National Energy
Policy recommendations, urging the government to open up more
federal lands and waters to oil and gas development to
``explore opportunities for royalty reductions.''
March 2003--U.S. District Court in Louisiana knocks down a
restriction on the volume of royalty-free oil and gas a
company can produce. This effectively doubles or triples the
incentives.
Jan. 23, 2004--Interior expands royalty incentives for deep
gas producers, letting them avoid royalties if price is below
$9.34 per million B.T.U.'s--higher than average price to
date. Decision could cost $1.9 billion in royalties over next
five years.
April 2005--President Bush says no need for more
incentives. ``With oil at $50 a barrel,'' he says, ``I don't
think energy companies need taxpayer-funded incentives to
explore.''
July 25, 2005--House and Senate conferees on energy bill
vote to extend and slightly enhance royalty incentives for
oil and gas. Bush signs energy bill Aug. 8.
February 2006--Interior Department budget shows that
royalty breaks could cost government more than $7 billion
over next five years, even though it expects oil prices to
remain above $50 a barrel.
March 17, 2006--Kerr-McGee, a large Gulf of Mexico
producer, sues the federal government in a test case to
receive all deepwater royalty incentives, regardless of how
high prices are, for all leases signed from 1996 through
2000. If suit is successful, government projections indicate
taxpayers could lose more than $28 billion over five years.
Mr. WYDEN. There we have it, folks. In essentially the late 1990s--
1998-1999--as the distinguished chairman of the committee has pointed
out, the Clinton administration dropped the ball. No question about it.
It was costly to taxpayers.
But I have just read a recitation of how the Secretary of the
Interior compounded the problem and how on her watch the sweetener got
even sweeter. The price of oil was still shooting up. The price of oil
had doubled over the last few years, and she just kept ladling out the
sugar. It just kept coming.
Then, on top of it, we had the energy conference agreement between
the House and the Senate. So on top of the problem that we see stemming
from the last administration and then Secretary Norton sweetening the
pot even more, we then had in the energy conference agreement additions
to the royalty program, additions at a time when clearly they were not
in the public interest.
I think we are close to being able to move ahead in the Senate. I
want to have some discussion with the floor manager, the distinguished
Senator from Washington.
But what we have seen in the last few minutes as a result of the
unanimous consent request propounded by the Senator from Nevada is that
this Senate will not be allowed to vote at any time on the granddaddy
of all of the subsidies. We have tried to work out arrangements to have
a vote that would be fair to both sides. I have propounded a variety of
requests through the Chair in an effort to do it. But somehow for some
reason continuing this outrageous use of taxpayer money seems to be the
big priority around here.
I am staggered. I can't understand. I cannot understand why the
Senate would say at a time of record profits, at a time of record
prices, it would want to continue to dispense record royalty relief.
The President of the United States said, to his credit, that we don't
need all of these incentives when the price of oil is over $50 a
barrel. This program started when the price of oil was $16 a barrel.
As the distinguished Senator from New Mexico has indicated, the last
administration muffed it when the price of oil was $34 a barrel. But
Secretary Norton has made it worse. The energy conference agreement
adds more sugar on top of it. I wish to see the Senate step in and
protect the public.
I see my good friend from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask the Senator from Oregon, I know he has been on the
floor since this morning and I know this issue is of great importance
to him and the Nation. I want to make sure for those who have been
following the debate from the beginning that they understand exactly
the issue.
As I understand it, we are talking about those private companies that
drill for oil on lands owned by the people, by the Federal Government,
and how much money they will receive for drilling oil. I ask the
Senator from Oregon, if he could, in the simplest terms, to explain to
me how much is at stake here? How much did the taxpayers pay in these
royalty payments to those who are drilling for oil on land that the
people, the Federal Government, owns?
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his question. We
tried to get into this something like 5 hours ago. It is very helpful
to have the Senator from Illinois asking exactly the question he has
asked.
The way this program works is that the oil companies are supposed to
pay royalties to the Federal Government when they extract oil from
Federal lands. In order to stimulate production when the price of oil
was cheap, the Federal Government reduced the amount of royalty
payments the companies had to make.
It is my view and the view of all of the independent experts,
including our former colleague in the House, Congressman Pombo, who
chairs the Committee on Resources, it is the view of all of these
experts across the political spectrum that with the price of oil
soaring to over $70 a barrel, the discounted royalty payments amount to
a needless subsidy of billions and billions of dollars. The General
Accounting Office has estimated that at a minimum it would be $20
billion. There are projections because there is litigation underway.
For some oil companies, even this is not enough, so they keep
litigating and trying to get more and more and more. There are
estimates that if the litigation is successful, the Government would
pay $80 billion just in royalty relief. And that $80 billion would pay
a significant fraction of the entire cost of this emergency spending
bill.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will further yield for a question, so that
I understand it, if I own an oil company and I want to drill on
somebody else's land, in this case the land of the Federal Government,
I was required to pay the Federal Government for drilling oil that
belonged to somebody else that I was going to sell, and if the price of
oil was so low that it did not justify drilling, they would appeal, the
oil companies would appeal to the Federal Government, saying, we will
pay less for what we are drilling because the price of oil is so low,
thus this royalty payment for drilling oil on Federal Government land.
Now the tables have turned and the price of every barrel of oil
brought out of Federal land is worth $70 to $75 and the Senator from
Oregon is arguing why in the world would you give them relief from
their royalty payments
[[Page S3664]]
when they are making so much money on oil that comes out of Federal
lands that we all own.
It would seem to me the Senator's argument is that the oil companies,
which are doing quite well, thank you, are going to experience a
windfall if the price of oil goes up and the amount they have to pay to
the Federal Government continues to be discounted or lowered. So they
want it both ways. They want the consumer to pay more at the pump and
they want the taxpayers to receive less for the oil they are taking
from land they do not even own.
Am I missing something in this analysis?
Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator has said it very well. In a climate
such as this, when prices are high, they get to privatize their gains
and socialize their losses. This makes no sense at all. This is a
program designed for a period when production was down and the price of
oil was very low.
What I have tried to do--because I have spent a lot of hours sitting
next to the distinguished chairman of our committee, the Energy
Committee, who points out, and correctly so, that energy is a volatile
part of our economy--I made an exception so that if the President of
the United States says there is going to be a supply disruption or the
price of oil falls back down again, bingo, we are back to looking at
royalty relief.
The Senator from Illinois puts it very well.
To drive home the point, I say to the Senate, particularly the
Senator from Illinois who did great work on the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, we could have taken care of the needs of the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program plus have money left over for
deficit reduction if we were to stop this wasteful expenditure of
taxpayer funds.
Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from Oregon will yield for a question,
through the Chair, you were suggesting in your amendment we should no
longer subsidize the extraction of oil by private companies from
Federal lands when they are clearly in a very profitable position. We
should no longer ask taxpayers to give up royalties which they were
entitled to because the oil companies frankly are doing well and the
discounted oil was designed for the times when they were doing poorly.
If I understand what the Senator is saying, the same oil companies
have been going to court challenging the Federal Government when it
comes to these royalty payments and royalty discounts, so with all the
talk about too much litigation, it turns out some of these oil
companies believe litigation is a healthy thing if it protects their
profit margins and protects their Federal subsidy.
If the Senator from Oregon would be kind enough to explain to me
exactly what the impact of his amendment would be on this bill and how
much money it could bring back to the Treasury for purposes already
outlined--whether it is the LIHEAP program or money for education or
health care, whatever it might be, that currently is going to oil
companies that are doing well and experiencing record profits.
Mr. WYDEN. The Senator asks a very good question. This is the
granddaddy, this is the biggest subsidy the Government gives--to the
oil sector.
The General Accounting Office, which did a review of this, indicates
that a minimal projection is $20 billion for the cost of the program.
If the litigation is successful, it is up to $80 billion.
What we have is, at a time when middle-class folks, the people who
are living paycheck to paycheck and being squeezed as hard as they are,
at a time when our Government ought to be looking at trying to give
them a break, give them a bit of help, what we are seeing is the
middle-class folks have their tax dollars flow into the Federal
Government and go out in terms of royalty relief at a time when the
price of oil is vastly above the amount the President has indicated. It
is for that reason I felt so strongly about this.
I also point out this is a program that grew under Secretary Norton.
After the initial mistakes with the previous administration, it was
added to by the energy conference legislation between the House and the
Senate which sweetened the sweetheart deal even more.
I am saying this is enough. We do not need record royalty payments on
top of record profits and on top of record prices. I have said I will
draw the line. I have not done anything like what I have done today in
the Senate since I have been here. I have had the pleasure of serving
with the distinguished Senator from Illinois for a long time, going
back to the days when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks.
I have never done anything like this. I regret this tremendously. But
we have to protect the taxpayers of this country.
I am happy to yield if the Senator from Illinois has anything
further.
Mr. DURBIN. I will ask the Senator, you are asking for an opportunity
to call your amendment to be voted on up or down, whether this subsidy
to profitable oil companies will continue or whether the money will
come back to the Federal Treasury. Is that your intention in taking the
floor?
Mr. WYDEN. That is exactly what I have been seeking since last night
when I called the distinguished chairman of the committee, and what I
indicated, contrary to what has been said in the Senate, I am not
seeking any special treatment. I have not been seeking to be put first
in the line. What I have been seeking is what I have seen virtually
every week since I have been in the Senate.
The distinguished Senator from Illinois is an expert in the rules,
and it is my understanding that what we customarily do, we debate a
variety of amendments, then we cluster them into a group, five, six,
eight--sometimes the number will vary--and at some point the Senate
goes on a vote.
I offered to the chairman of the committee to be put in the second or
third cluster. I don't have to go first if colleagues feel strongly
about this, but at some point it seems to me we ought to say the Senate
is accountable, at a time with record profits and record prices, for a
program that is the biggest of them all. That is the Royalty Relief
Program.
I am happy to yield further.
Mr. DURBIN. I ask a procedural point for those following this debate.
I ask the Senator from Oregon, it is my understanding that what the
Senator is doing is consistent with the Senate rules which allows a
Senator to take the floor and offer an amendment. As long as he can
stand and offer his amendment and speak to it, he controls the floor,
which is what the Senator from Oregon is doing. Many people have seen
this depicted in movies and otherwise, but this is the classic element
of the Senate procedure, that a Senator can insist on his right to have
an amendment voted on. Clearly there is a disagreement in the Senate.
Until that disagreement is resolved, as long as the Senator from Oregon
can stand, if I am not mistaken--he can correct me if I am wrong--he is
asserting his right as a Senator to do so.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague from Illinois. That is essentially my
desire.
What we have seen, particularly in the discussion between the
distinguished Democratic leader and the chairman of the committee, is
it is the intent of those who oppose this amendment that they will not
allow a vote. Not now, not at any point. That is what we have learned
as a result of the discussion between the distinguished Senator from
Nevada and the distinguished chairman of the committee, for whom I have
a great deal of respect but simply disagree with on this point.
We have heard people say, I am asking for special treatment, that I
want to go first. That is not the case. I respect the rights of all
Senators. I offered the last amendment before the Senate adjourned last
night which made my amendment pending this morning. I have asked a
variety of times now to work something out with Senator Salazar and the
chairman of the committee, the chairman from Mississippi, and that is
not possible, so the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid,
called the question. He basically asked, are we ever going to get a
chance to vote. It is clear we will not.
That is very unfortunate. In a few minutes--my friend from Colorado
has been here and has been so patient--I will probably take one last
crack at seeing if we can protect taxpayers' interests and see if we
can work something out to do what the Senate normally does, which is to
cluster these
[[Page S3665]]
amendments. If that is not the case, I could talk until I fell over,
frankly, but it is clear the folks who are opposed to this do not want
to vote in any way, shape, or form. They are saying at a time of record
profits, at a time of record prices, we ought to keep ladling out this
money. As the Senator from Illinois said, this is on the people's land.
We are talking about oil companies extracting oil not from land they
own but from land that belongs to the people of this country.
So a judgment was made in the 1990s, give energy development a break
from the price of oil, when the price of oil is low, when production is
down. It made sense then. It boosted production in those critical
times. However, it certainly does not make sense to argue for a program
when the price of oil is over $70 a barrel and you compare that to what
we saw when this program originated; the price of oil was $16 a barrel,
a fraction of what people are paying, and production was also down at
that time.
This comes down to a question of choices. Whose side are you on? Are
you on the side of the taxpayer in an instance where the General
Accounting Office has documented what a rip-off this program has become
or are you on the side of a handful of special interests that have
figured out a way to hotwire this special program that gives them such
great advantages?
I wish the case were, as the distinguished chairman of the committee,
Senator Domenici, has indicated, the problems were with the Clinton
administration and then the next administration cleaned them up, but as
I read into the record, the problem got worse. It got worse twice.
First, as a result of the actions by the Secretary of the Interior;
second, as a result of what was done in the energy conference
agreement.
By the way, some of what we heard in the energy conference agreement
was just preposterous, not from the Senator from New Mexico, but some
in the energy conference agreement said: Oh, this oil royalty program
has no cost. It doesn't cost anything at all.
Now, I do not know how in the world you argue that when the General
Accounting Office and others have talked about billions and billions of
taxpayer dollars flooding out the door. But I think it shows to what
extraordinary lengths some will go to protect this program, which is
such an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.
My goodness, there are a lot of ways you could use $20 billion to $60
billion. How do you explain you are trying to pay for an emergency
spending bill when the Government does not have the money to cover the
emergency spending and yet you are still shoveling out billions and
billions of taxpayer dollars, at a time when the President of the
United States, to his credit, has said we do not need these incentives
when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel?
So this has been, for this Member of the Senate, a very unique
experience. I wish we could get a vote on this amendment. I think this
does a disservice to the taxpayers of this country.
I wish to mention what it means in terms of the globe. I, like all
Senators, see the men and women who honor us every single day by
wearing the uniform for our country. They put themselves in harm's way.
They risk their physical health, their mental health, their well-being,
and put their families at risk because they honor us every day by
wearing the uniform of the United States. It seems to me the people who
wear that uniform and are fighting today on our behalf in Iraq deserve
an energy policy that is going to make it less likely their kids and
their grandkids are going to be off in the Middle East another time in
the next few years in a war with implications for oil. To do that, to
make our country's energy secure, we have to stop programs that rip off
the taxpayers like this Royalty Relief Program.
Now that I see Senator Domenici here, I say to the chairman, I have
tried to indicate in the course of the day that, frankly, one of the
best things we have been talking about over the last few years comes
from a Senator from your side of the aisle, Mr. Thomas. Senator Thomas
makes the important point that we are probably losing something like a
third of all the oil from existing wells, and we don't have incentives
to go and do that drilling from existing wells.
I have been supporting Senator Thomas because I think it is good for
production, and I think it is good for the environment, especially
right now, because what we have learned in terms of environmental
protection is that you can get more out of existing wells, capturing
the gases, what is called sequestration, in order to protect the
environment.
So I want it understood by colleagues: One, I want to work in a
bipartisan way; two, I think that arguably what Senator Thomas has
talked about is one of the best new ideas to get a fresh energy policy
that is red, white, and blue. But I do not see how you are going to get
incentives for the kind of constructive thing Senator Thomas has been
talking about if you are shoveling money out the door for wasteful
programs like royalty relief.
So I see the Senator from New Mexico is on his feet. I say to the
chairman, the distinguished Senator from Colorado had asked I recognize
him first. But let us structure this so the Senator from Colorado can
ask his question, and then we will structure this so we can hear from
the chairman of the committee.
The Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for
yielding a minute for a question. I would hope if we are getting to an
end of this discussion, which has been on the floor now for the last 4
hours, we can move forward in some orderly fashion with respect to the
consideration of other amendments here on this Thursday before I know
people have to leave.
So it would be my request to the chairman of the committee that we
try to come up with some arrangement that will allow those Senators who
have been waiting in the wings to come forward and offer amendments, in
an orderly process to come forward and offer those amendments in the
next few hours.
I would ask a question of the chairman----
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do not
want to give up the floor quite yet. I think the distinguished Senator
from Colorado, through the Chair, has to ask me the question.
Mr. SALAZAR. Through the Chair, I ask permission to ask a question of
my colleague from Oregon.
Assuming that in a few minutes or a few hours you give up the floor,
which you currently now claim to make the very passionate argument you
have been making for the last 4 hours, would it be----
Mr. WYDEN. Five hours.
Mr. SALAZAR. For the last 5 hours, as you have tried to get a vote on
this amendment you have offered, would it be in order, then, for us as
a Senate to come to some kind of an agreement on how we move forward
with the orderly processing of additional amendments that go beyond the
amendment you are offering now?
Mr. WYDEN. The distinguished Senator from Colorado has not actually
propounded a unanimous consent request, but it is very much my interest
in accommodating the Senator from Colorado.
I think, frankly, colleagues, to repeat, for those who are just
coming in, after the discussion between Senator Reid and the Senator
from Mississippi and the objection that was made by the distinguished
chairman of the committee, it is evident that it will not be allowed
that there be an up-or-down vote on the granddaddy of all of the
subsidy programs for the oil industry.
This is the big one. This is the one that counts. And the Senate will
not, as a result of the discussion between the Senator from Nevada and
the Senator from Mississippi, be allowing a vote on it. I believe that
is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for taxpayers. It is a bad deal for our
country. I do not believe that is the way the Senate ought to be doing
business. But that is the judgment of the Senate. I respect the
judgment of the Senate.
And let us now----
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, may I ask my colleague from Oregon to
yield a minute of time to me while maintaining his right to the floor?
Mr. WYDEN. I certainly want to do that as part of our consent
agreement.
[[Page S3666]]
I think we are winding down to a close. The Senator from New Mexico is
no longer standing, but if he desires to ask a question, I want to give
him the opportunity to do it.
Does the Senator from Colorado seek to ask a question?
Mr. SALAZAR. I seek to ask a question and to make a unanimous consent
request that following the conclusion of your presentation here that we
move forward to the consideration of an amendment I will send to the
desk, and to establish also that Senator Conrad from North Dakota be
given the opportunity to send an amendment to the desk and to speak on
it, as well as I believe there are Senators on the chairman's side who
would also like to offer an amendment, including Senator Coburn. So
hopefully we could come up with some kind of arrangement that allows us
to move forward in an orderly fashion that can then assure that several
other amendments can be considered yet this afternoon.
Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon still has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Madam President.
I am very interested in getting on with this. I do want to show
deference to my good friend, the chair of the full committee, Senator
Domenici. So what I would like to do next, before we try to finally
work this out, is to, again, consistent with the unanimous consent
agreement--if the chair of our full Energy Committee, on which I am
proud to serve, would like to be recognized for a question, I would be
happy to do that.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I say to the Senator, I have no
question at this point. I thought the Senator was getting close to a
point where he was going to withdraw his amendment, after which time I
was going to speak. If that is not the case, then we will do something
else.
Mr. WYDEN. Reclaiming my time, so the Senate is clear, I have
absolutely no intention of withdrawing my amendment. But it is evident,
as a result of the discussion between Senator Reid and Senator Cochran,
that there is no inclination or willingness on the part of some in the
Senate for us to do what we customarily do, which is to take up these
amendments, Senators talk about them, and after a number of them are
talked about, we cluster the votes, we inform Senators of both
political parties, and the Senate is held accountable.
I see the distinguished Senator from Virginia here, Mr. Warner, who,
again, has seen many more instances of the Senate trying to work its
will than I. But I would only say, in the time I have been here,
virtually every week the Senate does what I have been seeking, which is
that Senators discuss their amendments, they are then clustered, and at
some point the Senate has a vote.
I have made it clear I am not interested in being first in line. I am
not interested or committed to being part of even the first cluster of
votes. That is not asking for special treatment. That is asking that
the Senate do what it has done again and again and again. It is the
custom of the Senate but apparently will not be the practice that is
followed with respect to this sweetheart deal that wastes billions of
taxpayer dollars at a crucial time in our country's history.
Mr. DOMENICI. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. DOMENICI. I say to the Senator, while you have been here many
hours, I have been here a few this afternoon. This is a very unusual
setting. You speak of your rights. We have rights, too. You have the
floor. We cannot debate the issue the way things are. If you would like
to debate this, I would like to debate it because you have had some
free time here to talk about something that is not so.
I have already asked you once, and I will ask you again--I will ask
you whether or not--I will ask it a different way: How much do you
think the Congressional Budget Office says your amendment--this great
amendment that is going to stop all of this thievery--can you tell us
how much it is going to yield to the taxpayers of the United States? I
will tell you the answer. The Congressional Budget Office says zero.
You understand, this great amendment that has been spoken of, this
process that he has--I don't know what it is. It is an amendment that
sets a threshold. It sets a threshold that is higher than the threshold
that exists that was already established by the Secretary of the
Interior.
I don't know how in the world, I ask the distinguished Senator, that
is going to yield anything to the people of this country. Maybe you can
explain it to us. I believe it is going to yield zero because the
amendment is meaningless the way it is drawn. It is not a program. It
is not a process. It is an amendment that sets a new threshold, I say
to Senator Salazar, a threshold that is not even needed because the
Secretary has already set a threshold that does more for the taxpayer
than his amendment.
So I don't know what we are down here arguing about. I have been
waiting my turn until I cannot wait any longer.
So I have just violated the rules. I didn't ask a question, I gave a
speech. I hope you listened. The speech is: The Congressional Budget
Office says this grandiose amendment that is going to stop the
grandfather of all thievery is going to yield zero dollars to the
Treasury of the United States. I assume that means that it is not
effective, it does nothing. It does nothing because--I just told you
why it does nothing. It sets a threshold that is higher than the
existing threshold; therefore, it yields nothing. I don't know what
else we can do. Why should we let you have a vote on that? I am going
to offer an amendment to that, a second-degree amendment that is very
simple. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer a second-
degree amendment.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object----
Mr. DOMENICI. I withdraw the request and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon has the floor.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I would like to respond briefly to the
Senator from New Mexico, who I thought was going to ask a question. I
see he is leaving the floor, but I would first say that if the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico thinks what I am proposing is
meaningless, I can't figure out why so many people have spent so much
time and so much effort trying to avoid a vote on it. I don't get that.
If this is so meaningless and so useless, it would seem to me we could
have disposed of it about 10:15 in the morning.
It is clear that the reason there has been all this opposition to the
amendment is because it really does address a key kind of question, and
that is saving taxpayers money. If it were meaningless, we could have
gone to a vote hours and hours ago. The people who have pushed the
hardest for this program have always tried to do it in the shadows.
This program was expanded after midnight in the energy conference
committee. The distinguished Senator from New Mexico has left the
floor, which is unfortunate because I would like to engage him in a
dialog.
All that I have sought, as demonstrated through Senator Reid, is an
opportunity to vote on this issue.
To once again deal with the key point the Senator from New Mexico has
made, nothing in this amendment says the threshold couldn't be lower
for dispensing this money. It simply says we should set an upper level
that reflects what the President of the United States has said. If this
amendment is as meaningless as the distinguished Senator from New
Mexico has said, let's go to a vote. Let's vote on it and save
taxpayers money.
The General Accounting Office says this program is going to cost a
minimum of $20 billion. If the litigation is successful, it will be $80
billion. While I have great respect for the Senator from New Mexico,
his argument that all of this never costs or saves anything is what we
have been hearing for years. We were told in the energy conference
agreement between the House and the Senate that this program costs
taxpayers nothing. Backers of this program in the debate between the
House and the Senate said with a straight face that royalty relief
costs taxpayers nothing. Now we have heard an argument that an effort
to rein in the cost of this program is meaningless as well. I guess
because, once again, we are
[[Page S3667]]
hearing that none of this costs money. It doesn't save any money. I
guess this program just happens by osmosis.
That is not what the General Accounting Office says. If the
litigation involving this Royalty Relief Program is successful and
taxpayers are out $80 billion, the people of this country are going to
remember this day. They are going to say that the Senate had a chance
on a bipartisan basis to do something sensible, and that is to
reconfigure this program to ensure that there is royalty relief when it
is needed. The legislation says the President can run the Royalty
Relief Program if there is any evidence that it would disrupt supply.
The amendment says that if the price goes down, of course, the original
rationale for this program, royalty relief could be paid.
This amendment puts in place the kinds of safeguards we need for a
changing environment in the energy field. What it doesn't do is
continue to write blank checks to a handful of special interests who
even the author of the program has now described as getting something
and being part of a program that was different than what he intended.
This is not somebody who is hostile to the program; this is somebody
who wrote the law and said this is not what was intended.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield. I thank the distinguished Senator
from Nevada for coming to the floor earlier and trying to get the
opportunity for a vote on my amendment.
Mr. REID. Madam President, the Senator from Oregon has clearly
established that he will not get a vote on this most important
amendment. I am disappointed. There are many disappointed Senators. I
am sure there are millions of disappointed Americans. There are a
number of Senators here who wish to offer amendments. For lack of a
better way of describing this, I reflect back on a time when I was
doing something similar to the Senator from Oregon, and Senator Byrd
was the leader of the Democrats at the time.
He said to me: Would the Senator yield? And I said yes. He said: How
much longer are you going to talk? So I reflect back on those days. I
told him I had a goal that I wanted to make. He said: Fine. Shortly
thereafter, we went on to other matters.
I am wondering, because we have other Senators on both sides of the
aisle to either offer amendments or do some voting, does the Senator
have an idea how much longer he has a right to maintain the floor?
Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator's question, particularly in
deference to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and all the help the
distinguished leader has given me throughout. I would say that I would
stay here all night. I would stay here until they literally had to take
me off the floor because I couldn't stay here any longer to save
taxpayers billions and billions of dollars on what amounts to the
biggest giveaway to the oil industry. This is the one which really
counts. Various other programs are a small fraction of the cost of it.
I would stay here for as long as it took, if I thought the other side
was willing at any point in any kind of fashion to allow an up-or-down
vote on whether we are going to be on the side of the taxpayers or
whether we are going to continue to side with the oil companies and
protect a program which all the independent auditors say is a great
waste of money.
But what we have seen over the course of the last 5\1/2\ hours is
that the Senate is not going to be able on this issue to operate the
way it customarily does, where you have amendments debated and
discussed and then they are clustered for a vote. As summed up by the
distinguished Senator from New Mexico, they think something like this,
once again, doesn't cost anything, when everybody who has looked at it
independently says it is a huge drain of taxpayer money. I want to
protect the middle-class folks and the folks who are hurting, whose
taxpayer money flows in to Government and then flows out for this
program at a time when the President of the United States has said the
subsidy is not needed.
I would stay here all through the night if I thought the opponents
were ever going to allow a vote. It is clear they are not.
We are going to come back to fight this another day, just as in the
conference agreement, where those special interests sweetened the pot.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Oregon--an athlete, went to college
on a basketball scholarship, certainly he has the stamina to stand as
long as necessary--that the point has been made. I, therefore, ask at
the end of his speaking for another 3 minutes that we go into a quorum
call and when the quorum call is called off, Senator Cochran then would
be recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, and it is not my desire to
object, I think the point has been made. This is a sad day for the
taxpayers of this country. When folks pull in to the gas station
tonight and in the days ahead and they pay these record prices and they
see these record profits, I hope they may have heard a little bit of
the discussion here today, that while they are getting clobbered at the
pump, the taxpayers are spending needlessly billions and billions of
dollars, billions of dollars that are being wasted, not by my
determination but by independent auditors. I wish that today we could
have done right by all those middle-class folks and our citizens who
pull up to the gas station. This is the big one, folks, in terms of
energy subsidies. This is the one with the most money. This is the one
there is no logical case for when oil is $70 a barrel. I am going to be
back making this fight again and again, if the people of Oregon are
willing.
Madam President, in deference to my colleagues who have been
extraordinarily patient in the course of the day, while I do not
withdraw my amendment, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Would the Chair rule on the unanimous consent request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Would the Senator restate the request?
Mr. REID. That we go into a 5-minute quorum call, after which Senator
Cochran would be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator can seek consent for the Senator
to be recognized after the quorum call has been called off. He cannot
limit the length of the quorum call.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that after the quorum call is
terminated, Senator Cochran be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. 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. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The order was to recognize the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I appreciate the fact that we are now
prepared, I assume, to proceed with consideration of other amendments
on the emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 4939. For the information of
Senators who would like to know what the status is, we have over 20
amendments that have been filed and are pending before the Senate. A
number of those have been offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr.
Coburn, who divided amendment No. 3641 into 19 divisions. As I
understand the parliamentary situation, each one of these divisions is
considered under our procedures as a separate amendment and a separate
vote could occur on each.
I am further advised that the Senator from Oklahoma would like to
call up some of these amendments and have them debated and disposed of.
There are other amendments. For example, last night there were four
filed by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, which remain pending.
The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, likewise has four amendments
pending. Senator Warner of Virginia has two amendments pending. The
Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has an amendment that is pending. The
Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, has an amendment. The Senator
from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, has debated and discussed his amendment at
length today. These are amendments which are already pending. It is my
hope that we can dispose of some of those amendments before proceeding
to consider
[[Page S3668]]
other amendments. That is my suggestion for an orderly procedure that
the Senate should follow.
I know the Senator from Colorado has been on the floor from time to
time today indicating that he has an amendment he would like to offer.
I don't want to stand in the way of his offering that amendment, but I
say this to the Senate just to give everyone equal information and
knowledge of the status of the bill. We need to proceed to get these
amendments disposed of--agreed to or defeated or amended and agreed to
or whatever is the pleasure of the Senate. I don't intend to try to
limit Senators in how long they can speak, but I hope we will not abuse
the rules of the Senate to make arguments that prolong the debate on
the supplemental appropriations bill. That is the subject before the
Senate. I hope we can stick to the subject.
Having said that, I am happy to yield the floor, and we will be glad
to work with other Senators to either work out agreements on
amendments, have votes on amendments, vote to table amendments, or
whatever the pleasure of the Senate may be.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending business be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have
been on the floor for 4 hours today. I filed amendments, brought them
up before anybody else brought an amendment up here, other than four
prior ones that I brought up.
I don't want to stop anybody from offering amendments, but the way we
clear them is to debate the ones already on line. Those of us who have
amendments that have been out and offered, I suggest that the regular
order ought to go forward, and as we finish those--nobody is planning
on cutting that off or trying to limit anybody. With that, I believe
the proper thing for us to do would be to go to the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I,
likewise, have been in this Chamber for many hours just like the
Senator, waiting to get back to the regular order and to allow
amendments to come forward and to debate those amendments. I don't
intend to speak long in offering my amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that I may offer my amendment, speak on it
for no more than 5 minutes, and then following my presentation, the
Senator from Oklahoma be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Amendment No. 3645
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3645.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an
amendment numbered 3645.
Madam 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 provide funding for critical hazardous fuels and forest
health projects to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate
the effects of widespread insect infestations)
On page 246, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
HAZARDOUS FUELS AND FOREST HEALTH PROJECTS
Sec. ____. In addition to any other funds made available by
this Act, there is appropriated to the Secretary of
Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
Wildland Fire Management, $30,000,000 for hazardous fuels and
forest health projects focused on reducing the risk of
catastrophic fires and mitigating the effects of widespread
insect infestations: Provided, 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. SALAZAR. Madam President, I rise today to offer a very
straightforward amendment to the emergency supplemental appropriations
bill before us. I offer this amendment because we in the United States,
especially in the western part of the country, are looking at a great
fire disaster emergency that requires this Senate in a last chance to
address the issue and do something about the fires that will rage
across the West in the summer. The emergency is created by the extreme
threat of wildfires as a result of the great droughts we have had as
well as widespread insect infestations that make massive fires a
reality across the West. I am pleased to be joined in this amendment by
Senator Max Baucus.
In the West, the seasonal wildfire potential outlook map shows above-
normal fire danger in the Western United States. Arizona, New Mexico,
Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho have increased fire dangers to
contend with, as well as the State of Montana. The outlook also shows
Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida to have
increased fire risks. While the Southeast United States may not have as
much Forest Service land as the West, that region has its hands full
cleaning up from the hurricanes. I support the supplemental bill for
that purpose, as well as to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan
and other places.
At the same time, many western forests are facing a force that is
leaving thousands upon thousands of acres of our forests subject to
fire in local community after local community. It is something I
believe the Senate must act on now that we have the opportunity.
Montana and northern Idaho, for example, are experiencing the largest
mountain pine beetle infestation in 20 years, with nearly 1.1 million
acres infested in 2005, compared to 675,000 in 2004. The State of
Washington is reporting a mountain pine beetle epidemic, and 554,000
acres are now infected, which is a 28-percent increase from the
previous year. Meanwhile, my State of Colorado has over 1.5 million
acres that have been infested by bark beetles. After these infestations
come through a forest, they leave behind entire stands of trees--
sometimes thousands of acres--that are more susceptible to fire due to
the dried-out conditions and increased fuel loads in those forests.
I believe we must consider this situation from the point of view of
our rural communities throughout the West. Many of these communities
are surrounded by already dry forests. These communities are now
contending with insect infestations that are further increasing the
fire danger. When you combine these factors, I believe the local
communities are very right to be alarmed and concerned that the
ingredients are here for catastrophic fires in the coming fire season.
Just this week, an article in USA Today noted that Federal
forecasters predict the wildfire potential this spring and summer is
``significantly higher than normal'' and that the areas at risk, from
Alaska to the east coast, ``are so far-flung that the Federal
Government's more than 20,000 firefighters and fleets of ground and air
support could be spread thin if fire danger lingers long in any area.''
The Forest Service annually conducts hazardous fuels and forest
health projects. However, the funding available to the Forest Service
is not living up to the commitments made by Congress in the Healthy
Forests Restoration Act. Healthy Forests authorizes $760 million a year
for hazardous fuels projects, and Congress has appropriated less than
$500 million of those funds per year. The funding is simply not keeping
up with the increasing needs that today have been estimated at over $1
billion per year.
My amendment will provide the U.S. Forest Service with an additional
$30 million to conduct critical hazardous fuels and forest health
projects to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and to mitigate the
effects of widespread insect infestations.
Private land owners and local governments are doing all they can to
combat this problem. They are using chainsaws to protect their homes,
they are spraying trees, and they are devising protection plans. They
wonder, however, if they are not alone in this fight. They wonder if
the Federal Government is asleep at the wheel in the face of this
potential disaster.
This year, we know, could be worse than other years in the West. We
must provide emergency funding so that the Forest Service can conduct
hazardous fuels and forest health projects that are already approved
and are sitting on the shelf.
[[Page S3669]]
I agree with many colleagues who have raised legitimate concerns
about adding spending to this bill that is not really intended to
address an emergency situation. But that is not the case with this
amendment. This amendment addresses a real imminent threat, and the
situation is urgent. We must take action now. I am reminded by the
reports of spring fires in Colorado, where we have seen 13 firefighters
killed in a fire at Storm King, 135,000 acres of land burned in what
was called the Hayman Fire, which consumed a large part of four
counties of the State of Colorado.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain and Senator Warner and
Senator Levin be added as cosponsors to the fallen hero amendment,
which I have offered. It is No. 3643.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Bingaman be added as a cosponsor to my amendment on improvised
explosive device training. It is No. 3644.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, my colleague from Oklahoma is seeking
recognition. I appreciate his courtesy, and I look forward to his
debate on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Amendment No. 3641, Division II
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask that division II of my amendment
No. 3641 be in order at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has a right to ask for the regular
order with respect to his amendment. Division II is pending.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I thank the chairman for protecting my
right to be back on the floor in regular order. But I want to go
through again with the American people what is supposed to be an
emergency bill by our own rules: It is a bill that is necessary,
essential, and vital; sudden, quickly coming into being, not building
up over time; it is an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring
immediate action; it is unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and
not permanent but temporary only in nature.
This second division of my amendment is an amendment that removes $15
million. It is simple. In this bill is $15 million for the promotion of
seafood. Seafood consumption in this country is at an all-time high. If
you look around the country, look on television, look at magazines--the
beef producers do this, but they get no Federal money. The pork
producers do this, but they get no Federal money. The poultry producers
do this, but they get no Federal money. The milk producers do this, but
they get no Federal money in terms of their promotion. They pay
individually to have a promotional sequence. As a matter of fact, there
is a Louisiana Seafood already in existence.
So what we are going to do is take and give $15 million to a private
entity of the seafood producers to spend to increase demand for
seafood. That may be all right, but that is certainly not an emergency.
It is certainly not something that should be in an emergency bill that
isn't going to be paid for by us but by our children and grandchildren.
I am not objecting to the fact that we want to try to increase the
demand for seafood, but if you look at the facts, the real problem our
fisheries are having, especially with shrimp and those kinds of things,
is with foreign competition. As you look at the problems associated
with it, there are more in terms of competition than there are in terms
of lack of supply.
This is real simple. Why should we be subsidizing for one industry
what we don't subsidize for any other industry? The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration is where this money is going to go.
There is nothing in the bill to tell them what to do with it. According
to them, ``We have no plans for how to spend this money.'' That is what
NOAA said. They have no plans. It is not in the report language or in
the bill. So what will happen is the committee will tell them how to
spend the money. We won't know how it is; it is not published now. If
we don't make a decision, we are not going to know.
Is there going to be oversight? Is somebody going to take a million-
dollar salary out of this $15 million? We don't know. We don't have a
mechanism in place to manage it. That is the problem. If this had come
through an authorizing committee, studied by our peers, and they said
this is something in the long-term best interests of our country, then
I probably would not be raising this issue. But I don't think that is
what has happened here.
Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I appreciate the Senator yielding. My
fellow Senator from Oklahoma has done a yeoman's job of trying to
remind people that this is supposed to be an emergency supplemental. In
every case about which he has spoken, there is nothing emergency about
them.
I appreciate the fact that he talks about going through the
authorization process. We have a process that has been working for some
time that has a lot of checks and balances. I happen to chair the
Environment and Public Works Committee. We go through authorization and
the appropriators come along.
I applaud him for reminding people what is an emergency and what is
not. Let me remind my fellow Senators that we have a President of the
United States who agrees with the Senator from Oklahoma. The President
has said he is going to veto this bill on the items that are not
emergencies and have nothing to do with national security, defense, or
with the emergency Katrina. We already have enough signatures on a
letter saying we will sustain that veto. So we are going to end up
doing this.
I think a lot of this is an exercise in futility. People cannot
resist the opportunity to come forward where they can be seen offering
more and more of the taxpayers' money for something that is not an
emergency. I only wanted to say I applaud him for doing this. I think
he is being overworked. Hopefully, we will have this solution with the
President's veto. We should not be in a position where we are having to
do that.
I applaud the Senator for what he is doing. That is my question.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, reclaiming my time, the other point I
wish to make is the proponents say this is to create a new niche market
to reestablish the shrimp sales of the gulf coast. I want to help the
gulf coast. I want to help them recover, but I want to do it in a way
that builds a long-term, satisfactory, strong fishing industry down
there.
We are at an all-time high in the consumption of seafood. Where our
shrimp industry has been hurt is through globalization. The fact is,
the real damage done to that industry, besides what has happened as a
result of the hurricane, is they are getting beat in the world market.
I ask the Members of this body to think: Do we want to start this,
and should we be doing it when cattle prices are down and producing
more beef? Should we do it for the beef producers? Should we do it for
the chicken farmers? In other words, should they not participate in
paying for this rather than everybody else in America paying for it?
I would portend this is something that is not what we should be doing
and it is not just about not wanting to help those people. I want to
help them, but I don't believe this is the way to do it. This is a
small amount of money in this $104 billion-plus bill, but it is a
principle as we walk down the line: how do we say no to all these other
agricultural interests when we have said yes to one.
I am very worried with the wording in the report language that
requires the committee to run this rather than requires the bureaucracy
to run it when there is no instruction for the bureaucracy, which means
it is not going to have sunshine and it is not going to have oversight.
I think that is part of our problems with spending as well.
I see the distinguished Senator from Alabama is here. I will be happy
to yield time to him for debate on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today we continue to debate the provisions
of H.R. 4939, the bill providing additional 2006 supplemental
appropriations for
[[Page S3670]]
the war in Iraq and recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
Other supplemental appropriations bills have been previously signed
into law dealing with the war in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina, but none
of those bills directly support the needs of the devastated fishing
industry in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Senate's funding recommendations affecting the gulf coast fishing
industry were developed by the States Fisheries Commission and the Gulf
of Mexico Fishery Management Council to meet local needs in cooperation
with Federal partners, including NOAA's National Marine Fisheries
Service.
The Gulf of Mexico is home to a significant share of the U.S. fishing
industry, representing almost 20 percent of commercial landings and
roughly 30 percent of saltwater recreational fishing trips. The 2005
hurricane season had a major impact on both of these maritime sectors,
but it also devastated their shore-based infrastructure, ports, and
facilities that commercial harvesters and fishermen rely on, such as
docks, wharves, processing plants, distribution centers, and marinas.
Offshore, the hurricanes annihilated entire oyster beds along the
gulf coast which has an immediate and long-term impact to the oyster
harvesting industry. Considering that it will take years for many of
the oyster beds to rebound, the current economic impacts are only part
of the assessment.
Throughout the gulf coast, over 2,300 vessels were federally
permitted for shrimping. The Presiding Officer, coming from Alaska,
knows a lot about fishing boats. The exact number of shrimp vessels
damaged or destroyed by the 2005 hurricanes is still largely unknown.
However, one only needs to visit coastal communities such as Bayou La
Batre, Gulfport-Biloxi, and Empire-Venice to see the overwhelming
effects these hurricanes had on the entire fishing-based communities
along the gulf coast. With their boats gone and shoreside facilities
destroyed, many businesses are having to rebuild literally from the
ground up.
It is logical to presume that the damage from last year's hurricanes,
coupled with the rise of diesel fuel costs, could result in the
increase in the percentage of fishermen filing for bankruptcy. This
bill will stabilize the number of vessels in the fishery and rebuild
fishing facilities, allowing fishermen the opportunity to harvest a
greater proportion of the annual fish crop and increase their economic
returns.
Finally, I want to touch on the funding that has been included in
this bill for seafood marketing efforts because it has been the target
of much criticism on the floor. I believe this funding is extremely
important to the overall effort to restore this industry. We cannot
deny the fact that many consumers became increasingly wary of gulf
coast seafood following Hurricane Katrina. That is natural. To that
end, I believe it is imperative that we restore consumer confidence.
All the work that has been done and all that we propose to do with the
additional spending in this bill will be wasted if no one purchases the
seafood that comes from the gulf. Therefore, marketing efforts to
reassure consumers that the seafood is safe are not wasteful but,
rather, essential to the efforts to restore this industry.
The 2006 supplemental appropriations bill, as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee, contains significant funding to address many
needs of the devastated fishing industry in the gulf coast. I encourage
my colleagues to support the bill as reported and oppose any amendments
that might propose to strike funding provided for fisheries assistance.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I, too, rise in strong support of the
fisheries and seafood provisions in this supplemental appropriations
bill to help a very important industry simply begin to get back on its
feet on the gulf coast. This is a vitally important industry, not just
for the gulf coast but for all of America.
I am very proud of Louisiana and our coastline and our fisheries. We
are the largest producer of fisheries in the lower 48 States, second
only in the country to the home State, of course, of the Presiding
Officer. So it is a true national priority in terms of the service and
the food we yield to the country.
With two hurricanes, our nationally important fisheries sustained
huge damage. Individual fishermen and their families sustained huge
damage. Vessels, equipment, offloading and processing facilities, and
oyster farms will take years to recover. Because of this damage of
truly historic proportions, the administration, through the Department
of Commerce, made a disaster declaration, which is appropriate under
the law, for fisheries specifically. However, for the first time in
history, they did not follow up that disaster declaration with a
request for certain emergency funding to meet that disaster.
The work of the full committee in the Senate, led by Senator Cochran,
fills that gap by producing an important section of this bill devoted
for fisheries. I personally thank Senator Cochran for filling that gap
because, again, it is a very real gap.
We had a disaster declaration, the highest ever in terms of fisheries
losses and devastation in the United States, but we had no
corresponding funding request from the administration in light of that
disaster emergency declaration. This section of the bill, again, is
enormously important to meet those needs.
I want to turn specifically to the seafood marketing section which
has been a particular target of several Members, led by Senator Coburn,
and they have brought up some very good points.
First, I begin by complimenting Senator Coburn on his work on many
fiscal reform matters. I applaud it. I not only applaud it, because
talk is cheap, I support it in the vast majority of cases. Earmark
reform, for instance, is something we desperately need in Congress, and
I strongly supported those efforts a few weeks ago when they were
before us, and I continue to strongly support those efforts.
I have no problem with the light of day being shone on all of these
issues and our having to justify all specific spending items. So I
compliment him on his work in general.
But it is in that spirit that I stand to proudly defend this seafood
marketing issue and to completely rebut some notion that it has nothing
to do with the hurricanes and nothing to do with an emergency
situation.
Really, what the argument comes down to is two words, two words that
we heard on television over and over again for weeks after the storm.
And the two words are ``toxic soup.''
I have to tell my colleagues that the media coverage after the storm
really frustrated me. I grew up in New Orleans, LA. I was there in
Louisiana. Obviously, I represent Louisiana now in the Senate. I was
living through the devastation and the challenges, and we had a lot of
devastation, we had a lot of challenges, we had a lot of screw-ups by
all levels of government, certainly including State and local.
But the media coverage got a few things wrong, too. One of the things
they got very wrong was the constant, unrelenting for weeks repetition
of this term ``toxic soup.'' To listen to the national media and the
way they portrayed the situation, all of the city of New Orleans was
covered with toxins that would leave it virtually uninhabitable for
decades to come, and because of the toppling of rigs and other
localized events which did occur in the gulf, there was a toxic soup
spreading throughout many areas of the gulf and coastal Louisiana.
There were serious and real environmental issues. There were many
environmental issues, dozens, hundreds of localized events, but they
were addressed as quickly and completely as possible by the good
national servants of the Coast Guard and many other agencies. Although
these events were real and serious, they did not create, they did not
amount to this toxic soup we heard about over and over through the
national media.
Again, the impression that was clearly left over and over was that
all of New Orleans and much of the gulf and much of the gulf coast
where fisheries were harvested was a toxic soup with life-threatening
toxins that would be in the area and seep into the water and seep into
the ground and be factors for literally decades to come.
When we have that sort of national media coverage 24 hours a day,
dwelling on this theme over and over for
[[Page S3671]]
weeks, one can begin to imagine what it might do to the gulf coast
seafood industry. It killed it. What Katrina and Rita hadn't
devastated, that media coverage absolutely did. And that is why an
informational campaign addressing, among other issues, that ``toxic
soup'' claim and the fact that it is just pure fiction, has no basis in
science, is very necessary for the immediate health of this industry,
and is directly related to the emergency situation stemming from the
hurricanes.
I want to compliment several agencies such as NOAA that have done
important environmental testing and other work since the hurricanes and
which certified that after thousands of tests and sampling of water and
seafood from the Gulf of Mexico, that the seafood is absolutely safe to
eat. The States of Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana, along with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, EPA, NOAA and others, have again
analyzed hundreds of samples of fish and shellfish from the waters. All
of this testing across the board also proves that there is no broad-
based toxic soup; there is absolutely no danger in terms of that
seafood from the gulf.
But as many thousands of these tests have been performed, guess what.
Hardly a single U.S. consumer has heard about it. Hardly a single U.S.
consumer knows about it. So in terms of the viability of the industry,
it really doesn't matter, all of these tests being done, because it is
not common knowledge, and the word has not gotten out. That is the
biggest reason we absolutely need this informational campaign, this
promotional campaign, again, that is directly related to the emergency
situation produced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
I would welcome Senator Coburn to put back up on his easel the
definition of emergency, the definition that we are supposed to be
following for true emergency measures. That definition applies here
because of the phenomenon I am talking about. That definition is
absolutely applicable here because we have an emergency situation for
the immediate future of our gulf coast fisheries industry, again, that
were devastated by the hurricanes, and much of the fisheries section of
this bill goes to that, trying to get processing plants and boats and
docks and essential equipment back and repaired, back up and running,
and that is important. But just as important is the enormous harm that
was caused after the storm by very flawed national media coverage and a
lot of misinformation summarized by those two words, ``toxic soup.''
That is why this informational campaign, this promotional campaign is
an emergency situation and is directly related to the hurricanes and
absolutely meets every one of the definitions Senator Coburn rightly
says we must be guided by.
With that, Mr. President, I will close. But in doing so, I urge all
of my colleagues to please support the very important fishery
provisions in the bill. They are emergency measures. They are all
directly related to the hurricanes, including the promotional campaign.
Amendment No. 3626, as Modified
Mr. President, I quickly would like to address a small bit of
housekeeping, which is to ask unanimous consent to modify language to
an amendment I already have at the desk, No. 3626, to take care of a
technical matter, and the new language will be delivered to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
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 in any
case in which that local government has suffered a loss of 25
percent or more in tax revenues due to Hurricane Katrina or
Hurricane Rita of 2005''.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr President, the Gulf States from Texas to Florida have
all been dealt serious blows this past hurricane season by Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis. The needs are tremendous across the
entire Gulf Coast in the fishing communities which were hit hardest and
first. Before these hurricanes, the gulf produced about 15 percent of
the Nation's domestic wild-caught seafood by weight and about 20
percent by value.
According to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
report, these hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90-100
percent of the commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses,
offloading facilities, net makers, recreational marinas, bait and
tackle shops, and seafood restaurants and retail markets in eastern
Louisiana, with similar, if somewhat reduced, impacts in Mississippi
and Alabama. Most of these facilities remain closed today, 9 months
later.
On September 9, 2005, Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez declared a
fisheries disaster for the Gulf of Mexico under the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, which authorizes fisheries disaster assistance in such situations.
Of the almost $90 billion in disaster funding appropriated by the
Congress since these hurricanes, none has been directed at these
fishing communities.
On top of the difficulty that gulf fishermen are experiencing in
rebuilding their ability to catch and process gulf seafood, they are
also faced with the hurdle of getting that catch into the national
marketplace.
One issue that continues to hurt Gulf of Mexico fisheries products is
the labeling of the coastal Gulf of Mexico waters by the media as
``toxic soup'' during the first few months after Katrina. For example,
Anderson Cooper of CNN led a Katrina follow-up story with the chairman
of the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board by asking him
about the ``toxic soup'' in which Gulf of Mexico fish are growing.
We need to put this issue to rest and rebuild seafood markets lost
due to these storms. This is critical to the recovery process. The five
Gulf States estimate that their fishing industries have suffered
hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since these hurricanes.
They will not be able to recover unless they get help in getting this
industry back on its feet and getting back into the marketplace.
The key issue that the five Gulf State seafood promotion boards face
is that once the continuity of product has been lost in any
marketplace, sales often are lost permanently to substitute products
and reclaiming those markets is a long term challenge. Add the ``toxic
soup'' concerns to the mix and the need for marketing is greater than
ever at a time when the state seafood board budgets are dwindling or
expended.
I will be brief because I know my colleague from Mississippi, and
Senator Shelby from Alabama, who was the author of this portion of the
supplemental, have already covered these issues, and Mr. Vitter did a
very good job. Maybe I can contribute to the debate just by summing up
how critical this is and why this particular amendment, even though it
involves only $15 million, should be defeated. It is an important part
of what is going on here.
First, let me emphasize, again, that from Texas to Florida,
throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and
Dennis have devastated the fishing communities. They are an important
part of our communities, our economy, and our culture. It is not just
because we like to see the shrimp boats sail off into the sunset or see
the oystermen out there tonging for oysters; it is because it is an
important part of the economy. Fifteen percent of the Nation's domestic
wild-caught seafood by weight and 20 percent of the value comes from
the gulf area. It is an area that makes an important economic
contribution. It is an important part of the seafood industry
nationally, and it has never been properly marketed or exploited in the
terms that it should be. We have already had problems with imports
being flooded into the country in a way that undermines the industry,
and now we have been hit by these hurricanes.
I emphasize this, too: that while we have passed some $90 billion--in
excess of that--for disaster funding as a result of these hurricanes,
none of it, zero, has gone to these fishermen and to the fishing
industry, for a variety of reasons.
First of all, it takes time to ascertain what the damages are. But
when you lose it all, when you lose the processing plants, the boats,
the whole industry, it takes time to assess what we have lost and how
we are going to repair it, and how do we recover from the
[[Page S3672]]
fact that we lost this business. Even NOAA has indicated that these
hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90 to 100 percent of the
commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses, offloading
facilities, netmakers, the whole thing.
Once you lose that market, it is difficult to get it back--maybe
impossible--but we have to make that effort. This is an important food,
it is an important resource. It is an important value for the people.
And the only way we are going to get it back is we are going to have to
help them repair their vessels and to recover the losses they have had.
A lot of these, by the way, are minorities. In Biloxi, MS, a lot of
these fishermen are Vietnamese or Slovonians or Frenchmen, but a lot of
them are Vietnamese who lost their house, their truck, their boat,
their livelihood. It would make you cry to see these people. This is
clearly an area where we should provide this help.
So what this particular part would do would be to focus on us
regaining the markets we lost. It is an important part of the recovery
process. The five gulf States estimate that their fishing industries
have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since the
hurricanes. The key issue that the five gulf States' seafood promotion
boards face is that once the continuity of the product is broken,
getting it back takes effort and time. And then we add to that the bad
publicity of the so-called ``toxic soup,'' which was an exaggeration
from the beginning, by the way, we have to overcome that.
As a matter of fact, we find that the catch that is possible out
there could be very good. The problem is we don't have the boats to get
them. We don't have the plants to deal with them when they come in.
So I urge my colleagues, if there is anyplace that we ought to be
providing some help, it is the fisheries industry. It is absolutely a
part of the critical recovery, just as much or more so than being able
to have a way to rebuild your home or repair your home. You have to
have a job. For these people, there are not many other options for
jobs. So I urge the defeat of the amendment. I commend Senator Shelby
and Senator Cochran for including this language in the bill.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come in support of the amendment. I know
that we don't have too much time since the distinguished managers would
like to get this bill moving, but let me just say that this is $15
million to be used, and I quote from the bill: ``Seafood promotion
strategy,'' which is Congress's attempt to sell consumers pork
masquerading as a fish.
Similar to other appropriations in this bill, this $15 million is not
limited to marketing seafood from the gulf coast region or other areas
that were affected by Hurricane Katrina.
For example, the Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board likely anticipates
a payout from these appropriations. We have come a long way from an
emergency supplemental. The board has received--this Alaska Fisheries
Marketing Board--has received over $30 million from the Federal
Government since 2003 from similar provisions in appropriations bills.
Last year, this board used a half million dollars to pay Alaska
Airlines to paint a giant salmon on a 737. We called it the ``salmon-
30-salmon,'' proving that fish do fly, thanks to the American taxpayer.
According to a recent survey by Harris Interactive, 73 percent of all
Americans say they eat seafood at least once a month, and 47 percent of
all Americans consume more seafood now than they did 5 years ago. These
record consumption levels were achieved without a pricey marketing
campaign financed by American taxpayers. It appears that Charlie the
Tuna and the Chicken of the Sea mermaid are doing their jobs just fine,
without any help from the Federal Government.
Additionally, a recent CRS report states:
The marketability of catch from the gulf coast appears
little affected by contamination from storm runoff or
consumers' concerns.
Mr. President, let me save the American taxpayers $15 million right
now by telling all Americans now to eat seafood. Eat seafood. It is
good for you. There we go. C-SPAN has millions of viewers, and they
have heard the message. So the marketing campaign is complete. With the
Federal budget deficit forecasted to reach $477 billion this year, I
doubt the American taxpayer would approve of Congress spending $15
million to promote the consumption of seafood when Americans are
already consuming record amounts of seafood.
Lastly, the CRS report also found that prior to Hurricane Katrina,
the gulf coast commercial shrimpers had been losing market share to
``competition from less expensive foreign imports and domestic
harvesters for several years.'' Therefore, this $15 million marketing
campaign seems to be targeted more toward stemming the success of less
expensive imports than assisting the gulf coast region's economy.
I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to strike
the fishiest smelling pork in this bill.
Let me just make one additional comment, if I could. It is clear--it
is very clear--that what we have here is a broken process. Any defense
money that we are taking out should have been part of the normal
budgetary process. I want to tell my colleagues that I and others have
embarked on an effort to bring the emergency supplemental that pays for
the Iraq war into the normal budgetary process. We have been at war for
3 years. This is the fourth year. There is no reason to do business
like this. It bypasses the authorization process, it bypasses any
scrutiny by the proper committees, we then bring it to the floor, and
it is filled with items such as this ridiculous $15 million for a
seafood marketing campaign, and it grows and grows and grows.
Today, in the Wall Street Journal, there is a poll. It says:
``Republicans sag in new poll.'' I found it very interesting that in
describing the poll, in particular, Americans who don't approve of
Congress blame their sour mood on partisan contention and gridlock in
Washington. Some 44 percent call themselves tired of Republicans and
Democrats fighting each other. Among all Americans, a 39-percent
plurality say the single most important thing for Congress to
accomplish this year is curtailing budgetary earmarks benefiting only
certain constituents.
I want to repeat that, Mr. President. A 39-percent plurality of
Americans are sick and tired of the earmarking process that is going
on. Now, when are we going to respond to the American people?
Everyplace I go, every town hall meeting I attend, my constituents tell
me they are sick and tired of this. And, now, according to a Wall
Street Journal NBC poll, a 39-percent plurality say the single most
important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing
budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents.
This is a graphic example of what the American people are sick and
tired of.
By the way, immigration reform ranks behind earmarks in congressional
action that is desired by the American people. It concludes by saying:
Americans take dim views of both parties, giving Democrats
a positive rating of just 33 percent and Republicans 35
percent.
We are at an all-time low in the favorable opinion of the American
people. This is an example. This $15 million is a very small but
compelling example of our need to change the way we do business. If we
vote again to keep this in this bill, we are sending the message to the
American people that it is business as usual.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, it is the responsibility of the National
Marine Fisheries Service to assure Americans of the safety and
availability of the seafood from U.S. oceans. The service has done
extensive environmental testing in the gulf, and it has shown no
increase in toxicity. The gulf seafood is just as safe as the seafood
from Washington State or New England.
This amendment strikes the funding that could be used for seafood
marketing programs that get that information to the consuming public.
The Senate should defeat the amendment.
Mr. President, I was going to move to table the amendment, but I
understand it is OK to have the vote on a voice vote or show of hands.
So I think we are ready to vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
[[Page S3673]]
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will agree with the chairman we are
almost ready. I just wanted to make a couple of points.
Mr. COCHRAN. Wait a minute, I didn't yield the floor. I am standing
here. I asked for a vote.
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 question is on agreeing to the motion to table division II of
amendment 3641.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the Senator from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Santorum).
Mr DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln)
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 51, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 100 Leg.]
YEAS--44
Akaka
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Dayton
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Durbin
Gregg
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Kennedy
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lott
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Vitter
Wyden
NAYS--51
Alexander
Allen
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Lieberman
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
Menendez
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Stabenow
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
NOT VOTING--5
Isakson
Kerry
Lincoln
Rockefeller
Santorum
The motion was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. BYRD. I accede to the request of my chairman, but I ask unanimous
consent upon the completion of that vote I be recognized to offer an
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to division II of the Coburn amendment.
Division II of amendment (No. 3641) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). Under the previous order, the
Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Amendment No. 3709
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, just over 3 years ago the Armed Forces of
the United States were sent to fight a new war in Iraq. I was against
the entry of our country into that war. At that time, many
representations were made that this war would be quick and that it
would be easy.
On the eve of war, our Nation was already embroiled in a campaign
that sought to portray the invasion of Iraq as a quick and cheap way to
rid the world of Saddam's regime and his supposed chemical weapons. We
were told that the intervention would be as quick as lightning.
We now know that the war plans called for a withdrawal of nearly all
American troops from Iraq by September 2003. Yet here we are, 3 years,
1 month, and 2 weeks later and 135,000 American troops are still in
Iraq; 2,383 American troops have been killed; more than 17,500 American
troops have been wounded. And for what? For what, I ask?
We were told at the time that the reconstruction of Iraq would cost
the American taxpayer almost nothing. Former Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul Wolfowitz said that we are dealing with a country--that is, Iraq--
that can really finance its own reconstruction and we can do that
relatively soon.
Yet here we are, and the total bill for Iraqi reconstruction being
footed by the American taxpayers is running into the billions of
dollars. We were told at the time that the cost of military action
would be small. Secretary Rumsfeld claimed on January 19, 2003, that
the Office of Management and Budget had come up with a number that is
something under $50 billion for the cost of that war. Yet here we are
and the cost of military operations in Iraq is climbing beyond $290
billion.
Astoundingly, the cost of the war in Iraq keeps increasing. According
to a Congressional Research Service report released this week, the
Iraqi war costs $4.4 billion per month. How about that--$4.4 billion
per month in fiscal year 2003; $5 billion per month in fiscal year
2004; $6.4 billion per month in fiscal year 2005; and could reach $8.1
billion per month during this fiscal year. That is an 84-percent
increase in the cost of the war in just 3 years.
The growing cost of this abominable war in Iraq must come as a shock
to Americans who were led to expect a war that could be done on the
cheap. But we should pause to ask, at a time when our Government is
drowning in red ink, how can it be that spending for the war in Iraq
keeps increasing year after year?
Passage of this supplemental appropriations bill will mean that
Congress will have appropriated $320 billion for the war in Iraq and
the end is not yet in sight; there is no light at the end of the tunnel
yet. That is not the end of the story.
The President has requested a $50 billion bridge fund for the next
Defense appropriations bill which will inevitably be followed next year
by another large emergency supplemental spending request. Mark my
words, it won't be too long before spending on the war in Iraq will
eclipse 10 times the figure Secretary Rumsfeld estimated in January of
2003. Talk about being off the mark, talk about being wildly off the
mark. Some measure of sanity has to be brought to the spiralling cost
of the war.
Four times I have offered amendments to defense spending bills to
state the sense of the Senate that the President should include a full
estimate of the cost of the war. I have talked until I am hoarse about
the cost of this war. Four times I have offered amendments through
defense spending bills to state the sense of the Senate that the
President should include a full estimate of the cost of the war in his
annual budget request. And four times the amendments have passed with
strong bipartisan support--Republicans and Democrats on that side of
the aisle and on this side of the aisle--and four times the amendments
have been ignored by the White House.
The administration's failure to budget for the war means that neither
the White House nor Congress is making the tough decisions about how to
pay for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I support the war in Afghanistan. Yes. We were invaded. This country
was invaded. This country was attacked, and the enemy was in
Afghanistan. I was for going after those guys. But I did not vote for
the war in Iraq. I said it was wrong.
There has been no earnest debate about how wartime spending is to fit
into the overall budget picture. Instead, the administration has relied
overwhelmingly on emergency supplemental appropriations requests to
fund the costs of the ongoing wars. These requests are not part of the
regular budget debate in Congress, and they are often foisted upon the
legislative branch with little in the way of justification, which
Congress is then pressed into passing with a minimum of scrutiny.
The reliance on supplemental appropriations bills is one symptom of a
disease that has struck Washington, and
[[Page S3674]]
that is the scourge of fiscal irresponsibility. According to data from
the Congressional Budget Office, since 2001, the White House has
requested a total of $515 billion in emergency supplemental
appropriations. That is more than half a trillion dollars that simply
does not appear in any of the budget plans passed by Congress.
This dependence--this dependence, I say--on supplemental
appropriations dwarfs the requests of prior administrations. In fact,
the $515 billion of supplemental funding requests in the last 5 years
is more than 3\1/2\ times--more than 3\1/2\ times--greater than all the
supplemental spending requests from the 10 years previous to the
current administration.
At a time when our country is facing huge deficits as far as the
human eye can see, it is simply irresponsible for the administration to
continue to short-circuit the budget process with a never-ending series
of huge supplemental appropriations bills. There ought to be some
fiscal discipline here in Washington, DC, and that means that the
President ought to budget for the cost of the wars. The President
pretends that his budget reduces the deficit over 5 years, but he fails
to include the full cost of the war in Iraq.
Therefore, Mr. President, I offer an amendment, once again, to state
the sense of the Senate that the President should include in his next
annual budget request a full estimate--a full estimate--of the cost of
the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My amendment states that any
funds requested by the President should be placed in regular
appropriations accounts, and should be accompanied by a detailed
justification for those funds.
The Senate must continue to call for responsible budgeting for the
cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have appreciated the
efforts of the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. I
have appreciated that. And I thank Senator Stevens for his work with me
on the previous four times I have offered this amendment. He is an
outstanding chairman of a very important subcommittee. I am grateful
for his past support of this amendment on this issue.
Now, the Senate--I apologize for my voice. When I was a boy, there
came a time when my voice changed. Well, it is changing again,
apparently. I guess I cannot claim to be a boy again.
Mrs. BOXER. You are getting young again, I say to the Senator.
Mr. BYRD. I am getting young again, I am told.
The Senate ought to go on the record once again in favor of fiscal
responsibility. With the cost of the war in Iraq escalating beyond $320
billion, it is time to bring some sanity to the budget process. So I
urge my colleagues to support this amendment to tell the President to
budget for the cost of the wars.
Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the Senator sending the amendment to the
desk?
Mr. BYRD. I ask for a vote. I hope we can vote for this amendment. I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, and
Mr. Carper, proposes an amendment numbered 3709.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on requests for funds for
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal years after
fiscal year 2007)
On page 117, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
SENSE OF SENATE ON REQUESTS FOR FUNDS FOR MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN FOR FISCAL YEARS AFTER FISCAL YEAR 2007
Sec. 1312. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following
findings:
(1) Title IX of the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act, 2006 (division A of Public Law 109-148) appropriated
$50,000,000,000 for the cost of ongoing military operations
overseas in fiscal year 2006, although those funds were not
requested by the President.
(2) The President on February 16, 2006, submitted to
Congress a request for supplemental appropriations in the
amount of $67,600,000,000 for ongoing military operations in
fiscal year 2006, none of which supplemental appropriations
was included in the concurrent resolution on the budget for
fiscal year 2006, as agreed to in the Senate on April 28,
2005.
(3) The President on February 6, 2006, included a
$50,000,000,000 allowance for ongoing military operations in
fiscal year 2007, but did not formally request the funds or
provide any detail on how the allowance may be used.
(4) The concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year
2007, as agreed to in the Senate on March 16, 2007,
anticipates as much as $86,300,000,000 in emergency spending
in fiscal year 2007, indicating that the Senate expects to
take up another supplemental appropriations bill to fund
ongoing military operations during fiscal year 2007.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) any request for funds for a fiscal year after fiscal
year 2007 for ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and
Iraq should be included in the annual budget of the President
for such fiscal year as submitted to Congress under section
1105(a) of title 31, United States Code;
(2) any request for funds for such a fiscal year for
ongoing military operations should provide an estimate of all
funds required in that fiscal year for such operations;
(3) any request for funds for ongoing military operations
should include a detailed justification of the anticipated
use of such funds for such operations; and
(4) any funds provided for ongoing military operations
overseas should be provided in appropriations Acts for such
fiscal year through appropriations to specific accounts set
forth in such appropriations Acts.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Let's vote. We have voted on this four times already.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
Mr. VITTER. Thank you, Mr. President.
First, a small bit of housekeeping.
Amendment No. 3628, As Modified
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that language revisions be
made to my amendment No. 3628, which is already at the desk. And those
revisions, which are largely technical in nature, will be sent up to
the desk right now.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. We want to
have a chance to look at those before the Senator sends them to the
desk.
Mr. VITTER. That would be fine. This is an amendment that has already
been presented to the minority side. This is a language revision of
that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so
modified.
The amendment (No. 3628), as modified, is as follows:
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 the Department of Justice, the
Department of Interior, the Department of Labor, the
Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human
Services 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 that take
into consideration critical need and physical damages to
property, equipment, and financial losses; 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.
Amendment No. 3668
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I also call up and briefly wish to speak
on a new amendment, which I will also send to the minority side,
amendment No. 3668.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
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 3668.
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 provide for the treatment of a certain Corps of Engineers
project)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
[[Page S3675]]
LA LOUTRE RIDGE PROJECT
Sec. 7__. For purposes of chapter 3 of title I of division
B of the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico,
and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-148; 119
Stat. 2761), the water control structure in the vicinity of
La Loutre Ridge shall be considered to be an authorized
operations and maintenance activity of the Corps of
Engineers.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment does not cost any money. It
does not increase the size or expense of the bill whatsoever. It does,
however, add significant language regarding an issue that is very
important to coastal Louisiana with regard to coastal flooding, and
that has to do with the now infamous Mississippi River Gulf Outlet,
also known as MRGO.
MRGO is considered by virtually everyone to be a real problem, a
conduit of hurricane storm surge and a conduit of saltwater intrusion
which has eaten away at our coastal marshland in southeast Louisiana
and has produced increased vulnerability to coastal storm surge.
Many eyewitnesses and computer models confirm that MRGO contributed
to enormous destruction caused by Hurricane Katrina. Hundreds of
thousands of acres of coastal lands have also been lost because of the
saltwater intrusion invited by MRGO.
My amendment, again, would not increase the funding in the bill. It
would not increase the cost of the bill. It would simply allow for a
portion of the funds already appropriated in the last emergency
supplemental for hurricane recovery for the restoration of the banks of
MRGO to also be used to begin implementation of a water control
structure to block hurricane storm surge from rolling up through MRGO
to populated areas. Again, there is broad consensus that this needs to
be done to battle against this vulnerability.
In closing, I would simply underscore my amendment does not score,
does not appropriate any new money.
With that, Mr. President, I yield back my time.
Mr. BYRD. Vote. Let's vote. Vote, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment by
the Senator from Louisiana?
Vote on Amendment No. 3709
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to
my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is now pending.
Mr. BYRD. Let's vote.
Mr. COCHRAN. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
Mr. BYRD. The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. The yeas and nays
have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum).
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 family illness.
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 94, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 101 Leg.]
YEAS--94
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--6
Bond
DeMint
Isakson
Kerry
Rockefeller
Santorum
The amendment (No. 3709) 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 North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. I call up my amendment which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the
pending amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object, if the Senator from
North Carolina will agree, I ask unanimous consent that subsequent to
his amendment, I be recognized next in order to offer my amendment, and
I will have no objection to setting aside the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. Reserving the right to object, I have 3 minutes' worth of
housekeeping that I would like to get done on amendments that will make
the process move faster and offer amendments without debate so they can
get in the queue. I would like to do that after Senator Burr, if that
is OK with the Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, if it helps my colleagues, it will take me
20 seconds to offer this amendment.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask
the Senator from New Jersey how long does he anticipate speaking on his
amendment?
Mr. MENENDEZ. About 10 to 12 minutes.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after
Senator Burr, Senator Coburn be recognized, then Senator Menendez, and
then I be recognized for up to 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Amendment No. 3713
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending
amendment, and I call up my amendment, which is at 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 North Carolina [Mr. Burr] proposes an
amendment numbered 3713.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, 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 as follows:
(Purpose: To allocate funds to the Smithsonian Institution for research
on avian influenza)
On page 238, line 23, strike ``Control and Prevention,
and'' and insert ``Control and Prevention, $5,000,000 shall
be for the Smithsonian Institution to carry out global and
domestic disease surveillance, and''.
Mr. BURR. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Amendment No. 3641, Division III, Withdrawn
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3641, division
III, and ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3693, 3694, 3695, and 3697, En Bloc
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up four amendments to place them in
the queue. They are the Barak Obama-Coburn transparency amendments,
four in order. I ask they be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be
called up en bloc, and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
[[Page S3676]]
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], for Mr. Obama, for
himself, proposes amendments numbered 3693, 3694, 3695, and
3697, en bloc.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3693
(Purpose: To reduce wasteful spending by limiting to the reasonable
industry standard the spending for administrative overhead allowable
under Federal contracts and subcontracts)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
LIMITS ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS UNDER FEDERAL CONTRACTS
Sec. 7032. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used by an executive agency to enter into any Federal
contract (including any subcontract or follow-on contract)
for which the administrative overhead and contract management
expenses exceed the reasonable industry standard as published
by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
unless, not later than 3 days before entering into the
contract, the head of the executive agency provides to the
chair and ranking member of the relevant oversight committees
of the Senate and the House of Representatives a copy of the
contract, any other documentation requested by Congress, and
a justification for excessive overhead expense.
amendment no. 3694
(Purpose: To improve accountability for competitive contracting in
hurricane recovery by requiring the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to approve contracts awarded without competitive
procedures)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
ACCOUNTABILITY IN HURRICANE RECOVERY CONTRACTING
Sec. 7032. None of the funds appropriated by this Act that
are made available for relief and recovery efforts related to
Hurricane Katrina and the other hurricanes of the 2005 season
may be used by an executive agency to enter into any Federal
contract (including any follow-on contract) exceeding
$1,000,000 through the use of procedures other than
competitive procedures as required by the Federal Acquisition
Regulation and, as applicable, section 303(a) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C.
253(a)) or section 2304(a) of title 10, United States Code,
unless the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
specifically approves the use of such procedures for such
contract, and not later than 7 days after entering into the
contract, the executive agency provides to the chair and
ranking member of the relevant oversight committees of the
Senate and the House of Representatives a copy of the
contract, the justification for the procedures used, the date
when the contract will end, and the steps being taken to
ensure that any future contracts for the product or service
or with the same vendor will follow the appropriate
competitive procedures.
amendment no. 3695
(Purpose: To improve financial transparency in hurricane recovery by
requiring the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to make
information about Federal contracts publicly available)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY IN HURRICANE RECOVERY CONTRACTING
Sec. 7032. None of the funds appropriated by this Act that
are made available for relief and recovery efforts related to
Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season may
be used by an executive agency to enter into any Federal
contract (including any follow-on contract) exceeding
$250,000 unless the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget publishes on an accessible Federal Internet website an
electronically searchable monthly report that includes an
electronic mail address and phone number that can be used to
report waste, fraud, or abuse, the number and outcome of
fraud investigations related to such recovery efforts
conducted by executive agencies, and for each entity that has
received more than $250,000 in amounts appropriated or
otherwise made available by this Act, the name of the entity
and a unique identifier, the total amount of Federal funds
that the entity has received since August 25, 2005, the
geographic location and official tax domicile of the entity
and the primary location of performance of contracts paid for
with such amounts, and an itemized breakdown of each contract
exceeding $100,000 that specifies the funding agency, program
source, contract type, number of bids received, and a
description of the purpose of the contract.
amendment no. 3697
(Purpose: To improve transparency and accountability by establishing a
Chief Financial Officer to oversee hurricane relief and recovery
efforts)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
TITLE VII--EMERGENCY RECOVERY SPENDING OVERSIGHT
SEC. 8001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Oversight of Vital
Emergency Recovery Spending Enhancement and Enforcement Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 8002. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Chief Financial Officer.--The term ``Chief Financial
Officer'' means the Hurricane Katrina Recovery Chief
Financial Officer.
(b) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Office of the
Hurricane Katrina Recovery Chief Financial Officer.
SEC. 8003. ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS.
(a) Establishment.--There is established within the
Executive Office of the President, the Office of the
Hurricane Katrina Recovery Chief Financial Officer.
(b) Chief Financial Officer.--
(1) Appointment.--The Hurricane Katrina Recovery Chief
Financial Officer shall be the head of the Office. The Chief
Financial Officer shall be appointed by the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) Qualifications.--The Chief Financial Officer shall--
(A) have the qualifications required under section
901(a)(3) of title 31, United States Code; and
(B) have knowledge of Federal contracting and policymaking
functions.
(c) Authorities and Functions.--
(1) In general.--The Chief Financial Officer shall--
(A) be responsible for the efficient and effective use of
Federal funds in all activities relating to the recovery from
Hurricane Katrina;
(B) strive to ensure that--
(i) priority in the distribution of Federal relief funds is
given to individuals and organizations most in need of
financial assistance; and
(ii) priority in the distribution of Federal reconstruction
funds is given to business entities that are based in
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida or business
entities that hire workers who resided in those States on
August 24, 2005;
(C) perform risk assessments of all programs and operations
related to recovery from Hurricane Katrina and implement
internal controls and program oversight based on risk of
waste, fraud, or abuse;
(D) oversee all financial management activities relating to
the programs and operations of the Hurricane Katrina recovery
effort;
(E) develop and maintain an integrated accounting and
financial management system, including financial reporting
and internal controls, which--
(i) complies with applicable accounting principles,
standards, and requirements, and internal control standards;
(ii) complies with such policies and requirements as may be
prescribed by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget;
(iii) complies with any other requirements applicable to
such systems; and
(iv) provides for--
(I) complete, reliable, consistent, and timely information
which is prepared on a uniform basis and which is responsive
to the financial information needs of the Office;
(II) the development and reporting of cost information;
(III) the integration of accounting and budgeting
information; and
(IV) the systematic measurement of performance;
(F) monitor the financial execution of the budget of
Federal agencies relating to recovery from Hurricane Katrina
in relation to actual expenditures;
(G) have access to all records, reports, audits, reviews,
documents, papers, recommendations, or other material which
are the property of Federal agencies or which are available
to the agencies, and which relate to programs and operations
with respect to which the Chief Financial Officer has
responsibilities;
(H) request such information or assistance as may be
necessary for carrying out the duties and responsibilities
provided by this section from any Federal, State, or local
governmental entity, including any Chief Financial Officer
under section 902 of title 31, United States Code, and, upon
receiving such request, insofar as is practicable and not in
contravention of any existing law, any such Federal
Governmental entity or Chief Financial Officer under section
902 shall cooperate and furnish such requested information or
assistance;
(I) to the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in
advance by appropriations Acts, be authorized to--
(i) enter into contracts and other arrangements with public
agencies and with private persons for the preparation of
financial statements, studies, analyses, and other services;
and
(ii) make such payments as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section;
(J) for purposes of the Improper Payments Information Act
of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note), perform, in consultation with
the Office of Management and Budget, the functions of the
head of an agency for any activity relating to the recovery
from Hurricane Katrina that is not currently the
responsibility of the head of an agency under that Act; and
(K) transmit a report, on a quarterly basis, regarding any
program or activity identified by the Chief Financial Officer
as susceptible to significant improper payments under section
2(a) of the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31
U.S.C. 3321 note) to the appropriate inspector general.
[[Page S3677]]
(2) Access.--Except as provided in paragraph (1)(H), this
subsection does not provide to the Chief Financial Officer
any access greater than permitted under any other law to
records, reports, audits, reviews, documents, papers,
recommendations, or other material of any Office of Inspector
General established under the Inspector General Act of 1978
(5 U.S.C. App.).
(3) Coordination of agencies.--In the performance of the
authorities and functions under paragraph (1) by the Chief
Financial Officer the President (or the President's designee)
shall act as the head of the Office and the Chief Financial
Officer shall have management and oversight of all agencies
performing activities relating to the recovery from Hurricane
Katrina.
(4) Regular reports.--
(A) In general.--Every month the Chief Financial Officer
shall submit a financial report on the activities for which
the Chief Financial Officer has management and oversight
responsibilities to--
(i) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(ii) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives;
(iii) the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House of Representatives; and
(iv) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Contents.--Each report under this paragraph shall
include--
(i) the extent to which Federal relief funds have been
given to individuals and organizations most in need of
financial assistance;
(ii) the extent to which Federal reconstruction funds have
been made available to business entities that are based in
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida or business
entities that hire workers who resided in those States on
August 24, 2005;
(iii) the extent to which Federal agencies have made use of
sole source, no-bid or cost-plus contracts; and
(iv) an assessment of the financial execution of the budget
of Federal agencies relating to recovery from Hurricane
Katrina in relation to actual expenditures.
(C) First report.--The first report under this paragraph
shall be submitted for the first full month for which a Chief
Financial Officer has been appointed.
(d) Responsibilities of Chief Financial Officers.--Nothing
in this Act shall be construed to relieve the
responsibilities of any Chief Financial Officer under section
902 of title 31, United States Code.
(e) Availability of Records.--Upon request to the Chief
Financial Officer, the Office shall make the records of the
Office available to the Inspector General of any Federal
agency performing recovery activities relating to Hurricane
Katrina, or to any Special Inspector General designated to
investigate such activities, for the purpose of performing
the duties of that Inspector General under the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.).
SEC. 8004. REPORTS OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE.
The Government Accountability Office shall provide
quarterly reports to the committees described under section
8003(c)(4)(A) relating to all activities and expenditures
overseen by the Office, including--
(1) the accuracy of reports submitted by the Chief
Financial Officer to Congress;
(2) the extent to which agencies performing activities
relating to the recovery from Hurricane Katrina have made use
of sole source, no-bid or cost-plus contracts;
(3) whether Federal funds expended by State and local
government agencies were spent for their intended use;
(4) the extent to which Federal relief funds have been
distributed to individuals and organizations most affected by
Hurricane Katrina and Federal reconstruction funds have been
made available to business entities that are based in
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, or Florida or business
entities that hire workers who resided in those States on
August 24, 2005; and
(5) the extent to which internal controls to prevent waste,
fraud, or abuse exist in the use of Federal funds relating to
the recovery from Hurricane Katrina.
SEC. 8005. ADMINISTRATIVE AND SUPPORT SERVICES.
(a) In General.--The President shall provide administrative
and support services (including office space) for the Office
and the Chief Financial Officer.
(b) Personnel.--The President shall provide for personnel
for the Office through the detail of Federal employees. Any
Federal employee may be detailed to the Office without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
SEC. 8006. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
necessary to carry out this title.
SEC. 8007. TERMINATION OF OFFICE.
(a) In General.--The Office and position of Chief Financial
Officer shall terminate 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Extension.--The President may extend the date of
termination annually under subsection (a) to any date
occurring before 5 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(c) Notification.--The President shall notify the
committees described under section 8003(c)(4)(A) 60 days
before any extension of the date of termination under this
section.
Mr. COBURN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
Amendment No. 3675
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3675 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside, and the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Inouye, Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Lieberman,
proposes an amendment numbered 3675.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, 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 as follows:
(Purpose: To provide additional appropriations for research,
development, acquisition, and operations by the Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, for the purchase of container inspection equipment
for developing countries, for the implementation of the Transportation
Worker Identification Credential program, and for the training of
Customs and Border Protection officials on the use of new technologies)
On page 237, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
For an additional amount for the training of employees of
the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, $10,000,000, to
remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, 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.
On page 237, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
For an additional amount for the purchase of new container
inspection technology at ports in developing countries and
the training of local authorities, pursuant to section 70109
of title 46, United States Code, on the use of such
technology, $50,000,000, to remain available until September
30, 2007: Provided, 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.
For an additional amount for the implementation of section
70105 of title 46, United States Code, $12,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007: Provided, 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.
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
TRANSPORTATION VETTING AND CREDENTIALING
For an additional amount for the implementation of section
70105 of title 46, United States Code, $13,000,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2007, of which $250,000 shall
be made available for the Secretary of Homeland Security's
preparation and submission to Congress of a plan, not later
than September 30, 2006, with specific annual benchmarks, to
inspect 100 percent of the cargo containers destined for the
United States: Provided, 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.
On page 237, line 25, strike ``$132,000,000'' and insert
``$232,000,000'': Provided, 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, when Congress adjourned on its 2-week
recess, I heard from many of my constituents back home in New Jersey
that they were somewhat shocked to find out that one of the most
critical elements of our security, the ports in the Nation, still were
subject to such vulnerability.
Just this weekend, we received a vivid reminder of the threat that
still exists when Osama bin Laden released yet another tape threatening
to kill innocent Americans.
We often talk tough, but then sometimes we act weak. And nowhere is
that concern more urgent than at our ports where 4\1/2\ years after
September 11, we still don't know what is contained in 95 percent of
all of the containers entering this country. That is a colossal
failure, and we are here to make sure that Congress takes steps to
reverse it.
In the collapse of the Dubai Ports World deal, the eyes of the Nation
were riveted on this problem. Most Americans were shocked to discover
that only 5 percent--5 percent--of the containers passing through our
ports are
[[Page S3678]]
inspected, and they demanded improvement.
In the wake of that deal, the Senate responded by approving our plan
that added nearly $1 billion to the budget to fund port security, and
that was a good first step. But as we said at the time, the proof will
be if Congress actually steps forward to follow through with the
funding.
The 9/11 Commission told us that to prevent a future terrorist
attack, we had to think outside the box. But at our ports, we actually
need to think inside the container because we need to know what is in
the containers that enter the country through our ports every day.
The bottom line is that we need to get on the road to 100 percent
scanning and inspections of the containers coming into this country,
and we need to get there sooner rather than later. That is why this
amendment requires the administration to provide Congress and the
American people with a clear plan, with specific yearly benchmarks to
achieve 100 percent inspections of containers.
The Appropriations Committee took a big step forward by approving
Senator Byrd's amendment to spend $648 million to strengthen
inspections, fund new radiation portals and cargo container systems,
and add money for local port security grants. That is a dramatic
improvement over the other body's bill which did nothing to add
additional funding for port security.
But I believe we need to do more. To protect our ports at home, we
have to inspect containers abroad, before they arrive in our ports, our
towns, and our cities. We must also ensure that foreign ports,
especially those ports in less prosperous countries, are safe and
secure because this cargo comes to our ports as well.
The amendment, therefore, provides $50 million to help those
countries that may not have the wherewithal to achieve the latest cargo
scanning technologies because without that kind of support, those ports
could remain the weakest link in our international port security chain.
We have to make sure they do not become the easy targets for terrorists
looking for lax security practices.
I listened a lot to those in the shipping industry, and officials
have stated that the Container Security Initiative operated by Customs
and the Border Patrol is highly dependent on the willingness of a
foreign port to participate in the program and to effectively implement
security measures. But even if a foreign port is prepared to
participate and to implement security measures, they may lack the
funding to procure the technologies and to hire and train adequate
personnel to do so.
In compounding this potential security gap, the shipping industry has
noted there is inconsistency among U.S. ports in the way they operate.
So if there are already operational inconsistencies among U.S. ports,
one can only imagine how security measures are implemented at foreign
ports of origins shipping goods to the United States.
The additional funding I am calling for will help redress some of
those inconsistencies by providing some of the state-of-the-art
scanning technologies used at U.S. ports in countries abroad.
While we are on the subject of technologies, I have heard from a
number of Federal, State, and local officials working at the port in my
home State, Port Elizabeth in Newark, who have emphasized the critical
need of deployment of the most current detection and scanning
technologies at U.S. ports. They are currently using first-generation
detection technologies, older technologies noted to be insufficient to
combat newer and more complex security threats.
Cargo volume at that port alone is expected to double by 2020. Space
at most ports is at a premium. Access to freight is extremely
difficult. Cargo containers are often stacked end to end and door to
door. We have to give Federal, State, and local law enforcement and
Homeland Security officials near-term access to technologies that make
their jobs feasible. We cannot send them out to fight a war with sticks
and stones.
The complexity and vulnerability of the cargo container transport
process only makes the need for robust technologies that much more
important. My amendment, therefore, also provides $100 million for
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office research and development. We have not
sufficiently focused on creating second-generation technologies for
nonintrusive inspections which the private sector is unlikely to
develop. It is time for that to change.
Our technologies are only as good as the people operating them. That
is why we also have included $10 million for CBP training. That
amendment would provide $10 million to train CBP officers so they can
utilize new technologies and processes to improve port security.
It actually takes six such officers alone to safely operate one
vehicle and cargo inspection unit. Right now at Port Elizabeth in
Newark, they operate four of those mobile units and two stationary
ones. That is 36 officers dedicated solely to operating one scanning
technology. Those officers need to be trained before they can operate
those units.
Cargo volume is forecast to increase. We want to see that in the
context of our trade and economy, but terminal operators are extending
commercial hours to accommodate that increased cargo volume. We have to
make sure it moves quickly and safely. Doing so not only requires
effective modern technologies but also a sufficient number of well-
trained staff to operate the scanning and detection equipment. That is
going to require additional officers to be on the job for extended
hours and even on the weekends.
Once we have the right technologies and a sufficient number of well-
trained CBP and Coast Guard officers with the tools to do their jobs,
we need to make sure that port workers who come in and out of the
ports, particularly into sensitive areas, are properly screened.
This is not about randomly excluding people we don't like from coming
in. This is about ensuring that the men and women who are in essential
parts of the cargo supply chain cannot be compromised by interests
seeking to harm our Nation's port. That is where the Transport Worker
Identification Program comes in.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act, MTSA, enacted in 2002
requires DHS to supply a worker identification card that uses
biometrics, such as fingerprints, to control access to secure areas of
ports or ships. The TSA was supposed to issue those credentials to more
than 6 million maritime workers in August of 2004. It is April of 2006
and nearly 2 years down the line, and there is still no nationwide port
worker credential program.
If this was such a priority, such a critical part of our security,
why hasn't it happened? The GAO report back at the end of 2004 said
that TSA didn't have a plan for managing this project. Guess what else
they said would happen without that plan. Failure to develop such a
plan places the program at higher risks of cost overruns, missed
deadlines, underperformance. Missed deadlines--that obviously has
happened. Cost overruns, I wouldn't doubt it. And I suppose the jury is
still out on ``underperformance.'' They concluded that each delay of
the program to develop a credential card postpones enhancements to port
security and complicates port stakeholders' efforts to make the
appropriate investment decisions regarding security infrastructure.
Just this week, Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff announced that
DHS will finally begin background checks on port workers as a precursor
to a nationwide rollout of this long-awaited port worker credential
program by the fall of 2006. I am glad they are finally getting around
to doing this.
But there is one problem, and that is that they lack fiscal 2006
funding to implement the rollout. So we better hope that DHS has put
some money away in its coffers to pay for this big event. It is
probably not wise to bank on a timely passage of the 2007 spending bill
in time to provide DHS with the funds they need for that rollout. We
can certainly hope that is the case, but I wouldn't want to jeopardize
a rollout of a critical program by banking on something that may or may
not happen in time.
That is why this amendment also allows DHS to have the funds
necessary on an urgent, near-term basis, so that we can finally, 2
years later, get to where we need to be.
Let me close by reminding us all that strengthening security at our
ports is
[[Page S3679]]
not going to be cheap. Given the budgetary challenges we face, we
understand it is a difficult choice. But an attack on one of our ports
would not only cause a tremendous toll in loss of life, but it would
also shut down a port and all of the economic activity it generates.
Just in my home State of New Jersey alone, with the third largest
port in the country, the mega port of the east coast, 200,000 jobs, $25
billion of economic activity, that is what is at stake, in addition to
the lives.
If we could roll back the clock 10 years and spend a few billion
dollars to raise the levees in New Orleans to be able to withstand a
category 5 hurricane, we could have saved hundreds of lives, as well as
the billions of dollars more that it would take to rebuild that city. I
don't want our country to look back in hindsight a few years from now
with the realization that had we spent the necessary dollars now to
improve the security at our ports, we could have prevented a major
terrorist attack.
Who among us would be satisfied in the aftermath of an attack that we
did not take the steps that we could have in order to prevent such an
attack because we were unwilling to make the commitment to do so? That
is the choice the Congress faces for the security of our country. It is
an essential one that we need to make right now, and this amendment
offers that opportunity.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Menendez
amendment to adequately fund port and container security.
Our ports are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. We know this.
We only inspect about 5 percent of the shipping containers that enter
our country.
Terrorists could smuggle themselves, traditional weapons, and nuclear
or chemical weapons into a harbor.
From there, they could potentially launch an attack even more
devastating than 9/11.
In my home State of New Jersey--where we lost some 700 victims on 9/
11--Federal officials have identified the 2-mile stretch between Port
Newark and Newark Liberty International Airport as the most dangerous
target in the United States for terrorism.
But port security is not just a local concern. Our ports are
essential to the flow of goods and commodities in our national economy,
and vital to our military; 95 percent of all goods imported into this
country arrive by ship.
Mr. President, this administration's mishandling of the Dubai Ports
deal has highlighted the fact that our ports are still vulnerable.
We need a way to ensure that 100 percent of the containers coming
into our country are WMD-free.
The Bush administration has said that we can't check all containers
coming into the U.S. for WMD's.
But we check every airline passenger for weapons. We do not just look
at an airline passenger's ticket and say ``OK, on paper, this guy looks
fine.''
That is the Bush administration's current idea of port security--just
a simple look at the paperwork.
Mr. President, we need to check containers for WMDs. The amendment of
my friend, Senator Menendez, will give us the tools we need to do this.
It will adequately protect our ports, our economy and our lives.
I urge my colleagues to support the Menendez amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. I yield to the Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. I appreciate that. Mr. President, I rise to ask for a
unanimous consent agreement so we can set in order the speakers that we
have left on our side. I see you have several on your side as well, so
perhaps we can work together to do this. But we have remaining Senator
Conrad, who would like 7 minutes; Senator Levin who would like 2
minutes; Senator Schumer would like 5 minutes, and I would like 1
minute to offer an amendment on behalf of Senator Harkin. If we could
set in order a time on those, we would be happy to go back and forth
with the Members on your side who would like to speak.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, if the Senator from Washington will yield,
I would ask that on this side, following the Democratic speaker,
whoever that is, that I be allowed to speak, and then following me
would be Senator Cornyn, and that there be an intervening--since we are
switching sides back and forth, I assume that you would have somebody
to put in the queue. So I would ask that you modify your unanimous
consent request.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would be happy to modify my unanimous
consent request to say that following the Senator from Georgia, Senator
Conrad be recognized for 7 minutes, that Senator Allard then be
recognized, Senator Levin for 2 minutes, Senator Cornyn for whatever
time he asks for, Senator Schumer for 5 minutes, and then Senator Byrd.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if my colleagues would advise how much
time they have so we can let our Senators know when to be on the floor
so we can move things along more quickly. Can the Senators from Texas
and Colorado tell us how much time they want?
Mr. ALLARD. I want 1 minute to offer an amendment and then another
one I want to call up. I think I can get that accomplished within 7
minutes, so I request 7 minutes.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I need about 20 minutes, but I would be
willing to work with the other side if there are short-time speakers,
to try to make sure people would not have to wait. So I am sure we can
work something out.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I amend my unanimous consent request, and
I would ask for 1 minute for myself in the intervening time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending amendment is the Menendez
amendment.
Amendment No. 3702
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Menendez amendment be set aside and that I be allowed to call up
amendment No. 3702.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss], for himself and
Mr. Isakson, proposes an amendment numbered 3702.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, 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 as follows:
(Purpose: Relating to the comprehensive review of the procedures of the
Department of Defense on mortuary affairs)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW ON PROCEDURES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON
MORTUARY AFFAIRS
Sec. 7032. (a) Report.--As soon as practicable after the
completion of the comprehensive review of the procedures of
the Department of Defense on mortuary affairs, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report on the review.
(b) Additional Elements.--In conducting the comprehensive
review described in subsection (a), the Secretary shall also
address, in addition to any other matters covered by the
review, the following:
(1) The utilization of additional or increased
refrigeration (including icing) in combat theaters in order
to enhance preservation of remains.
(2) The relocation of refrigeration assets further forward
in the field.
(3) Specific time standards for the movement of remains
from combat units.
(4) The forward location of autopsy and embalming
operations.
(5) Any other matters that the Secretary considers
appropriate in order to speed the return of remains to the
United States in a non-decomposed state.
(c) Additional Element of Policy on Casualty Assistance to
Survivors of Military Decedents.--Section 562(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006
(Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3267; 10 U.S.C. 1475 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(12) The process by which the Department of Defense, upon
request, briefs survivors of military decedents on the cause
of, and any investigation into, the death of such military
decedents and on the disposition and transportation of the
remains of such decedents, which process shall--
[[Page S3680]]
``(A) provide for the provision of such briefings by fully
qualified Department personnel;
``(B) ensure briefings take place as soon as possible after
death and updates are provided in a timely manner when new
information becomes available;
``(C) ensure that--
``(i) such briefings and updates relate the most complete
and accurate information available at the time of such
briefings or updates, as the case may be; and
``(ii) incomplete or unverified information is identified
as such during the course of such briefings or updates; and
``(D) include procedures by which such survivors shall,
upon request, receive updates or supplemental information on
such briefings or updates from qualified Department
personnel.''.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, this bill that we are debating today
will appropriate somewhere in the neighborhood of $70 billion for
ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism. This
money is important to ensure that our military has the resources
necessary to win this war and continue to be the best equipped, best
trained, and best led military in the world. However, there is another
side to this war on terrorism that doesn't deal with money. It deals
with something more important than money, and that is people.
We are sending our young men and women overseas to faraway places to
fight and win this war. These men and women are the most important part
of this war--more important than any tank, any humvee, any airplane, or
any ship that we will buy with the money that we will appropriate
through the bill that we are debating today.
I have been to visit our young men and women fighting in Iraq on four
different occasions. I have gone on these trips with the intention of
seeing firsthand what is happening in the theater and to say thank you
to the men and women, with their boots on the ground, with the hope of
encouraging our servicemembers who are on the front lines in this
global war on terrorism. But as all of us who have gone to visit our
soldiers overseas find, we are the ones who wind up being encouraged
and inspired by them. We are encouraged by their professionalism, their
maturity, their commitment, and their courage to do the job that our
country has asked them to do.
However, we all know that some of these brave men and women do not
return. Some of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have given
their lives in this global war on terrorism. These men and women are,
in the fullest sense of the words, fallen heroes who have given the
greatest sacrifice possible so that we in this country, as well as the
Iraqi people, the Afghan people, and people in less fortunate parts of
the world than the United States, can live in a world that is safe and
free from terror.
SGT Paul Saylor was one of these heroes. Sergeant Saylor was from
Bremen, Georgia, and was a member of the Georgia National Guard's 48th
Brigade, assigned to the 1st Battalion, 108th Armor Regiment, serving
in Iraq last summer. Sergeant Saylor's humvee was part of a six-vehicle
convoy and ran off the road into a canal early on the morning of August
15, 2005, near Mahmudiyah, Iraq, and Sergeant Saylor drowned along with
two of his fellow soldiers.
Due to several factors, Sergeant Saylor's body reached an advanced
state of decomposition before it was returned to the United States, and
the Saylor family was unable to view Sergeant Saylor's remains at his
funeral. I think we can all understand the extent to which this added
to the grief of the Saylor family and can sympathize with them and any
other family in this situation and commit ourselves to doing our
absolute best to ensure that this does not happen again.
The process and policies related to how we treat the remains of our
fallen heroes and how we communicate and interact with their survivors
deserves the absolute highest priority that we can give. It is
extremely unfortunate that survivors are ever unable to view the
remains of their family members and, therefore, unable to say their
final goodbye and obtain the sense of closure that we all know is so
important in these situations. It is also the case that on occasion,
survivors have been given incomplete or inaccurate information relative
to what happened to their family members and how their remains were
handled after they died. This is also extremely unfortunate and adds
grief to an already grieving family.
The amendment that Senator Isakson and I have proposed calls on the
Department of Defense to improve their current policy related to
mortuary affairs, how the remains of servicemembers are handled, and
how the military communicates with survivors relative to their deceased
family members. This amendment will ensure that we are doing absolutely
everything we can to ensure the remains of our fallen heroes receive
the respect and care they deserve, and that their family receives the
best treatment, as well as the most timely, accurate information
possible.
Specifically, this amendment calls on the Department of Defense to
improve policies related to refrigeration of remains in theater, the
specific time standards for movement of remains, as well as examine the
feasibility of forward locating autopsy and embalming operations from
the continental United States to theater, and modify any other factors
that could possibly shorten the time line for returning soldiers in a
nondecomposed state.
This amendment also calls on the Department to improve their policies
for communicating with family members to ensure family members are
briefed by fully qualified Department of Defense personnel, that any
partial or unverified information that families are provided is
identified as such, and ensures that the Department provides updates to
the family whenever new information becomes available.
Mr. President, the unimaginable grief and sorrow that a family
experiences when their soldier makes the ultimate sacrifice should not
be made even more distressing by not allowing the family an opportunity
to say their final goodbye. I strongly commend the Saylor family for
their courage and strength in sharing their family's experience and
their comments relative to this process with us so that we in the U.S.
Congress can work to ensure that other military families do not have to
go through the same thing.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Amendment No. 3714
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to call up Harkin amendment No. 3714.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Harkin,
proposes an amendment numbered 3714.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 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 as follows:
(Purpose: To increase by $8,500,000 the amount appropriated for
Economic Support Fund assistance, to provide that such funds shall be
made available to the United States Institute of Peace for programs in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and to provide an offset)
On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE PROGRAMS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
Sec. 1406. (a) The amount appropriated by this chapter for
other bilateral assistance under the heading ``Economic
Support Fund'' is hereby increased by $8,500,000.
(b) Of the amount appropriated by this chapter for other
bilateral assistance under the heading ``Economic Support
Fund'', as increased by subsection (a), $8,500,000 shall be
made available to the United States Institute of Peace for
programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(c) Of the funds made available by chapter 2 of title II of
division A of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief,
2005'' (Public Law 109-13) for military assistance under the
heading ``Peacekeeping Operations'' and available for the
Coalition Solidarity Initiative, $8,500,000 is rescinded.
Amendment No. 3621
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I understand from the managers that
amendment No. 3621 has been agreed to on both sides. First, let me
describe this amendment.
Mr. President, today we are holding expectations that a new unity in
government in Iraq will soon be completed. It has been long awaited. I
have just completed. I think, my seventh
[[Page S3681]]
trip there with Senator Levin and other Members of the Senate. We had a
delegation of six.
During the course of our inspection visit, it was repeatedly brought
to our attention that there was a desperate need for additional
civilians from the Department of Energy to work on the power systems,
the oil, and from the Department of Justice to work on the civil
justice system; from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to
work on the health situations. And I have been working with members of
the administration, and, indeed, the President himself on two occasions
has stressed the importance of encouraging more civilians within our
civil structure to go over and help this government fully establish
itself, exercise the responsibilities of sovereignty, and to move
forward.
There need to be modest corrections made to the existing law to
enable the Secretaries and heads of the agencies to provide certain
benefits, inducements, and other situations with their respective
individual employees in the hopes that they can quickly give up the
security of their neighborhoods and life today and join the brave men
and women of the Armed Forces in, hopefully, completing in a shorter
period of time this task to provide for full sovereignty in Iraq.
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
Qaeda.
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 to each of them that we need to get the entirety
of our Federal Government engaged to a greater degree.
The Department of Defense concurs. I was struck by the 2006 QDR which
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.
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 5 other Senators heard the same
sentiments from our field commanders and diplomatic officials during at
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 out Nation's goals and objectives in
Iraq and Afghanistan, and I have spoken to the President about this.
The aim of this bill is to assist the United States Government in
recruiting personnel to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to avoid
inequities in allowances, benefits, and gratuities among similarly-
situated United States Government civilian personnel. It is essential
that the heads of all agencies that 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 work force 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.
I have sent a letter to the Chief of Staff at the White House in this
regard on March 15, and I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, March 15, 2006.
Mr. Andrew H. Card, Jr.,
Chief of Staff, The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Card: 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 3 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, Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and General John Abizaid, USA, Commander,
United States Central Command, have emphasized the importance
of interagency coordination in Iraq and Afghanistan. General
Abizai stated in his 2006 posture statement to the Senate
Armed Services Committee that ``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
[[Page S3682]]
cooperation with allies and partners abroad.'' In the years
since 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.
I have sent letters to nearly all cabinet-level officials
asking for their personal review of the level of support
being provided by their respective department or agency in
support of our Nation's objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Following this review, I requested that they submit a report
to me no later than April 10, 2006, on their current and
projected activities in both theaters of operations, as well
as their 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. My understanding is the amendment was introduced by
myself, I think 2 days ago. There was some debate at that time. I know
of no opposition to it.
Therefore, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside and that the
Senate consider this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Is there further debate on the amendment? The question is on agreeing
to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3621) was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3620
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to bring up a second amendment. It
relates to the Carrier John F. Kennedy. I ask I be permitted here
momentarily to have this amendment called up.
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 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 weight 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 and 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, Mr. President, 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.
I spoke to this amendment 2 days ago. Several colleagues, I know,
have an interest in it. But here is the situation. John F. Kennedy
bears one of the most famous names in naval history. That ship has
sailed for 38 years in harm's way to defend the interests of this
country. That ship has finally come to its resting place. It is now
berthed in Jacksonville, FL. It has been the determination of the Chief
of Naval Operations that its present condition--it is a conventionally
powered ship--no longer enables that ship to perform its primary
mission, namely launching and retrieving aircraft and other associated
missions of a carrier. Its systems have finally worn out. Its
powerplant has worn out.
At 38 years of age and the enormous investment necessary to bring it
back--if in fact they could repair it, and there is some doubt as to
whether even with the expenditure of huge sums they could repair it--
then the ship would have a limited life.
We have known for about 3 or 4 months about the condition of this
ship and the Navy's intention to retire it. A year or so ago, I and
others put in a law by which we told the Department of Defense that
they must maintain a fleet of 12 carriers. This amendment simply amends
that law such that that number is now 11, and thereby allows this ship
to be retired.
I would point out to my colleagues, quite apart from the fame of this
ship, there are 2,000 sailors in the ship's company. If you added up
all the family members of the total naval family of husbands and wives
and children associated with that ship, it is probably as high as 5,000
individuals. They must be considered, as to their future. Right now
there is no future. They have to
[[Page S3683]]
remain aboard that ship until certain steps are taken to begin to fully
deactivate it. But not all of them. Most will be transferred to other
assignments and their families relocated.
It is costing the taxpayers $20 million a month to maintain that size
of crew and this ship in Jacksonville, FL. I think it is the
appropriate time the Senate recognize we must entrust to the Chief of
Naval Operations, and to others, the decision to retire this ship. This
amendment is for that purpose. I am the last one to ever want to retire
naval ships, and I have had the experience as a former Secretary of the
Navy, but I recognize that time comes. It has come with this famous
ship.
I do not want this issue to be used in a way to detract from the
extraordinary record of this ship and the proud name it bears. I hope
my colleagues will agree to allow this amendment to be called up for
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying aside the pending
amendment?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have to object at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Amendment No. 3715
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3715 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. I also ask unanimous consent Senator Clinton be included
as original cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself and
Mrs. Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 3715.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent 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. CONRAD. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. This is an
amendment to pay for the war costs that are in the underlying
legislation. The alternative is to simply stack the war costs on the
debt. I believe these war costs should have been budgeted for and paid
for. Instead, we just keep putting it on the charge card.
I want to put in context our overall fiscal condition. This looks
back to 2001, when we last had a surplus. Every year the deficits have
been up, up, and away. This year they are projecting a deficit of $371
billion. But that is the tip of the iceberg because the fact is the
deficit is much smaller than the amount that is being added to the
debt. This year we now anticipate the debt will be increased by $654
billion. That is simply unacceptable, to be running up the debt in
these record amounts, especially before the baby boomers retire. If the
budget that is now stalled between the House and the Senate is adopted,
the debt will go up each and every year, $500 billion or $600 billion a
year, until we reach a debt of $11.8 trillion.
When this President came into office, the debt was $5.2 trillion. At
the end of his first year--we don't hold him responsible for the first
year because we were still operating under the policies of the previous
administration--we were in surplus. At the end of his first year the
debt was $5.8 trillion. At the end of this year it will be $8.6
trillion, headed for almost $12 trillion. It is time we get serious
about dealing with the fiscal imbalances in this country.
Here is one of the results of this fiscal policy. It took all these
Presidents, 42 of them, 224 years to run up $1 trillion of debt held by
foreigners. This President in just 5 years has more than doubled that
amount, more than doubled the amount that 42 Presidents ran up in terms
of foreign debt.
The Comptroller General of the United States, Mr. Walker, has warned:
Continuing on this unsustainable fiscal path will gradually
erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of
living, and ultimately our national security.
Let's pay for at least the war costs that are in this underlying
amendment. We can do that much. The emergency provisions, those things
that were unpredictable, maybe we can understand that those things
aren't paid for in the underlying amendment. But the war costs? My
goodness, we have been at war more than 3 years. These things should
have been budgeted for. They should have been paid for. That is what I
propose in this amendment. I do it in a way that I think is fiscally
responsible.
We provide the same offsets as the Senate-passed tax bill, closing
the tax gap by shutting down abusive tax shelters and providing for
other reforms. That raises $19 billion. That includes revoking tax
benefits for leasing foreign subway and sewer systems. What a scam that
is. Companies are buying foreign sewer systems and depreciating it on
their U.S. taxes, and then leasing them back to the foreign cities
where those sewer systems exist. What a scam. Let's close it down.
We do it by ending loopholes for large oil companies, which raises $5
billion; requiring tax withholding on Government payments to
contractors such as Halliburton, withholding that others are asked to
do in our society. Why not them? We do it by renewing the Superfund tax
so that polluting companies pay for cleaning up toxic waste sites,
which raises $9 billion; ending a loophole that rewards U.S. companies
that move manufacturing jobs overseas raises $6 billion; repealing the
phaseout of limits on personal exemptions and itemized deductions for
very high-wealth individuals raises $28 billion; and by closing other
tax loopholes and miscellaneous offsets of $1 billion.
This is the legislation, this is the amendment. It pays for the war
costs--$74 billion. We are going to see those who are serious about
being fiscally responsible and those who just want to talk about it.
This is an opportunity to pay for the war costs that should have been
budgeted, that should have been paid for in the regular order.
I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. Let's get serious
about addressing the explosion of debt and deficits in this country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized to offer an
amendment.
Amendment No. 3701
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3701 on behalf of
myself, Senator Durbin, and Senator Mikulski, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are
set aside. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Allard] for himself, and Mr.
Durbin, and Ms. Mikulski, proposes an amendment numbered
3701.
Mr. ALLARD. 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 funding for critical emergency structural repairs
to the Capitol Complex utility tunnels)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE __--OTHER MATTERS
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Capitol Power Plant
For an additional amount for ``Capitol Power Plant'',
$27,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011:
Provided, 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. ALLARD. Mr. President, this amendment would provide $27.6 million
to the Architect of the Capitol to make emergency repairs to utility
tunnels that serve the Capitol complex, including asbestos abatement.
Unfortunately, this problem has come to our attention recently, and it
is a serious crisis that can't wait for the fiscal year 2007
appropriations bill.
About 2 months ago, the Office of Compliance filed a complaint with
the Architect of the Capitol due to the conditions of these utility
tunnels, including the possibility of tunnel cave-ins, the presence of
unsafe levels of asbestos, inadequate means of emergency egress, and
inadequate means of communications for those who work in the
[[Page S3684]]
utility tunnels. This is the first time the compliance office has filed
a complaint--a step up from a citation.
When this issue was brought to our attention, Senator Durbin and I
held oversight hearings with the Architect and demanded a plan to
ensure employees who work in the tunnels are protected from unsafe
levels of asbestos, fix falling concrete, provide adequate means of
egress throughout the tunnels, improve communications for utility
workers, secure the tunnels so only authorized employees are given
access, and review whether tunnel workers are receiving an appropriate
level of environmental or hazardous duty pay.
In response, the Architect sent a preliminary plan for fixing the
tunnels with a price tag that could ultimately reach several hundred
million dollars. Frankly, I was shocked by the magnitude of this
problem and the cost estimate. I was appalled that this problem was
identified by the Office of Compliance in a citation 6 years ago, and
hasn't been put on a fast track for addressing the health and safety
problems until Senator Durbin and I asked for a plan. These are serious
problems and high levels of asbestos have been found.
The amendment I am offering today includes funds to remediate
asbestos, remove loose concrete, replace the roof of a section of one
of the tunnels, add escape hatches, and improve the communications
system.
We have reviewed the funding estimates with the Government
Accountability Office. Notwithstanding the fact that some of the
estimates are preliminary, they are warranted. I had hoped that we
could reprogram funds from within the Architect's budget but the
magnitude of the need is far beyond what could be found within the
Architect's budget.
I urge the Senate to agree to the amendment. I ask that it be agreed
to by a voice vote.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was recently brought to our attention
by the Office of Compliance that the utility tunnels which carry steam
and chilled water throughout the Capitol complex are rapidly
deteriorating and are putting the workers who must enter these tunnels
in extremely hazardous and potentially life-threatening situations.
Falling concrete, the presence of asbestos, inadequate egress routes
and a faulty communications system threaten the lives of the utility
tunnel employees on a daily basis. Several of these tunnels are on the
verge of collapse--not only threatening the lives of the workers in the
tunnels, but potentially cutting off steam and chilled water to the
entire Capitol complex. The $27.6 million in emergency funding that
Senator Allard and I are requesting is critical to allow the Architect
of the Capitol to expeditiously address the deplorable conditions that
exist in these utility tunnels and make the changes necessary to assure
that the health and safety of the workers is not jeopardized. This
funding will allow the Architect's office to immediately begin critical
design work on replacing the ``Y'' tunnel, which is in the worst
condition, including structural repair, egress improvements, asbestos
abatement, and temperature improvements. The funding will also
accelerate work on replacing the roof on the ``R'' tunnel and for other
communications, structural repairs, and emergency escape routes.
Without this funding, we continue to place these employees in life-
threatening working conditions. I urge my colleagues to support this
critically needed funding.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise tonight along with my colleagues
Senator Allard and Senator Durbin to speak in support of an amendment
we introduced today to the Emergency Supplemental bill. This amendment
provides $27.6 million in Federal funds to repair unsafe working
conditions in the tunnels below the Capitol Building. This amendment is
needed now because the Architect of the Capitol has failed to
ameliorate hazardous conditions that exist in the tunnels beneath the
Capitol. These conditions endanger the health of the tunnel workers and
their families. Something needs to be done, and it needs to be done
now. That is why I am co-sponsoring this amendment.
I first learned of these horrible conditions when I received a letter
signed by 10 members of the tunnel shop that detailed the dangerous
conditions that exist in the tunnels, and provided information that
some of these conditions have existed for at least 6 years. There is no
doubt, many of problems in the tunnels have only worsened during that
period from neglect and further deterioration. Despite this, no action
was taken to make sure the workers were safe on the job. The conditions
are so poor that in 2000 the Congressional Office of Compliance issued
citations to the Architect of the Capitol. Yet, it appears the
Architect of the Capitol ignored the citations and did not make the
necessary repairs or take immediate, effective steps to protect these
workers. It was clear that these workers came to me only after all
other recourse failed them.
In addition, the utility workers informed me that the U.S. Capitol
Police as a matter of policy are not allowed to patrol the tunnels; if
it is true that U.S. Capitol Police are forbidden from patrolling the
tunnels because of the hazardous conditions, then the failure to
address these conditions also has created a potentially serious
security loophole that could endanger all of us who work in the Capitol
and surrounding buildings. This is unacceptable.
I agree with the workers that something needs to be done, and it
needs to be done now. I have already demanded that the Architect of the
Capitol at a minimum take immediate steps to protect the employees who
work in the tunnels, ameliorate all of the conditions for which
citations were issued in 2000, obtain a comprehensive and credible
safety assessment that specifically addresses all hazardous conditions,
and particularly the issues raised by the tunnel employees, develop and
implement a plan to remedy the hazardous conditions and maintain a safe
working environment, and address the security concerns these tunnels
present.
The response I received was that the Architect needs additional funds
in order to make the necessary repairs. This amendment would provide
the money needed to make sure that these brave men working in tunnels
are safe. The tunnel workers should not have to wait another day to be
assured of a safe and secure working environment. They already have
waited too long.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question
is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3701) was agreed to.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, 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.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I have one other unanimous consent. I ask
unanimous consent that notwithstanding the Salazar amendment is now
pending I be allowed to send up the second-degree amendment to his
amendment No. 3645.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to
sending up a second degree?
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Michigan is recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and my dear
friend from Washington for helping to organize the amendment sequence.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside, and
I call up No. 3710.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3710
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Ms.
Collins, and Mr. Reed, proposes an amendment numbered 3710.
Mr. LEVIN. 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 require reports on policy and political developments in
Iraq)
On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
[[Page S3685]]
REPORTS ON POLICY AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN IRAQ
Sec. 1406. (a) Reports Required.--The President shall, not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act and every 30 days thereafter until a national unity
government has been formed in Iraq and the Iraq Constitution
has been amended in a manner that makes it a unifying
document, submit to Congress a report on United States policy
and political developments in Iraq.
(b) Elements.--Each report under subsection (a) shall
include the following information:
(1) Whether the Administration has told the Iraqi
political, religious, and tribal leaders that agreement by
the Iraqis on a government of national unity, and subsequent
agreement to amendments to the Iraq Constitution to make it
more inclusive, within the deadlines that the Iraqis set for
themselves in their Constitution, is a condition for the
continued presence of United States military forces in Iraq.
(2) The progress that has been made in the formation of a
national unity government and the obstacles, if any, that
remain.
(3) The progress that has been made in the amendment of the
Iraq Constitution to make it more of a unifying document and
the obstacles, if any, that remain.
(4) An assessment of the effect that the formation of, or
failure to form, a unity government, and the amendment of, or
failure to amend, the Iraq Constitution, will have on the
``significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with
Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a
free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for
the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq''
as expressed in the United States Policy in Iraq Act (section
1227 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3465; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note)).
(5) The specific conditions on the ground, including the
capability and leadership of Iraqi security forces, that
would lead to the phased redeployment of United States ground
combat forces from Iraq.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment is proposed on behalf of
Senator Collins, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and myself, which
relates to Iraq. It would require certain reports be filed by the
President and the administration relative to political developments
that exist in Iraq. We have a new prime minister who has been
designated in Iraq. It is an important step. It is a useful step toward
hopefully achieving a government of national unity. However, there are
some very critical steps that lie ahead, including the completion of
that government of national unity so that the Prime Minister-designate
can then form a government and have that government approved by the
assembly. It is an important step. It involves the Interior Minister,
who is in control of the police, the Defense Minister, who is in
control of the Army, the Oil Minister, who controls the nation's key
resource--oil--as well as the other ministries that are involved in any
government of national unity.
It is critically important that the political process succeed in Iraq
and that the pressure be kept on the Iraqis to achieve a government of
national unity, and as well to consider amendments to its constitution.
Their constitution has some deadlines that are imposed by them. It is
those deadlines which it is critically important be met. These are not
our deadlines. These are not dates we set. These aren't dates which
certain things must happen by that we are determining. These are dates
that the Iraqi Constitution has set up for the completion of a national
government and for consideration of amendments to the Iraqi
Constitution.
Our amendment says that the President of the United States should
report to the Congress every 30 days on the progress which is being
made in terms of the political solution which has to be achieved there,
both in terms of a government of national unity as well as
consideration of amendments to the Constitution. It would ask the
President to report to us as to whether he has informed the Iraqis that
the continued presence of the United States military forces depends
upon their meeting the deadlines which they have set for themselves.
It also requires an assessment of the effect which the formation of
or the failure to form a unity government and the amendment or failure
to amend the Iraqi constitution would have on the significant
transition to full Iraqi sovereignty and to the Iraqi forces taking the
lead in support of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the
conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from
Iraq as expressed in our law.
That policy was adopted by this Senate last year. Also in the reports
that are required, it would mandate that the conditions on the ground
be set forth by the President and whether those conditions would lead
to the phased redeployment of our ground combat force. It is a
reporting requirement.
In conclusion, this is not the amendment which we referred to last
week because there is no reference in this reporting amendment anymore
to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. The original form of this
amendment had a reference to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. That was
ruled not to be in order by the Parliamentarian. We have, therefore,
dropped the sense-of-the-Senate reference. This is now exclusively a
reporting amendment. We hope the Senate will adopt this at the
appropriate time.
Again, I thank the Chair and I thank our friends who are trying to
keep this sequence and are managing this bill. We appreciate their
courtesies.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay aside the
pending amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3723 and 3724, En Bloc
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk en
bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes amendments
numbered 3723 and 3724.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3723
(Purpose: To appropriate funds to address price gouging and market
manipulation and to provide for a report on oil industry mergers)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MEASURES TO ADDRESS PRICE GOUGING AND MARKET
MANIPULATION.
(a) Federal Trade Commission.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Federal Trade Commission Salaries and Expenses'' under the
heading ``RELATED AGENCIES'' of title V of the Science,
State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-108), $10,000,000.
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Federal Trade
Commission Salaries and Expenses'', as increased by paragraph
(1), $10,000,000 shall be available to investigate and
enforce price gouging complaints and other market
manipulation activities by companies engaged in the wholesale
and retail sales of gasoline and petroleum distillates.
(b) Commodity Futures Trading Commission.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Commodity Futures Trading Commission'' under the heading
``RELATED AGENCIES AND FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION'' of
title VI of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006
(Public Law 109-97), $10,000,000.
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Commodity
Futures Trading Commission'', as increased by paragraph (1),
$10,000,000 shall be available for activities--
(A) to enhance investigation of energy derivatives markets;
(B) to ensure that speculation in those markets is
appropriate and reasonable; and
(C) for data systems and reporting programs that can
uncover real-time market manipulation activities.
(c) Securities and Exchange Commission.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Securities and Exchange Commission Salaries and Expenses ''
under the heading ``RELATED AGENCIES'' of title V of the
Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-108), $5,000,000.
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Securities and
Exchange Commission Salaries and Expenses'', as increased by
paragraph (1), $5,000,000 shall be available for review and
analysis of major integrated oil and gas company reports and
filings for compliance with disclosure, corporate governance,
and related requirements.
(d) Energy Information Administration.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Energy Information Administration'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' of title III of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103),
$10,000,000.
[[Page S3686]]
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Energy
Information Administration'', as increased by paragraph (1),
$10,000,000 shall be available for activities to ensure real-
time and accurate gasoline and energy price and supply data
collection.
(e) Energy Supply and Conservation.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Energy Supply and Conservation'' under the heading
``DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'' of title III of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103),
$315,000,000.
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Energy Supply
and Conservation'', as increased by paragraph (1),
$315,000,000 shall be available to provide grants to State
energy offices for--
(A) the development and deployment of real-time information
systems for energy price and supply data collection and
publication;
(B) programs and systems to help discover energy price
gouging and market manipulation;
(C) critical energy infrastructure protection;
(D) clean distributed energy projects that promote energy
security; and
(E) programs to encourage the adoption and implementation
of energy conservation and efficiency technologies and
standards.
(f) Government Accountability Office.--
(1) Additional amount.--For an additional amount for
``Salaries and Expenses'' under the heading ``GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'' of title I of the Legislative Branch
Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-55), $50,000.
(2) Use.--Of the amount appropriated for ``Salaries and
Expenses'', as increased by paragraph (1), $50,000 shall be
available to the Government Accountability for the
preparation of a report, to be submitted to the appropriate
committees of Congress not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, that includes--
(A) a review of the mergers between Exxon and Mobil,
Chevron and Texaco, and Conoco and Phillips, and other
mergers of significant or comparable scale in the oil
industry that have occurred since 1990, including an
assessment of the impact of the mergers on--
(i) market concentration;
(ii) the ability of the companies to exercise market power;
(iii) wholesale prices of petroleum products; and
(iv) the retail prices of petroleum products;
(B) an assessment of the impact that vitiating the mergers
reviewed under subparagraph (A) would have on each of the
matters described in clauses (i) through (iv) of subparagraph
(A);
(C) an assessment of the impact of prohibiting any 1
company from simultaneously owning assets in each of the oil
industry sectors of exploration, refining and distribution,
and retail on each of the matters described in clauses (i)
through (iv) of subparagraph (A); and
(D) an assessment of--
(i) the effectiveness of divestitures ordered by the
Federal Trade Commission in preventing market concentration
as a result of oil industry mergers approved since 1995; and
(ii) the effectiveness of the Federal Trade Commission in
identifying and preventing--
(I) market manipulation;
(II) commodity withholding;
(III) collusion; and
(IV) other forms of market power abuse in the oil industry.
(g) Emergency Designation.--The amounts provided under this
section are 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.
amendment no. 3724
(Purpose: To improve maritime container security)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. MARITIME CONTAINER SECURITY.
(a) Maritime Container Inspections.--
(1) In general.--Beginning on the date on which regulations
are issued under subsection (d), a maritime cargo container
may not be shipped to the United States from any port
participating in the Container Security Initiative (CSI)
unless--
(A) the container has passed through a radiation detection
device;
(B) the container has been scanned using gamma-ray, x-ray,
or another internal imaging system;
(C) the container has been tagged and catalogued using an
on-container label, radio frequency identification, or global
positioning system tracking device; and
(D) the images created by the scans required under
subparagraph (B) have been reviewed and approved by the
Office of Container Evaluation and Enforcement established
under subsection (b).
(2) Model.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided under subparagraph (B),
the Secretary of Homeland Security shall model the inspection
system described in paragraph (1) after the Integrated
Container Inspection System established at the Port of Hong
Kong.
(B) New technology.--The Secretary is not required to use
the same companies or specific technologies installed at the
Port of Hong Kong if a more advanced technology is available.
(b) Container Evaluation and Enforcement Unit.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established, within Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection of the Department of Homeland
Security, the Office of Container Evaluation and Enforcement,
which shall receive and process images of maritime cargo
containers received from CSI ports.
(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006,
$5,000,000, to remain available until expended, to hire and
train customs inspectors to carry out the responsibilities
described in paragraph (1). 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.
(c) Port Security Summit.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall convene a port security summit with
representatives from the major international shipping
companies to address--
(1) gaps in port security; and
(2) the means to implement the provisions of this section.
(d) Rulemaking.--
(1) Draft regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall submit, to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, draft
regulations to carry out subsection (a) and a detailed plan
to implement such regulations.
(2) Final regulations.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall issue final regulations to carry out
subsection (a).
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I will be brief and explain the
amendments. I thank my friend from Texas and others for allowing me to
go ahead.
Amendment No. 3723
The first amendment is a very simple one. It asks the GAO for a
report that includes a review of the mergers between ExxonMobil,
ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, and other significant mergers in the oil
industry that have occurred since 1990, to look at the impact that
vitiating the mergers would have on market concentration, market power,
wholesale and retail petroleum prices, and an assessment of the impact
of prohibiting any one company from simultaneously owning assets in
each of the oil industry sectors: exploration, refining, and
distribution.
To me, very simply put, one of the problems--not the only one--we
have is we have allowed the oil industry to become too concentrated,
letting the No. 1 and No. 2 companies merge because there was a lull in
the market at a given time, and then letting No. 3 and No. 4 merge. The
second largest foreign company, which I think is the sixth largest
American company, all created too much concentration. I think it is one
of the reasons that these days we see the price as high as it is.
The prices are sticking. When the spot market goes up, the price
immediately goes up; when the spot market goes down, the price takes a
long time to go down. When Katrina affected Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio,
and Illinois, and they get most of their oil from the gulf, the price
goes up the same amount in California.
I think it is high time that we reviewed these mergers. I don't know
if they can be undone. I don't know what the effect would be, but to
sit here and shrug our shoulders at this recent phenomenon of mergers
doesn't make much sense. This amendment asks that a review be done.
The amendment would also provide more funding to the Energy
Information Agency to assure accurate, real-time collection of price
and data supply. I think we are not getting that kind of accurate
information.
The big oil companies like to be shielded behind the wall of
conflicting data and interesting jargon. It is too easy for them to
pull the wool over consumers' eyes. The EIA is a nonpartisan
governmental agency. This amendment would allow better information to
come forward and make sure that we do the right thing.
Amendment No. 3724
The second amendment deals with port security. I know my colleague
from New Jersey has offered one. I have been involved in this issue for
a long time, as has he. When I went with my friend from South Carolina,
Senator Graham, to Hong Kong to visit the ports there, I was utterly
amazed at the port security system they have. It showed that we could
have speed both in commerce and security. Their checking of containers
for nuclear and
[[Page S3687]]
other types of devices, checking in a variety of different ways, and
having computers crossmatch those ways is incredible.
My amendment would require that the system we saw--not the specific
system but what the system does that we saw--be implemented at all
container security initiative ports around the world within 3 years.
There are 43 CSI ports. They account for 80 percent of worldwide
container traffic. It would be a huge boon to preventing the worst that
could befall our country, and that is a nuclear weapon be smuggled into
our ports.
The amendment mandates that every container pass through the same
type of layered screening system, as at the terminal port in Hong Kong.
Every container must pass through an advanced radiation portal,
internal imaging system, be tagged and cataloged with a label, an RRFI,
or a GPS device. It would make us far more secure.
The second amendment also requires that Homeland Security send to
Congress within 180 days a detailed plan on how to deploy this system.
Those are the two amendments. I look forward to debating them as we
move forward.
I thank my colleagues from Mississippi, Washington, and Texas for
their courtesy.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside in order that I may call up the Kennedy
amendments numbered 3716 and 3688.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3716 and 3688 En Bloc
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send the amendments to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Kennedy,
proposes amendments numbered 3716 and 3688 en bloc.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3716
(Purpose: To provide funds to promote democracy in Iraq)
On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
UNITED STATES STRATEGY TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ
Sec. 1406. (a) Of the funds provided in this chapter for
the Economic Support Fund, not less than $96,000,000 should
be made available through the Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor of the Department of State, in coordination
with the United States Agency for International Development
where appropriate, to United States nongovernmental
organizations for the purpose of supporting broad-based
democracy assistance programs in Iraq that promote the long
term development of civil society, political parties,
election processes, and parliament in that country.
amendment no. 3688
(Purpose: To provide funding for the covered countermeasures process
fund program)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. FUNDING FOR THE COVERED COUNTERMEASURES PROCESS
FUND.
For an additional amount for funding the Covered
Countermeasures Process Fund under section 319F-4 of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d-6e), $289,000,000:
Provided, That the amounts provided for under this section
shall be designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to
section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress): Provided
further, That amounts provided for under this section shall
remain available until expended.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, this amendment No. 3716 provides $96
million for American non-governmental organizations helping Iraqis to
create the essential building blocks of democracy. It also requires the
Secretary of State to provide Congress with its short and long-term
plans to strengthen democracy at the regional, provincial, and national
levels in Iraq.
Last year, Iraq passed several important milestones on the long road
to democracy. However, as important as the two elections and the
referendum on the constitution were, they were not decisive, and it is
far from clear that democracy is being firmly established in Iraq.
The process of building democratic institutions is different and
requires patience in developing effective governmental structures, a
genuine rule of law, political parties committed to peaceful means, an
active civil society, and a free press. Constructive international
engagement is essential as well in the case of Iraq. For a country as
heavily repressed as long as Iraq, democracy will take even longer to
take root.
It is far from clear, however, that the Bush administration has a
long-term strategy--or even a short-term strategy--to solidify and
continue the democratic gains that have been made so far.
American non-governmental organizations such as the National
Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the
National Endowment for Democracy, IFES, formerly known as the
International Foundation for Election Systems, the International
Research and Exchanges Board and America's Development Foundation are
well respected in Iraq and throughout the world. Each has substantial
operations in Iraq, and their work is essential to the administration's
goal of building a stable democracy in Iraq.
Yet despite their success so far in helping to promote democracy and
the enormous risks their employees take by working in the war zone, the
administration has made no long-term commitment to provide funding for
their work in Iraq. Each organization operates on pins and needles,
never knowing when their funding for Iraq operations will dry up.
The American non-governmental organization IFES has been in Iraq
since October 2003. It has provided technical assistance in each of
Iraq's elections so far, and it has been asked to provide such
assistance for regional and provincial elections scheduled for April
2007.
It is also preparing for a possible second referendum on the
constitution, and is assisting as well in the enactment and
implementation of legislation governing the operations, of a new
election council for local elections.
Inexplicably, funding will run out in June, and the administration
has not yet committed any additional funds. None of the funds in this
supplemental spending bill are set-aside for it, and none of the meager
$63 million requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for democracy-
building is intended for IFES either. Our amendment would provide $20
million to sustain its democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months,
through the end of fiscal year 2007.
An independent media is also essential to a successful democracy. A
U.S. non-governmental organization, the International Research and
Exchanges Board, IREX, is working in Iraq to see that the Iraqi people
have independent, professional, high quality news and public affairs
information. To create an environment in which a free press can
flourish, it is also seeking to establish a legal, regulatory, and
policy environment that supports independent media.
IREX's funding for these important programs is also running out, and
it will be forced to close its operations this summer, which would pull
the rug out from under many struggling new press organizations in Iraq.
Our amendment would provide $6 million to sustain IREX's democracy work
in Iraq for the next 18 months.
In addition, the non-governmental organization America's Development
Foundation provides essential aid to support and sustain civil society
in Iraq. ADF and its partner civil society organizations in Iraq have
provided training and assistance to thousands of Iraqi government
officials at the national, regional, and local levels on issues such as
anti-corruption, transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility,
whistleblower protection, and the development of non-government
organizations.
ADF wants to continue its work, but its funding will end in June.
USAID supports this work and has a contract pending, but it doesn't
have the resources to do so. Our amendment provides $16 million to
sustain its work over the next 18 months.
Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy has no clear sense of
what the future holds for them in Iraq.
[[Page S3688]]
Two of the endowment's core grantees--the Center for International
Private Enterprise and the Labor Solidarity Center in Iraq--have
important democracy promotion functions.
Since opening a regional office in Baghdad in October 2003, the
Center for International Private Enterprise has worked to build
capacity for market oriented democratic reform in Iraq. It has provided
training and grant support to approximately 22 Iraqi business
associations and chambers of commerce.
The Labor Solidarity Center works directly with Iraqi trade unions to
develop skills in strengthening independent and democratic trade
unions.
In addition, the endowment partners with 32 local organizations on
the ground in Iraq to promote and sustain civil society projects on
political development, raising awareness of women's rights, and
encouraging the free flow of information to Iraqi citizens.
The endowment wants to continue working directly with the Iraqi
people and be able to guarantee continuity in its democracy grants to
Iraqi organizations. But no funding is set aside in this bill or in the
fiscal year 2007 budget for its programs.
Our amendment provides $10 million to sustain the democracy programs
of the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Labor
Solidarity Center, and the Endowment for Democracy's local partners for
18 months.
Similarly, the International Republican Institute and the National
Democratic institute are doing truly impressive work in Iraq under
extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
The International Republican Institute programs in Iraq have focused
on three principal goals: development of an issue-based political party
system; establishment of the foundation for a more transparent and
responsive government; and the emergence of an active and politically
involved civil society.
The National Democratic Institute supports a number of democracy
programs in Iraq as well, with emphasis on political parties,
governance, civil society and women's rights. It has four offices in
Iraq to promote these essential building blocks of strong democracy,
and it works directly with Iraqi partners and hundreds of local civic
organization.
Both IRI and NDI want to continue to build these essential links
between the government and political parties, in order to enable the
government to become more responsive and effective in addressing the
needs of Iraq's people.
Despite the impressive contribution of these two Institutes to
democracy in Iraq, neither is guaranteed future funding for its
programs. The administration's budget provides only $7.5 million for
each Institute--enough for just two months of operating expenses. Our
amendment provides an additional $22 million for each institute's
essential democracy programs in Iraq for the next 18 months.
Thousands of Iraqis are working hard, often at great risk to
themselves, to develop civic groups, participate in political parties
and election, and run for and serve in political office. The dramatic
pictures of Iraqis waving their purple fingers after voting in past
elections remind us of the enormous stakes.
Progress to avoid civil war and defeat the insurgency is directly
related to progress on democracy-building, and ongoing work on this
all-important issue must be a top priority.
We must be clear in our commitment to stand by these organizations
that are working on the front lines in the struggle for democracy in
Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and others that
we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a
long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed by appropriate
resources.
President Bush has called for patience in Iraq. He should heed his
own advice. He can't speak about having patience for democracy in Iraq,
and then cut funding for the groups who are assisting so capably in its
development.
Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the
democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. By failure to
guarantee continuity for their programs, we send a confusing signal
that can only be harmful for this very important effort.
We are now spending more than $1 billion a week for military
operations for the war in Iraq. At this rate, it would take the
military less than 1 day to spend the $96 million provided in this
amendment for democracy promotion. Surely, we can commit this level of
funding for democracy programs over the next 18 months.
Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree
that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill,
guaranteed continuity, and adequate resources.
It makes no sense to shortchange Iraq's political development. We
need a long-term political strategy, and we must back up that strategy
with the needed resources, if we truly hope to achieve a stable,
peaceful and democratic Iraq.
Our amendment provides the resources necessary to ensure continuity
in these democracy programs in Iraq, and I urge my colleagues to
support it.
Amendment No. 3600
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those
amendments be set aside and I ask for the regular order to consider
Harkin amendment No. 3600.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendment is now pending.
Mrs. MURRAY. There is no further debate on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3600) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendments be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendments Nos. 3722, 3699, and 3672 En Bloc
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I call up three amendments, 3722, 3699,
3672.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cornyn] proposes amendments
numbered 3722, 3699, and 3672 en bloc.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3722
(Purpose: To provide for immigration injunction reform)
On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
TITLE VIII--IMMIGRATION INJUNCTION REFORM
SEC. 8001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Fairness in Immigration
Litigation Act of 2006''.
SEC. 8002. APPROPRIATE REMEDIES FOR IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION.
(a) Requirements for an Order Granting Prospective Relief
Against the Government.--
(1) In general.--If a court determines that prospective
relief should be ordered against the Government in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, the court shall--
(A) limit the relief to the minimum necessary to correct
the violation of law;
(B) adopt the least intrusive means to correct the
violation of law;
(C) minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the
adverse impact on national security, border security,
immigration administration and enforcement, and public
safety, and
(D) provide for the expiration of the relief on a specific
date, which is not later than the earliest date necessary for
the Government to remedy the violation.
(2) Written explanation.--The requirements described in
paragraph (1) shall be discussed and explained in writing in
the order granting prospective relief and must be
sufficiently detailed to allow review by another court.
(3) Expiration of preliminary injunctive relief.--
Preliminary injunctive relief shall automatically expire on
the date that is 90 days after the date on which such relief
is entered, unless the court--
(A) makes the findings required under paragraph (1) for the
entry of permanent prospective relief; and
(B) makes the order final before expiration of such 90-day
period.
(4) Requirements for order denying motion.--This subsection
shall apply to any order denying the Government's motion to
vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise terminate an order
granting prospective relief in any civil action pertaining to
the administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of
the United States.
(b) Procedure for Motion Affecting Order Granting
Prospective Relief Against the Government.--
[[Page S3689]]
(1) In general.--A court shall promptly rule on the
Government's motion to vacate, modify, dissolve or otherwise
terminate an order granting prospective relief in any civil
action pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States.
(2) Automatic stays.--
(A) In general.--The Government's motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve, or otherwise terminate an order granting
prospective relief made in any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States shall automatically, and without further order
of the court, stay the order granting prospective relief on
the date that is 15 days after the date on which such motion
is filed unless the court previously has granted or denied
the Government's motion.
(B) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay under
subparagraph (A) shall continue until the court enters an
order granting or denying the Government's motion.
(C) Postponement.--The court, for good cause, may postpone
an automatic stay under subparagraph (A) for not longer than
15 days.
(D) Orders blocking automatic stays.--Any order staying,
suspending, delaying, or otherwise barring the effective date
of the automatic stay described in subparagraph (A), other
than an order to postpone the effective date of the automatic
stay for not longer than 15 days under subparagraph (C),
shall be--
(i) treated as an order refusing to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an injunction; and
(ii) immediately appealable under section 1292(a)(1) of
title 28, United States Code.
(c) Settlements.--
(1) Consent decrees.--In any civil action pertaining to the
administration or enforcement of the immigration laws of the
United States, the court may not enter, approve, or continue
a consent decree that does not comply with subsection (a).
(2) Private settlement agreements.--Nothing in this section
shall preclude parties from entering into a private
settlement agreement that does not comply with subsection (a)
if the terms of that agreement are not subject to court
enforcement other than reinstatement of the civil proceedings
that the agreement settled.
(d) Expedited Proceedings.--It shall be the duty of every
court to advance on the docket and to expedite the
disposition of any civil action or motion considered under
this section.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Consent decree.--The term ``consent decree''--
(A) means any relief entered by the court that is based in
whole or in part on the consent or acquiescence of the
parties; and
(B) does not include private settlements.
(2) Good cause.--The term ``good cause'' does not include
discovery or congestion of the court's calendar.
(3) Government.--The term ``Government'' means the United
States, any Federal department or agency, or any Federal
agent or official acting within the scope of official duties.
(4) Permanent relief.--The term ``permanent relief'' means
relief issued in connection with a final decision of a court.
(5) Private settlement agreement.--The term ``private
settlement agreement'' means an agreement entered into among
the parties that is not subject to judicial enforcement other
than the reinstatement of the civil action that the agreement
settled.
(6) Prospective relief.--The term ``prospective relief''
means temporary, preliminary, or permanent relief other than
compensatory monetary damages.
SEC. 8003. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--This title shall apply with respect to all
orders granting prospective relief in any civil action
pertaining to the administration or enforcement of the
immigration laws of the United States, whether such relief
was ordered before, on, or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Pending Motions.--Every motion to vacate, modify,
dissolve or otherwise terminate an order granting prospective
relief in any such action, which motion is pending on the
date of the enactment of this Act, shall be treated as if it
had been filed on such date of enactment.
(c) Automatic Stay for Pending Motions.--
(1) In general.--An automatic stay with respect to the
prospective relief that is the subject of a motion described
in subsection (b) shall take effect without further order of
the court on the date which is 10 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act if the motion--
(A) was pending for 45 days as of the date of the enactment
of this Act; and
(B) is still pending on the date which is 10 days after
such date of enactment.
(2) Duration of automatic stay.--An automatic stay that
takes effect under paragraph (1) shall continue until the
court enters an order granting or denying the Government's
motion under section 8002(b). There shall be no further
postponement of the automatic stay with respect to any such
pending motion under section 8002(b)(2). Any order, staying,
suspending, delaying or otherwise barring the effective date
of this automatic stay with respect to pending motions
described in subsection (b) shall be an order blocking an
automatic stay subject to immediate appeal under section
8002(b)(2)(D).
amendment no. 3699
(Purpose: To establish a floor to ensure that States that contain areas
that were adversely affected as a result of damage from the 2005
hurricane season receive at least 3.5 percent of funds set aside for
the CDBG program)
On page 200, line 21, insert ``Provided further, That as
long as $5,200,000,000 is provided under this heading no
State shall be allocated less than 3.5 percent of the amount
provided under this heading:'' after ``impacted areas:''.
amendment no. 3672
(Purpose: To require that the Secretary of Labor give priority for
national emergency grants to States that assist individuals displaced
by Hurricane Katrina or Rita)
At the end of chapter 7 of title II, insert the following:
NATIONAL EMERGENCY GRANTS
Sec. __. In distributing unobligated funds described in
section 132(a)(2)(A) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(29 U.S.C. 2862(a)(2)(A)) and appropriated for fiscal year
2006 for national emergency grants under section 173 of such
Act (29 U.S.C. 2918) (not including funds available for
Community-Based Job Training Grants under section 171(d) of
such Act (29 U.S.C. 2916(d)), the Secretary shall give
priority to States that--
(1) received national emergency grants under such section
173 to assist--
(A) individuals displaced by Hurricane Katrina; or
(B) individuals displaced by Hurricane Rita;
(2) continue to assist individuals described in
subparagraph (A), or individuals described in subparagraph
(B), of paragraph (1); and
(3) can demonstrate an ongoing need for funds to assist
individuals described in subparagraph (A), or individuals
described in subparagraph (B), of paragraph (1).
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on amendment 3722, I ask unanimous consent
that Senator Kyl be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late, but I
appreciate the opportunity to talk a little bit about the impact of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on the State of Texas.
As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I am keenly aware of our
fiscal challenges. During the consideration of the budget resolution, I
had offered an amendment which would slow the growth of mandatory
spending, hopefully to allow a little bit more flexibility so we can
fund our Nation's priorities while we also manage our fiscal house.
The amendments I have offered that I wish to talk about at this time
are No. 3699 and No. 3672. These amendments aim to make Texas whole
from the 2005 hurricanes, and it won't cost the Federal Treasury a
single dime more. They are specifically tailored to deal with the needs
that are true emergencies in every sense of the word.
I need to set the record straight about some misperceptions with
regard to the state of my State; in particular, the impact these two
natural disasters, the worst storms in our Nation's history, Hurricanes
Rita and Katrina, had on the State of Texas.
Although the State was not hit directly by Hurricane Katrina, it was
significantly affected by that storm. It came in a flood of evacuees
fleeing New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In a matter of days, the
Texas population grew by roughly the size of an average U.S. city, some
half a million people, many of whom you see pictured to my right in a
picture of the Astrodome floor where the evacuees were housed
temporarily. It is estimated that at one point, there were 17,500
people housed at the Astrodome. It was only one of four megasites in
Houston to house evacuees. Another 4,000 were housed at Reliant Arena
and 2,300 at Reliant Center. The George R. Brown Convention Center in
downtown Houston took the remaining people, about 2,800 evacuees.
I have shown a picture of the city of Houston, but this is just one
large concentration of the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina. We can show
similar pictures of evacuation sites and housing sites all around the
State. It was obviously no small feat to take care of the needs of
these people who just had their homes and their lives taken away from
them as they previously knew them.
I remember shortly after this occurred there were many people who
would stop me here in the Senate, in the hallways of the Senate office
buildings, around Washington, DC, and elsewhere and tell me how
thankful and grateful they were that the people of
[[Page S3690]]
Texas were so willing to take in their neighbors at a time of need.
The fact is, a large number of the people who have come to Texas in
the wake of Hurricane Katrina are those with some of the greatest
needs. That was true where they lived previously--many of them in
Louisiana--and among the people were those with the greatest needs in
our country in general. This shows thousands of people in Houston and
elsewhere who were in wheelchairs. This man has a cane, and many of
these individuals had special needs. They were not necessarily able-
bodied when they came to the State. This obviously has put an
incredible strain on Texas's local support systems in the midst of this
flood, a flood of humanity.
This hurricane and the subsequent hurricane, Hurricane Rita, went
straight up the Sabine River between Texas and Louisiana. I still
remember talking to one of the computer scientists who had actually
modeled the potential impact on the State if Hurricane Rita had not
taken a right-hand turn and gone up right through southeast Texas. He
said that if a category 4 hurricane hit Houston, there would be a
minimum of $80 billion in additional property damage. Thank goodness
that did not happen, and thank goodness there was no loss of life on a
massive scale. But that was primarily because of the evacuation of the
city of Houston and the fact that Mother Nature decided to spare
Houston a direct hit while it took a right-hand turn straight up the
Sabine River between Texas and Louisiana.
The coast, private property, critical infrastructure, and millions of
lives were devastated by the storm. As this picture indicates--and I am
sure the Senator from Mississippi and other Senators from other States
directly affected can identify with the devastation we see here--this
is just one example of the devastation in southeast Texas caused by
Hurricane Rita.
In light of these two unprecedented events, Texas counties that were
most seriously affected need help, like the other affected regions of
our country that are more visible. I am sorry to say, notwithstanding
all of the good work that has been done by the Federal Government, the
reimbursements now range in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, but
Texas has not been made completely whole as a result of these
hurricanes.
I am deeply troubled by reports I have received from some that there
is a widespread perception that Texas is doing just fine and that we
somehow managed to absorb half a million people, including their needs
for housing, food, security, health care, education, and employment,
just to name a few, and that somehow some people still believe that
Texas should have no special need for additional Federal assistance, no
need to make the State whole or to have restored to us a reasonable
portion of the resources we willingly gave and continue to give to our
neighbors in need.
Consider that the parishes of western Louisiana that were most
directly affected by Hurricane Rita--not Katrina--were granted a much
more favorable Federal-State cost-sharing ratio of 90 percent Federal
to 10 percent State versus the 75/25 that was granted to Texas. The
counties in southeastern Texas were denied that same benefit, even
though their damage was similar and they suffered a similar impact. The
only difference we are talking about here is on which side of the
Sabine River these counties were located.
I am in no way minimizing the devastation and destruction that
affected places such as New Orleans and Mississippi, Alabama, and
elsewhere. They have suffered tremendously. But the people of Texas
have experienced their share of destruction, as well. So I take this
opportunity for a few moments to provide my colleagues with a summary,
a snapshot of the current situation in Texas nearly 9 months after half
a million evacuees flooded our State.
Based on FEMA registrations, an estimated 450,000 to 490,000 Katrina
evacuees currently remain in Texas. Approximately 5,900 are individuals
with essential needs that I mentioned a moment ago, those who are
mentally or physically disabled, frail, or otherwise require special
care. Approximately 286,000 of the evacuees are still housed in Texas
hotels. Approximately 130,000 of them are in rental housing. Only
27,000 housing units are now even available to the Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs.
Many Texas communities were hit with a one-two punch: first,
providing shelter to half a million Katrina evacuees and then suffering
enormous devastation from Hurricane Rita themselves. Funds are needed
to provide housing assistance to Texas residents whose homes were
damaged by Hurricane Rita and to assist the nearly 400,000 residents of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama who continue to reside in Texas,
albeit on a temporary basis.
Unfortunately, Texas only received $74.5 million of the $11.5 billion
made available in the community development block grants in last year's
Defense appropriations bill. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development has estimated that more than 27,000 homes in southeast
Texas and 75,000 homes throughout the State were damaged or destroyed
while thousands of businesses suffered heavy damage resulting in more
than $1 billion in loss. I have offered an amendment that ensures Texas
and all other States affected by hurricane devastation receive no less
than 3.5 percent of the $5.2 billion included in the bill for CDBG.
I note that Senator Landrieu, from Louisiana, is one of the
consponsors of that amendment.
Considering Texas has taken in almost half a million evacuees, it
seems reasonable we would receive a modest 3.5 percent of the funds
allocated for housing.
With regard to jobs and welfare, currently about 62,000 evacuees are
receiving food stamps from the State of Texas allotment. Of these, 97
percent are from Louisiana. Sixty-one percent of the food stamp
recipients stated in a poll that they expected to return to their State
within 3 months. Yet notwithstanding their response to the poll, they
remain in Texas, and we must provide for them. Texas Workforce
Commission has worked diligently to process more than 60,000
unemployment claims from Louisiana. Yet there are thousands more who
will need employment training skills as they remain in our State.
One of the amendments I have offered directs the Secretary of Labor
to prioritize States that have taken in Hurricane Katrina and Rita
evacuees when distributing the remainder of fiscal year 2006 national
emergency grants.
I note that Senator Hutchison has joined me as cosponsor. I ask
unanimous consent that she be added as a cosponsor to that amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. With regard to health care to help accommodate the large
influx of people to Texas, my State was given a waiver by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services that allows the State to reimburse
providers who incurred costs for uncompensated health care. Evacuees at
any income level who did not have insurance coverage were provided
medically necessary health care through this waiver. Texas provided
evacuees health care, long-term care, prescription medicines, and
medical transportation through two programs, Medicaid and the
Uncompensated Care Program. Those not eligible for the Medicaid Program
but who had incomes below a certain cutoff were provided coverage under
the Uncompensated Care Program.
I next will talk about education. This chart depicts an evacuee, a
young lady who is showing up for elementary school. There were 45,099
Katrina evacuees enrolled in Texas on October 13. Today, there are
still about 36,000 Katrina children in our public schools alone. The
photo next to me depicts one of the many such centers that were quickly
established at conference centers and temporary shelters to register
children who had evacuated to our State. Each of these children
represents a cost of about $7,500 a year for the State of Texas to
educate.
Furthermore, approximately 5,000 Katrina evacuees are currently
enrolled in Texas public universities and colleges. I give special
credit to Texas institutions of higher education that took in students
and faculty from other States with limited reimbursement.
This massive evacuation, this wave of humanity, also has had an
impact on
[[Page S3691]]
crime in our State. According to a recent news article, evacuees have
been victims of or accused of committing 39 of the 235 murders in
Houston since last September, according to Houston's police chief,
Harold Hurtt. In the month of January, Houston saw a 34-percent rise in
felonies over the previous year. This city had 800 officers retire in
the past 2 years; it recently moved 100 officers working in city jails
to high-crime areas while also significantly increasing overtime. It is
no small thing to reallocate those resources which are already
stretched thin.
Texas has given generously of its resources to our neighbors during a
time of need. That is something we will continue to do and that we are
enormously proud of. I have made a commitment to the people of my State
that I will do all I can to ensure that the affected communities are
reimbursed for the cost of providing care to victims of Katrina and
that those affected by Hurricane Rita will receive fair treatment as
they also face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives.
This shown here is another picture. Here again, I am sure the Senator
from Mississippi recognizes this kind of devastation, with cars turned
on end as a result of the force of the storm in southeast Texas. I am
talking now about Hurricane Rita again.
When the good people of my State signed up for helping their
neighbors, they were in it for the long haul. We will continue to
support the evacuees who come to our State, even as we work to recover
ourselves from Hurricane Rita. But I am here to make sure we have the
tools and the resources necessary to do the job right.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 3599
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3599 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Lugar,
for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Levin, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Reed, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bayh, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an
amendment numbered 3599.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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 by $8,000,000 and deposit in the Former Soviet
Union Threat Reduction Account the amount appropriated for Cooperative
Threat Reduction)
On page 117, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
Sec. 1312. (a) The amount appropriated by this chapter
under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide''
and available for Cooperative Threat Reduction is increased
by $8,000,000.
(b) Of the amount appropriated by this chapter under the
heading ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' and
available for Cooperative Threat Reduction, as increased by
subsection (a), $44,500,000 shall be deposited in the Former
Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account and shall remain
available until September 30, 2008.
(c) The amount made available under subsection (a) 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.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this amendment, which is offered by
Senator Lugar and Senator Obama, restores full funding for the
President's supplemental request for the Nunn-Lugar programs, at a
total cost of $8 million. This amendment will allow upgrades to Russian
nuclear warhead storage facilities to be completed on time.
The House-passed bill contained full funding for the Nunn-Lugar
programs. This amendment would square us with the House level.
This amendment has 34 cosponsors--10 Republicans, 23 Democrats, and 1
Independent.
My understanding is that this amendment has been cleared on both
sides of the aisle. I ask that it be considered by voice vote and
adopted at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the amendment has the support of this
side of the aisle, and we join in the request of the Senator from
Washington.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3599) was agreed to.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3708
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I call up
amendment No. 3708 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report the
amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], for Mr. Byrd,
proposes an amendment numbered 3708.
Mrs. MURRAY. 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 provide additional amounts for emergency management
performance grants, and for other purposes)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE ----
DISASTER MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANTS
For an additional amount for necessary expenses for
``Emergency Management Performance Grants'', as authorized by
the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), the Earthquake Hazards
Reductions Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.), and
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.),
$130,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That the total costs in administering such grants shall not
exceed 3 percent of the amounts provided in this heading:
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 current
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
FLOOD MAP MODERNIZATION FUND
For an additional amount for ``Flood Map Modernization
Fund'' for necessary expenses pursuant to section 1360 of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et
seq.), $50,000,000, and such additional sums as may be
provided by State and local governments or other political
subdivisions for cost-shared mapping activities under section
1360(f)(2) of such Act, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That the total costs in administering such funds
shall not exceed 3 percent of the amounts provided in this
heading: 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 current resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
NATIONAL PREDISASTER MITIGATION FUND
For an additional amount for ``National Predisaster
Mitigation Fund'' for the pre-disaster mitigation grant
program pursuant to title II of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5131
et seq.), $100,000,000, to remain available until expended:
Provided, That grants made for pre-disaster mitigation shall
be awarded on a competitive basis subject to the criteria in
section 203(g) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5133(g)), and
notwithstanding section 203(f) of such Act, shall be made
without reference to State allocations, quotas, or other
formula-based allocation of funds: Provided further, That the
total costs in administering such funds shall not exceed 3
percent of the amounts provided in this heading: 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 current
resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.
Sec. --001. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Act, the amount provided for ``Diplomatic and Consular
Programs'' shall be $1,172,600,000.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I believe we have no other amendments
Senators want to offer on our side tonight.
I ask our colleagues on the other side if they have any further
amendments to offer tonight.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, let me thank all Senators for the
cooperation
[[Page S3692]]
we received during today's consideration of amendments to H.R. 4939,
the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We have taken up a lot
of amendments to the bill, and we have heard a lot of debate. We know
this will continue probably on into next week before we complete action
on the bill. But we look forward to considering any suggestions that
Senators have for improving the legislation. We would just as soon they
did not spend a lot of time finding ways to improve the bill. But we
think we made good progress today.
We thank all Senators and especially Senator Murray for her help in
managing the bill today. Senator Byrd, the ranking Democrat, the senior
Democrat, on the committee, has been a friend for a long time, and I
have appreciated his help and counsel and advice and assistance as
well.
I know of nothing further to come before the Senate, so we will await
the advice of the leader before any further action is taken.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, Florida was hit by four
hurricanes in 2005, a devastating year for killer storms. Starting with
Delmis in July, followed by Katrina in August, Rita in September, and
finishing with Wilma in October, when the hurricane season finally
ended, 39 of Florida's 67 counties had been declared Federal disaster
areas. In the aftermath, 40,000 roofs were repaired by the Army Corps;
``Blue Roof' program and approximately 3,000 temporary trailers were
used as housing for Floridians left homeless by the storms.
While I am emely appreciative of the assistance extended to Florida
by this body, today I joined Senators Cornyn and Hutchison of Texas and
Senator Landrieu of Louisiana on an amendment to H.R. 4939, the
supplemental appropriations bill, which ensures no State will receive
an allocation ofless than 3.5 percent of the $5.2 billion included in
this bill for disaster Community Development Block Grant funds. This is
extremely important to the panhandle of Florida because the last
suppemental appropriation bill of fiscal year 2006 did not include
Hurricane Dennis.
After Dennis made landfall, 27 percent or over 12,000 homes were
damaged in Santa Rosa County the same region decimated by Hurricane
Ivan in 2004, Escambia County suffered $73.8 million in damages from
Dennis. Franklin County's oyster beds and processing plant were nearly
destroyed. Parts of Wakulla County were left under water by storm
surges of more than 10 feet. I have not forgotten Dennis' victims and
want them to know I am fighting for them.
South Florida will also benefit greatly from additional CDBG dollars.
With total insured losses of $8 billion, Wilma is ranked the second
most expensive hurricane among the eight to strike Florida during 2004
and 2005.
I thank the committee for crafting language in the bill we are now
considering which would make communities impacted by Dennis eligible
for relief. Further, I note the House did not include similar language
and urge my colleagues in the Florida delegation to fight to keep the
Senate provision intact during conference.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment this afternoon and
discuss this supplemental and the need to restore some fiscal
responsibility to this body. America has had some big challenges thrown
at it over the last 5 years 9/11, the war on terror, and Hurricane
Katrina and those challenges have required some commitment from the
Federal Treasury. I accept that. But Congress can not continue to spend
without restraint, and this administration can not continue to rely on
the use of emergency supplementals to circumvent the congressional
budget process.
When the President sent his budget request for fiscal year 2007 up to
Congress, the administration indicated that Congress should expect some
emergency supplemental requests as well. On February 16, the
administration asked for $92.2 billion in emergency funding for the war
on terror and hurricane recovery. I think we need to ask some tough
questions about budget processes and emergency funding requests. Do all
of these dollars truly belong outside the normal budget and
appropriations debate? I support the war on terror, and I am
sympathetic to the devastation caused by the hurricanes, but neither of
those events justifies a blank check from Congress.
The President has asked for $92.2 billion, and I think that--at a
minimum--we need to work our way back to that number in conference. We
need to take a careful look at all of the President's requests, as well
as the priorities that other Senators have, and make a decision as to
whether these provisions are truly emergency needs.
I realize that some of my colleagues might take exception to these
comments, since I have pushed for agricultural disaster assistance. I
believe the most important component of that package is the energy
assistance payments, to help farmers manage unprecedented increases in
the cost of fuel and fertilizer price increases that were caused in
large part by the hurricanes. Congress has been generous in addressing
gulf coast recovery, but we cannot address some of the impact while
leaving others to absorb the full impact of an unforeseeable disaster.
Producers have waited and waited, watching one supplemental after
another go by without their legitimate concerns being addressed.
Budgets are about priorities--allocating the right amount of money to
the right places at the right time for the right reasons. We have
limited resources, and we need to allocate them wisely. I am confident
that, working in good faith with our colleagues in the House and the
administration, we can bring the overall dollar figure down, while
still addressing the truly pressing needs that are out there.
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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I had hoped we could have made further
progress on the emergency supplemental bill. Unfortunately, today we
were only able to dispose of two amendments with rollcall votes--only
two amendments. I am disappointed that the Senator from Oregon
prevented us from voting on some of the amendments that had been in the
queue, in line, and ready for votes.
Having said that, we know this is an emergency bill, supplemental
emergency spending. Time is of the essence. Tomorrow there is a retreat
on the other side of the aisle, and therefore we will not be able to
make further progress. For that reason, I will send a cloture motion to
the desk to ensure we can finish this emergency bill at a reasonable
time next week.
Cloture Motion
I now send that cloture motion to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on Calendar No.
391, H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane
Recovery, 2006.
Bill Frist, Thad Cochran, Judd Gregg, Lamar Alexander,
Wayne Allard, Johnny Isakson, Mitch McConnell, Mel
Martinez, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, George
Allen, Norm Coleman, Pat Roberts, Richard Shelby, Larry
Craig, Richard Burr, Robert F. Bennett.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the live
quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________