[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 50 (Tuesday, May 2, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3858-S3864]
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--Resumed
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
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:
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, livestock 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.
Coburn amendment No. 3641 (Divisions IV 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 modified amendment No. 3626, to increase
the limits on community disaster loans.
Vitter modified amendment No. 3628, to base the allocation
of hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to States on
need and physical damages.
Wyden amendment No. 3665, to prohibit the use of funds to
provide royalty relief for the production of oil and natural
gas.
Santorum modified amendment No. 3640, 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.
Salazar/Baucus amendment No. 3645, to provide funding for
critical hazardous fuels
[[Page S3859]]
and forest health projects to reduce the risk of catastrophic
fires and mitigate the effects of widespread insect
infestations.
Vitter amendment No. 3668, to provide for the treatment of
a certain Corps of Engineers project.
Burr amendment No. 3713, to allocate funds to the
Smithsonian Institution for research on avian influenza.
Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3693, to reduce
wasteful spending by limiting to the reasonable industry
standard the spending for administrative overhead allowable
under Federal contracts and subcontracts.
Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3694, 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.
Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3695, 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.
Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3697, to improve
transparency and accountability by establishing a Chief
Financial Officer to oversee hurricane relief and recovery
efforts.
Menendez amendment No. 3675, 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.
Murray (for Harkin) amendment No. 3714, 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.
Conrad/Clinton amendment No. 3715, to offset the costs of
defense spending in the supplemental appropriation.
Levin amendment No. 3710, to require reports on policy and
political developments in Iraq.
Schumer/Reid amendment No. 3723, to appropriate funds to
address price gouging and market manipulation and to provide
for a report on oil industry mergers.
Schumer amendment No. 3724, to improve maritime container
security.
Murray (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3716, to provide funds
to promote democracy in Iraq.
Murray (for Kennedy) modified amendment No. 3688, to
provide funding to compensate individuals harmed by pandemic
influenza vaccine.
Cornyn amendment No. 3722, to provide for immigration
injunction reform.
Cornyn amendment No. 3699, 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.
Cornyn amendment No. 3672, to require that the Secretary of
Labor give priority for national emergency grants to States
that assist individuals displaced by Hurricanes Katrina or
Rita.
Murray (for Byrd) amendment No. 3708, to provide additional
amounts for emergency management performance grants.
Domenici/Reid amendment No. 3769, to provide additional
construction funding for levee improvements in the New
Orleans metropolitan area, gulf coast restoration.
Amendment No. 3769
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3769 on behalf of
Mr. Domenici regarding levee funding. This amendment has been cleared
on both sides of the aisle, and I urge it be agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3769) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. 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. 3789
Mr. COCHRAN. I call up amendment No. 3789 on behalf of Mrs. Hutchison
regarding treatment of Hurricane Rita States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mrs.
Hutchison, for herself, Mr. Cornyn, and Ms. Landrieu,
proposes an amendment numbered 3789.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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 ensure States impacted by Hurricane Rita are treated
equally with regard to cost-share adjustments for damage resulting from
that hurricane)
On page 165, line 20, after ``Provided,'' insert the
following: ``That for states in which the President declared
a major disaster (as that term is defined in section 102 of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) on September 24, 2005, as a
result of Hurricane Rita, each county or parish eligible for
individual and public assistance under such declaration in
such States will be treated equally for purposes of cost-
share adjustments under such Act, to account for the impact
in those counties and parishes of Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina: Provided further,''.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President I urge agreement of the amendment. It has
been cleared on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 3789) was agreed to.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point in the proceedings at
the hour of 11 o'clock to vote on cloture on the bill. I urge Senators
to support this motion to bring to a close debate on the provisions of
the supplemental appropriations bill so that we may proceed to consider
other amendments that are pending and dispose of that measure.
It is an urgent supplemental. It contains emergency funding for the
Department of Defense, the Department of State, as well as disaster
assistance for the gulf State regions and elsewhere for natural
disaster damages and destruction.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on H.R.
4939, an act making emergency supplemental appropriations for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, shall be
brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. Lincoln) is
absent due to death in family.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 92, nays 4, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]
YEAS--92
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
[[Page S3860]]
NAYS--4
Dodd
Feingold
Levin
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Biden
Kerry
Lincoln
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 92, the nays 4.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I voted against the motion to invoke
cloture on the supplemental appropriations bill because it will have
the effect of preventing the consideration of a number of important and
relevant amendments.
There are more than a hundred amendments which have been filed on
this bill. Several are important amendments, such as Senator Wyden's
amendment to prevent funds from being used to continue discounts given
to the oil companies on royalties which otherwise would be paid to the
Federal Government for production of oil and/or natural gas on Federal
lands. Another example is the bipartisan amendment that I offered with
Senators Collins and Reed to require reports to Congress on progress
toward a national unity government in Iraq.
Too frequently in recent years, we see a pattern of slowing down
consideration of amendments or filling the amendment tree to block them
altogether, followed by cloture to end debate and further restricting
or preventing the consideration of amendments. The Senate, which has
often been referred to as ``the world's greatest deliberative body''
and which historically has been characterized by the quality of its
debate, should not permit this pattern of preventing the consideration
of, and votes on, amendments to become the norm.
When I came to the Senate, the leadership did not as a routine
approach try to prevent consideration of amendments they didn't agree
with. Instead, they attempted to amend them or simply vote against
them. In recent years, we see more and more bills on which amendments
are limited or blocked entirely, more like the House. On the PATRIOT
Act, this year, for example, the amendment tree was completely filled
by the leadership, a procedural technique for preventing any amendments
from being considered, and none were.
Mr. President, I support the funding for the troops in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and I support the emergency assistance for the gulf coast
in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I intend to support this bill on
final passage in the Senate. I am opposed, however, to the use of this
procedure to limit debate and the consideration of amendments.
Amendment No. 3617
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 3617.
I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending. It is now the
regular order.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike the $6 million
earmark for sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which was not included in the
administration's emergency supplemental request.
I would again remind my colleagues of the Statement of Administration
Policy which was issued on April 25, obviously on the legislation now
being considered. Again, this has been repeated several times in the
Chamber, but I think it is important to again quote from the
administration's statement, saying:
The administration is seriously concerned with the overall
funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in
the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency
hurricane relief needs. The final version of the legislation
must remain focused on addressing urgent national priorities
while maintaining fiscal discipline. Accordingly, if the
President is ultimately presented a bill that provides more
than $92.2 billion, exclusive of funding for the President's
plan to address pandemic influenza, he will veto the bill.
The administration statement goes on to say:
The administration strongly opposes the committee's
agricultural assistance proposal totaling nearly $4 billion.
The 2002 farm bill was designed, when combined with crop
insurance, to eliminate the need for ad hoc disaster
assistance. In 2005, many crops had record or near record
production and the U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the
second highest ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of
assistance is excessive and may overcompensate certain
producers for their losses.
So the administration is pretty clear about this issue of these add-
ons which have ballooned this bill from $92 billion to $105 billion or
so.
I also point out for my colleagues' benefit that the American people
are growing very weary of this earmarking process. Last Thursday, there
was a poll published in the Wall Street Journal, which is an NBC News/
Wall Street Journal poll, and it was interesting in that it says:
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.'' Thirty-six
percent say nothing seems to get done on important issues.
Further, 34 percent cite corruption among lawmakers. 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.
If there is ever a bill that would emphasize the frustration
Americans have felt, it is this legislation that is before us.
A worthy cause, although I intend, along with others, to stop this
business of continuing to fund the war in Iraq, which has been going on
now a number of years now, the ``emergency supplemental,'' it is long
overdue and time to focus on the normal budgetary process because we
know we will be spending money on Iraq, unfortunately, for a long
period of time. But this vehicle in itself is a violation of the normal
procedures of the Senate because it should be authorized and then
appropriated. But this vehicle is then, of course, used to load up
unnecessary, unwanted, unfortunate, and sometimes outrageous additional
spending.
For example, in this bill, which is not subject to this amendment, we
have $15 million to the USDA Ewe Lamb Replacement and Retention
Program. This program already exists and is meant to assist with lamb
breeding stock needs, not hurricane recovery; $400,000 goes to the Rio
Grande Valley sugar growers for assistance with sugarcane storage and
transportation costs to the port of Baton Rouge, LA. Among the many
sugar growers nationwide, why are we providing an earmark to this
particular group?
There is $120 million for sugarcane and sugar beet disaster
assistance in Florida. Rather than using existing USDA disaster
assistance programs, this legislation would establish a special program
that caters directly and solely to Florida sugar. By the way, it is one
of the most heavily subsidized industries in America today.
There is $6 million to compensate owners of flooded crop and grazing
land in North Dakota. Hurricanes in North Dakota? North Dakota is one
of the nation's top producers of, you guessed it, sugar.
Mr. President, the amendment I offer today would strike an earmark in
the bill that provides $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii.
Obviously, the Hawaiian lands were not anywhere near the path of the
2005 hurricanes. Certainly it is appropriate that any farmer impacted
by a natural disaster can seek Federal assistance which, as I already
said, is why there are existing USDA disaster recovery programs
authorized under the 2002 farm bill. But in this case the appropriators
are establishing a special program that caters directly to Hawaiian
sugar growers via a must-pass emergency appropriations bill.
I think it is important that we continue to go back, as we argue the
merits or demerits of these earmarks, to the fact that this is the
``Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War
on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery.'' Hawaiian sugar growers do not fit
in any of those categories.
According to this bill, according to the legislation before us, the
Secretary shall use $6 million to ``assist sugarcane growers in Hawaii
by making a payment in that amount to an agricultural transportation
cooperative in Hawaii, the members of which are eligible to receive
marketing assistance loans and loan deficiency payments.''
What does that mean? I can only assume this funding will be directed
to the Hawaii Sugar and Transportation Cooperative, the only entity
that received $7.2 million from a nearly identical provision in last
year's, guess
[[Page S3861]]
what, military construction appropriations. This same entity has
already got $7.2 million out of a MilCon bill. I am informed the
members are the Gay and Robinson Sugar Company, the island of Hawaii,
and the Hawaiian Commercial Sugar Company, the island of Maui. These
are producer-owned sugarcane mills that own the land.
Let me repeat. The same cooperative got a bailout a year ago. Are we
now going to start providing these two companies with annual
supplemental appropriations bailouts? I urge my colleagues to question
what we are doing.
Let me quote from the administration's Statement of Administrative
Policy again:
In 2005, many crops had record or near record production
and U.S. farm sector cash receipts were the second highest
ever. Furthermore, the proposed level of assistance is
excessive and may overcompensate certain producers for their
losses.
What are we trying to do with this bill? We are trying to tell our
farmers, no matter where you are or what you farm, don't bother with
crop insurance because come next year's supplemental, we will dole out
far more than you need.
As Secretary Mike Johanns said:
I have spent the last week studying the bill to try to get
an understanding of the mechanics of the bill, but taking it
a step further, trying to get an understanding of what we
have done for disaster relief in the last year. And what is
the agricultural economy like that may lay the foundation for
somebody to say we need disaster relief.
He said for the 2005 and 2006 crop years, despite pockets of weather
problems, ``Every year you see them. For a country this big, it is
unusual not to have some weather issues out there.''
But despite pockets of problems, production and yields set records or
near records recently.
Johanns' conclusions, after getting answers to his questions: ``I got
all that data and evidence, and that got me thinking, `What are they
trying to do with that bill?' '' He is talking about the supplemental
bill before us. ``So I studied the bill and I must admit, my forehead
started wrinkling.''
Well, as noted in Saturday's Washington Post editorial, ``Should
Farming Be the Nation's Only Risk-Free Enterprise?'' perhaps the intent
in providing this $6 million to the Hawaiian sugar growers is to prop
up a sugar industry which has fallen on hard times. With rising
diabetes and child obesity rates which have more than doubled since
1977, maybe sugar isn't in demand as in previous years. Maybe the
efforts by parents to have soft drink machines stripped from public
schools is having a prolific effect on sugar production. If only that
were the case. In reality, consumption of sweeteners in the U.S. has
risen from 113 pounds per person per year in 1966 to around 142 pounds
per person per year in 2004. At that rate Americans consume the
equivalent of about 1 teaspoon of sugar per hour every 24 hours, 7 days
a week.
The U.S. News & World Report compared our sugar fix to other, more
nutritious agricultural commodities and found that Americans ate an
abysmal 8.3 pounds of broccoli a year in 2003, something I can
understand.
Again I question the need to spend more taxpayer dollars on
sugarcane. Didn't we just vote last week not to fund a $15 million
marketing program for seafood? Certainly less than a week later we are
not going to turn around and vote to fund marketing to support this
effort.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are requested. Is there a
sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the provision under attack at this moment
was not snuck in during the dark of night. It was openly discussed with
the authorizing committee and was granted approval. It was openly
discussed with the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and it
was granted approval. That is why this provision is in the
supplemental. It was approved by the authorizers and the appropriators.
Thirdly, it was openly discussed with the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the Secretary issued a statement declaring that this was a disaster
area.
Why do we call this a disaster? In one of those strange natural
phenomena, for 40 days and 40 nights it rained in Hawaii. In one spot,
it rained 126 inches in those 40 days. The average in most areas was 3
inches a day. Obviously, with such sustained heavy rains, you would
have devastation. Many families lost their homes. Private property and
public property were destroyed.
The $6 million in this provision is to assist the two sugar
companies, Gay and Robinson and Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar, with
their crop losses, damage to their irrigation canal system, and washed
out roads.
It may interest my colleagues to know that on the island of Kauai,
that plantation suffered more than 100 miles of roads being severely
damaged. They are washed out and require complete rebuilding. Some of
the most critical roads were the access roads to irrigation, and these
will have to be rebuilt.
In addition to the roads, the irrigation infrastructure on the island
of Kauai was totally damaged and destroyed. This infrastructure damage
has two costs. One is the cost of repairing, obviously, and the other
is the sugar losses due to production disruptions. And the same can be
said for the island of Maui.
The yield losses alone for the two companies will far exceed the
amount we are requesting for assistance. Losses have occurred because
of this damage.
In summary, heavy rains caused tremendous infrastructure damages. The
actual repair or reconstruction costs are much higher than the amount
we are seeking.
I hope my colleagues will show some compassion and understanding. It
is an emergency.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this provision was included in the
committee bill in the agricultural disaster title of the supplemental
because of severe weather-related damage to Hawaii's sugarcane crop
this year.
Hawaii sustained heavy rains and flooding from February 20 through
April 2, devastating and destroying public and private property. The
funds were considered by the committee to be necessary to assist
sugarcane farmers through their cooperatives with cane crop losses.
They also sustained damage to their irrigation canal systems, and
there were public roads that were washed out resulting from the heavy
rains.
I support the position of the Senator from Hawaii on this amendment
and urge the amendment be defeated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I will be very brief.
One of the things we know we are all going to have to look at in the
2007 farm bill is how do we continue down this road and be able to
afford it.
The 2002 farm bill put in what was called crop insurance. Every time
we put in a program that undermines the incentive to use crop
insurance, all we do is add it to the deficit, and we come back.
There is no question there are some needs, and probably legitimate,
but what this appropriation does is create an incentive for people not
to use crop insurance. That is exactly what it does.
So if we want to unwind further and raise the costs for the American
people of the farm bill we have today, all we have to do is keep this
kind of funding in, and we will undo and make sure we spend more money
in the future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be brief.
I understand Hawaii experienced severe flooding this winter. It
should be pointed out that the heavy tropical rains did not lead to a
Presidential disaster declaration. Surely the flooding impacted a broad
range of agricultural commodities in Hawaii, not just sugarcane
growers, and the Secretary of Agriculture is providing assistance under
existing USDA disaster recovery programs. These programs will help
farmers with noninsured crops, debt management, emergency loans,
infrastructure repair, and farmland rehabilitation. Do we really need
an additional earmark of $6 million for Hawaiian sugarcane growers on
top of the assistance already offered by the USDA?
[[Page S3862]]
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a USDA
factsheet that contains the programs that are available: Emergency
Conservation Program, Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program,
Disaster Debt Set-Aside Program, and the Emergency Loan Program.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Ongoing Disaster Assistance Programs for Agricultural Producers
overview
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) offers farmers and ranchers
various types of disaster aid to facilitate recovery from
losses caused by drought, flood, freeze, tornadoes,
hurricane, and other natural events. Ongoing disaster
assistance programs available to eligible producers are:
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)
ECP provides funding for farmers and ranchers to
rehabilitate farmland damaged by wind erosion, floods,
hurricanes, or other natural disasters and for carrying out
emergency water conservation measures during periods of
severe drought. The natural disaster must create new
conservation problems which, if not treated, would:
Impair or endanger the land;
Materially affect the productive capacity of the land;
Represent unusual damage which, except for wind erosion, is
not the type likely to recur frequently in the same area; and
Be so costly to repair that federal assistance is, or will
be required, to return the land to productive agricultural
use.
noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP)
NAP provides financial assistance to eligible producers
affected by drought, flood, hurricane, or other natural
disasters. NAP covers noninsurable crop losses and planting
prevented by disasters.
Landowners, tenants, or sharecroppers who share in the risk
of producing an eligible crop may qualify for this program.
Before payments can be issued applications must first be
received and approved, generally before the crop is planted,
and the crop must have suffered a minimum of 50 percent loss
in yield.
Eligible crops include commercial crops and other
agricultural commodities produced for food, including
livestock feed or fiber for which the catastrophic level of
crop insurance is unavailable.
Also eligible for NAP coverage are controlled-environment
crops (mushroom and floriculture), specialty crops (honey and
maple sap), and value loss crops (aquaculture, Christmas
trees, ginseng, ornamental nursery, and turfgrass sod).
disaster Debt Set-Aside Program (DSA)
DSA is available to producers in primary or contiguous
counties declared presidential or secretarial disaster areas.
When borrowers affected by natural disasters are unable to
make their scheduled payments on any debt, FSA is authorized
to consider set-aside of some payments to allow the farming
operation to continue.
After disaster designation is made, FSA will notify
borrowers of the availability of the DSA. Borrowers who are
notified have eight months from the date of designation to
apply. Also, to meet current operating and family living
expenses, FSA borrowers may request a release of income
proceeds to meet these essential needs or request special
servicing provisions from their local FSA county offices to
explore other options. A complete fact sheet about DSA can be
found at http://www.fsa.usda.qov/pas/publications/facts/
debtset05.pdf.
Emergency Loan Program (EM)
FSA provides emergency loans to help producers recover from
production and physical losses due to drought, flooding,
other natural disasters, or quarantine.
Emergency loans may be made to farmers and ranchers who own
or operate land located in a county declared by the president
as a disaster area or designated by the secretary of
agriculture as a disaster area or quarantine area (for
physical losses only, the FSA administrator may authorize
emergency loan assistance). EM funds may be used to:
Restore or replace essential property;
Pay all or part of production costs associated with the
disaster year;
Pay essential family living expenses;
Reorganize the farming operation; and
Refinance certain debts.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to print in
the Record the editorial contained in the Washington Post on April 29
basically saying:
There are, no doubt, farmers who have suffered severe
losses this year. Isn't that what crop insurance--government-
subsidized crop insurance, to the tune of $4.2 billion this
year--is supposed to be about?
The administration is right to oppose this provision;
They are talking about the provision of $4 billion in disaster
payments to farmers as part of the emergency spending bill--
the Senate ought to show enough discipline to take it out.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 29, 2006]
Farmers at the Trough
Farm Subsidies have risen from $8 billion in 1997 to a
projected $22 billion this year. Farm earnings have risen,
too. Net farm income grew from $36 billion in 2002 to a
record $83 billion in 2004. Although that fell last year to
$72 billion and is forecast to drop again 2006, to $56.2
billion, that's still above the 10-year average.
But why let good news stand in the way of even more
payments to farmers? The Senate is poised to add $4 billion
in ``disaster'' payments to farmers as part of the emergency
spending bill it's debating. A big chunk would go to farmers
who have suffered no other disaster than the high energy
prices that are hitting every other sector of the economy--
not to mention anyone who drives a car.
Under the Senate proposal, farmers who already receive cash
subsidies for the corn, wheat, cotton or other crops they
grow--money they get when prices are high or prices are low,
in good years and bad--would get an extra 30 percent, at a
cost of $1.56 billion on top of the $5.2 billion the
government is already spending. Because payments are based on
the size of farm operations, this would funnel the largest
amounts to the biggest commercial farms; according to an
analysis by the Environmental Working Group, just 10 percent
of bonus subsidy recipients will collect nearly 60 percent of
the money. More than 50 producers would collect an extra
$100,000 or more. Meanwhile, 60 percent of the nation's
farmers would get nothing under this program because they
raise livestock or grow crops that aren't eligible for the
subsidy.
Proponents of the spending point to droughts in Iowa,
floods in North Dakota and wildfires in Texas--calamities
that have affected farmers there, they say, in much the same
way Hurricane Katrina slammed those in the Gulf Coast. There
are, no doubt, farmers who have suffered severe losses this
year. Isn't that what crop insurance--government-subsidized
crop insurance, to the tune of $4.2 billion this year--is
supposed to be about? True, crop insurance doesn't cover, all
losses, but should farming be the nation's only risk-free
enterprise? Besides, one of the theories behind the egregious
2002 farm bill was that it would, at least, provide generous
enough payments year in and year out that farmers wouldn't
need emergency bailouts.
The administration is right to oppose this provision; the
Senate ought to show enough discipline to take it out. Don't
count on it, though. On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) touted a letter to the president, joined
by 35 of his colleagues, pledging to sustain a threatened
veto if the spending package exceeds the administration's
requested $95.5 billion. That same day, the Senate voted by a
veto-proof 72 to 26 against removing the farm spending and
other provisions from the bill-- current price tag, $106.5
billion.
Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, if I may respond, on April 2 of this year,
the rains ended. The Governor of Hawaii, in a most expeditious manner,
gathered all the facts and filed a report with the President of the
United States on April 10. That letter to the President requested that
the President issue a declaration of disaster. It is now in the White
House under consideration. It is unfortunate it is not before us, but
we have been assured that it will be part of the declaration. I wish
the record to show that the State of Hawaii did go through every
regular step to make certain this request was done in the regular
fashion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3617. The yeas and
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 40, nays 59, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]
YEAS--40
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chafee
Coburn
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Dole
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Santorum
Sessions
Snowe
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
[[Page S3863]]
NAYS--59
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Burns
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Conrad
Dayton
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Salazar
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Talent
Warner
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Rockefeller
The amendment (No. 3617) was rejected.
Mr. INOUYE. 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an amendment, filed by
Senator Nelson of Florida and myself, joined by Senators Lieberman,
Lautenberg, Kerry our distinguished minority leader, that will provide
serious resources, not just lipservice, to help us kick the oil
addiction habit and put this country on a long-term path to real energy
security. At a time when American families are spending exorbitant
amounts to fill their cars and heat their homes, when this Nation is
using ever increasing quantities of foreign oil, when our coastal
communities are threatened by rising sea levels caused by global
warming, we need a new approach. For the sake of our economy, our
security, and our environment, we need to act now.
For years, this administration has promoted one course--more
drilling. Instead of making the necessary and timely investments needed
to push this country in the direction of a sustainable energy policy,
the administration has beat one drum over and over again--drill, drill,
drill. Drill in the Arctic, drill in our wilderness, drill off our
beaches. This is not the way to kick our oil habit. The President
claims to have seen the light, and now touts the virtues of efficiency
and the importance of biofuels and renewable energy, and we applaud
him. But he proposes to fund the Department of Energy's Efficiency and
Renewables programs at the same level they were at in 2001, and he
refuses to endorse higher mileage standards for automobiles, which are
the same now as they were years ago.
Our energy situation has reached a critical point, and it is truly an
emergency. Secretary of Energy Bodman even admitted on Sunday that we
are facing a crisis. Gas prices are nearing their record highs, rising
41 cents in the past month and over 54 cents since the Energy bill was
signed into law last August. Many of the countries that we depend on
for our oil are politically unstable or have unfriendly regimes. The
Iranian situation, in particular, threatens to drive oil prices far
higher. We can not allow our economy to be continually held hostage by
the whims of OPEC.
This is not just about economic security. It is about national
security. As former CIA Director James Woolsey testified before the
Energy Committee, the hundreds of billions of dollars we send abroad
each year to feed our oil addiction help to fund the very organizations
that preach hatred for America.
We should have taken serious action years ago. The American people
can afford to wait no longer. The Nelson-Menendez amendment provides
the immediate funding we need to allow us to take control of our
destiny and create a brighter, cleaner, and safer energy future for
America. It provides $3 billion for a wide range of efficiency,
security, and research and development programs--programs the President
talks about in glowing terms but does not propose to actually fund.
His 2007 budget barely includes half of the authorized funding for
renewable energy research, and provides less than 2 percent for the
incentives needed to encourage the installation and use of renewable
energy. Our amendment would add $50 million for renewable energy
research and development in the Department of Energy, over $100 million
in renewable energy rebates for homes and small businesses, and $200
million for the Department of Defense to do its part to meet the
renewable energy goals set out by the President and in the law.
The administration has tried for years to portray efficiency as a
vice, something that is totally inconsistent with the American way of
life. Recently they have changed their tune, but not their actions. The
President's budget actually cut energy efficiency programs by 13
percent. That simply astounds me. Few things are more effective for
curbing our addiction to oil than becoming more energy efficient. A
2001 study by the National Academy of Sciences found that a $7 billion
investment in DOE energy efficiency programs had returned $30 billion
in benefits. That's better than 4 to 1. But the President cut
efficiency programs by over a hundred million dollars. The
weatherization program, which helps low-income families reduce fuel use
and lower their energy bills, has been shown to provide well over $3 of
benefit for each $1 spent. But the President proposed to slash that by
nearly 30 percent.
Our amendment recognizes the tremendous benefit we as a Nation
receive by becoming more efficient, and provides an additional $300
million for energy efficiency programs, and another $225 million for
weatherization grants.
If we want to make a serious dent in our use of oil, however, we need
to look at the transportation sector, which is responsible for two-
thirds of our national oil consumption. While everyone seems to agree
on the need to get more flex fuel and alternative-fuel vehicles on the
road, and the urgency of producing cellulosic ethanol, the
administration simply does not make the real financial commitment. But
this amendment does. It provides $150 million for vehicle research
programs, $350 million for the clean cities program, $200 million for
biomass research and development and $250 million in production
incentives for cellulosic fuels.
There are also provisions in this amendment to increase the
reliability of our electricity grid, encourage the Federal Government
to purchase alternative fuel vehicles, help improve the efficiency of
aircraft, and much more. It is a large amendment because this is a
large problem. Our economy, our environment, and our national security
are all too important to be left to the best interests of OPEC and the
giant oil companies. Skyrocketing gas prices have been a wake-up call
for everyone, but even if we succeed in providing relief for American
consumers, as my amendment last week would have done, we can not afford
to go back to sleep on this issue. The American people expect us to get
serious about our energy future, and they expect us to do it
immediately. If we don't act now, when do we act?
So even though I fully recognize the rules of the Senate and
understand the nature of the debate we are having today, I do believe
we are in an emergent process as it relates to our energy independence,
to our energy security, to giving consumers an opportunity for a break.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that any pending amendments be
laid aside to call up amendment No. 3721 and that it be considered
germane for the purposes of rule XXII.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, the order for
recess notwithstanding, I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes as
if in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Economy
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, last week we had numbers that came out
with respect to the economy. We also had testimony from the chairman of
the Federal Reserve Board with respect to the economy. And as recently
as yesterday we had some stunning numbers that came out telling us what
is happening in the economy. I would like to review those very quickly
for the Members of the Senate.
[[Page S3864]]
This chart demonstrates that the economy remains strong. Last week's
number said that economic growth in the first quarter was 4.8 percent.
As you can see on the chart, that is the highest number since we had
the spike in 2003.
Each one of these dark figures represent a quarter and demonstrates
that the economy has now grown ever since the end of the recession in
2001. We had weak growth for the first little while and then the
economy has been growing very strongly ever since.
This a very strong and vibrant economy, as Chairman Bernanke made
clear in his testimony to the Joint Economic Committee.
People want to talk about jobs. Let us look at the unemployment rate.
If you will notice, the shaded areas in the chart represent the last
three recessions. In the recession of the 1980s, unemployment got into
double digits--10.8 percent is where it spiked. In the recession that
occurred in the early 1990s, unemployment got to 7.8 percent--spiked at
that point. In the recession we just had, unemployment spiked at 6.3
percent, a relatively low level, but it has been zinging ever since,
and it is now at 4.7 percent.
I have sections of my State--and I trust others have in theirs--where
there are more jobs than there are people, where people are looking for
jobs. The unemployment rate is going down and demonstrating the
strength of this economy as it generates new jobs.
Here is the flip side of that. This chart shows payroll jobs either
lost or created.
Here, each bar represents a month. Starting in 2003, instead of
losing jobs, we began to gain jobs each month. And there are over 5.1
million new payroll jobs that have been created since the Senate and
the House passed the 2003 Tax Relief Act.
More Americans are working today than at any other time in our
history. There are more jobs today than at any other time in our
history. This is a consequence of the robust economy.
The next chart shows the growth of business investment. You will
notice there are no dates. These are quarters. The red shows quarters
in which business investment shrank and the blue shows quarters in
which business investment grew.
I ask as a test for people: What is the date when the bars went from
red to blue? We didn't put them on the chart. If you were to guess that
it was the first quarter of 2003, the time when the tax cuts took
effect, after which the tax cuts changed the pattern for business
investment, you would be correct. You can see the dramatic difference
between the quarters that preceded the tax relief and the quarters that
succeeded it.
I would be the first to concede that it is not a pure cause-and-
effect relationship. But I think the chart demonstrates that you cannot
discount the fact that the tax cut had a significant beneficial effect
on the economy.
Business activity continues to grow.
This chart gets a little bit busy, but the line in the middle is the
line between growth and shrinkage. And the two graphs, the red one is
the growth in services, the blue one is growth in manufacturing.
For those who say manufacturing is in trouble, look at the facts.
Again, starting in 2003, manufacturing crossed the line and became
positive and has been positive ever since.
Yesterday this appeared in the Associated Press:
Manufacturing cranked up. Builders boosted construction
spending to an all-time high, and consumers opened their
wallets wider, fresh signs that the economy has snapped out
of its end of the year slump.
This was the message coming from the latest patch of economic reports
released Monday.
A report from the Institute for Supply Management showed that factory
activity expanded with gusto in April. The group's manufacturing index
rose to 57.3 in April; from 55.2 in March. The showing was much better
than the predicted reading of 55 that economists were expecting.
So business activity continues to grow.
To tick off the facts of what has happened since May of 2003 when the
tax cuts kicked in, real gross domestic product growth has averaged 4
percent; over 3\1/2\ million new payroll jobs have been created; the
unemployment rate has fallen to 4.7 percent; manufacturing has expanded
for 35 consecutive months; service industries expanded for 36
consecutive months; business investment has increased for 10
consecutive quarters, with growth averaging over 9 percent; inflation-
adjusted after-tax income has grown by almost 5 percent; the Dow Jones
Industrial Average is up 27 percent; the NASDAQ is up 44 percent; and,
taxes paid on capital gains was $80 billion dollars last year, compared
to taxes paid on capital gains in 2002 which was $49 billion.
We hear a lot of gloom and doom on this floor. We hear a lot of
people talking about how bad things are. The facts do not support that.
The economy is strong. The economy is going forward, and the economy
is in a boom period and has been since the tax cuts took effect in May
of 2003.
I yield the floor.
____________________