[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.

                          ____________________