[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 128 (Tuesday, November 14, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10889-S10908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 5385, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 3585) making appropriations for military
quality of life functions of the Department of Defense,
military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 11,
2007, and for other purposes.
Pending:
Akaka/Obama amendment No. 5128, to provide, with an offset,
an additional $2,500,000 for the Department of Veterans
Affairs for the Office of Inspector General.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 5144
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me thank Senators Hutchison and
Feinstein, the managers of this bill, for the opportunity to offer and
discuss my amendment to provide emergency agricultural disaster
assistance for our farmers and ranchers. Normally, most of my
colleagues know I would not offer this amendment on an unrelated
measure. Our hand is forced. We are told it is highly unlikely there
will be an Agriculture appropriations bill considered separately. We
have no alternative but to offer this measure to this legislation.
This amendment will determine whether thousands of farm families will
be able to continue next year. We have had 2 years of unusual natural
disasters that have affected agriculture across this country. These
people need to know whether they can continue in the business of
farming and ranching. Their bankers need to know. This legislation is
critical to that determination.
For over a year, I, along with many of my Senate colleagues--let me
indicate that it is already nearly 20 of my colleagues--have come on a
bipartisan basis to cosponsor this bill, including Senator Coleman of
Minnesota; Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska; my own colleague, Senator
Dorgan of North Dakota; Senator Salazar of Colorado; Senator Hagel of
Nebraska; Senator Johnson of South Dakota; Senator Thune of South
Dakota; Senator Enzi of Wyoming; Senator Baucus of Montana; Senator
Reid of Nevada; Senator Clinton; Senator Obama; Senator Durbin; Senator
Leahy; Senator Harkin; Senator Cantwell; Senator Burns of Montana;
Senator Schumer; and Senator Roberts of Kansas. Repeatedly, we have
come to the Senate to try to get disaster assistance considered.
Last spring, as part of the hurricane supplemental, the Senate
approved an agricultural disaster package for the 2005 crop-year. That
measure was dropped in conference due to opposition from the
administration and the House leadership. I have taken out the
provisions that drew the opposition of the administration. Those direct
payments that were an offset to the dramatic runup in energy prices are
not in this bill.
[[Page S10890]]
The legislation I am offering today is nearly identical to the
bipartisan relief provision I introduced on September 20, 2006. My
amendment is bipartisan and has 19 cosponsors.
The need for this amendment is compelling. In North Dakota last year,
as this picture shows, we faced extraordinary flooding. Over a million
acres were prevented from being planted. Hundreds of thousands of acres
that were planted were drowned out because of excessive rainfall. There
was no disaster assistance for those farmers.
This year, in the irony of ironies, we now have experienced an
extraordinary drought. This is a picture from my home county, Burleigh
County, where the capital of North Dakota is located. This is a corn
crop, but nothing was produced. It is only one of thousands of fields
that were not worth harvesting.
This drought has been determined by the USDA meteorologist to be the
third worst drought in our Nation's history. Only the Dust Bowl of the
1930s and the prolonged drought of the 1950s compared to what many
parts of the country have been facing.
This chart shows the U.S. Drought Monitor. It shows how severe the
drought was all across the Midwest and Southeast. Its darkest colors
represent exceptional drought. North Dakota and South Dakota were the
epicenter of this drought in late July. It has been totally devastating
to my part of the country. If assistance is not granted, literally
thousands of farm families will be forced off the land. That is a fact.
The independent bankers of my State said to a White House
representative who was in my office that if assistance does not come, 5
to 10 percent of their customers in North Dakota will be forced out of
business. Mr. President, 34 farm organizations have told Congress that
assistance is needed and it is needed now. In addition, we have a
letter from the State commissioners of agriculture from all across the
country saying that emergency agricultural disaster assistance is a
high priority requiring action by Congress this year. It could not be
more clear. Assistance is needed. It is needed now.
As I noted last May, the Senate approved disaster assistance, only to
be thwarted by the threat of a veto. In June, the Senate Committee on
Appropriations once again approved emergency disaster assistance as
part of the Agriculture appropriations bill for 2007. Thus far, that
bill has failed to come to the Senate.
On numerous occasions, including the last day we were in session
before we recessed for the elections, I tried to get the Senate to
adopt disaster relief legislation. Again, the effort was stymied.
Today, we have another chance to do what is necessary and what is
right. My amendment incorporates many of the provisions already
approved by the Senate, but I have made a few modifications to address
the objections raised by the administration. The economic assistance
provisions help producers offset rising energy costs, and the direct
grants to States to assist specialty crop and livestock sectors have
been removed. Those provisions, at the insistence of the White House,
have been removed.
Also, the administration has stated that we need to wait until
harvest is concluded. The harvest is now over for 2006; the losses are
real and significant throughout many parts of the country.
The crop and livestock production loss provisions contained in the
original legislation were retained and will apply for both the 2005 and
2006 production years. Crop producers will still need to demonstrate a
35-percent loss before they get any assistance. The Livestock
Compensation Program will only be made to producers whose operations
are in counties designated as disaster areas by the Secretary and who
can demonstrate they have suffered a material loss. The legislation
also contains additional funding for conservation operations to help
restore and rehabilitate drought and livestock losses on grazing land.
Scientists have told us this is imperative. Because of the
modifications, the cost of providing disaster assistance for 2005 and
2006 has been reduced from $6.7 billion to $4.9 billion--a reduction of
nearly $2 billion.
Farmers and ranchers need assistance for the 2005 and 2006 fall
disaster losses, and they need it now. If these emergencies are not
addressed, literally tens of thousands of farm families and Main Street
businesses will suffer, many irreparably. It is time to act and allow
the Senate to vote on this amendment.
Mr. President, I conclude by saying I regret having to offer this
amendment to this legislation. I have no choice. We have no choice. The
over 20 Members of the Senate who have come forward to sponsor this
legislation in various variations of the legislation have no choice. If
we do not act now, tens of thousands of farm families will not be able
to continue. The stakes are high. I urge my colleagues to give
favorable consideration to this legislation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator
Conrad's agriculture disaster assistance amendment and am pleased to be
a cosponsor of this important legislative package. The package would
provide comprehensive, critical relief dollars for agriculture
disaster. It would provide assistance for a drought that has plagued
our Nation's family farms, including those in my home State of South
Dakota.
Producers in South Dakota have suffered from drought conditions that
have rivaled the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. These chronic conditions have
already ruined the wheat and corn crop for many producers in the State
and resulted in thousands of cattle being sold off prematurely in
auction barns. Those who have already sold the factory are left with
only a mortgage to pay and no relief in sight.
Senator JOHN THUNE and I jointly traveled across South Dakota this
summer to some of the areas hit hardest by this drought. We
consistently heard about the astronomically high price for hay and fuel
costs for transportation, if a producer could even find forage to
purchase. We saw the effects of the drought on corn and soybeans, many
of which barely got out of the ground and were stunted by desert-like
conditions. Some producers saw yields that measured out to the tenth of
the bushel, after being socked with severe fuel and fertilizer costs.
At a stop at the Ft. Pierre Livestock Sale Barn, we met with ranchers
who finally had to sell out because of extreme conditions. The Herreid
Livestock Sale Barn saw an estimated 2,500 to 3,500 head per week over
the summer instead of the usual 200 to 300 cattle per week for that
time of year.
I invited USDA Secretary Mike Johanns to travel to South Dakota and
see this extensive damage firsthand. The Secretary of Agriculture came
to my home State, but, unfortunately, rolled out a grossly inadequate
agriculture disaster assistance program. This empty shell game is a
glaring example of the ``too little, too late'' approach that this
administration has too often employed with agriculture disaster
assistance.
The Agriculture Department released only $2 million in Grasslands
Reserve Program money and less than $7 million in Emergency
Conservation Program funds to South Dakota over the summer. These
dollars barely made a dent in the backlog of producers who have applied
for these programs, leaving many out in the cold.
While in my home State, the Secretary announced the release of
section 32 funds for distribution in our agriculture communities,
amounting to $50 million in block grants to drought-impacted States.
Although South Dakota has been subject to chronic extreme and
exceptional drought conditions, the State received only $4.3 million.
It was announced that Texas, however, would be given $16.1 million in
assistance.
The administration's disaster relief package provides just a fraction
of the dollars that the 2005 disaster relief measure, that my
colleagues and I successfully attached to the most recent agriculture
appropriations bill, would contain for my home State of South Dakota.
Over $100 million would be directed toward producers impacted by
devastating conditions, including comprehensive livestock and crop
assistance measures.
The agriculture appropriations bill, however, has yet to see the
light of day for debate on floor of the U.S. Senate. It is my hope that
the majority leadership would allow this bill to be considered with due
process.
[[Page S10891]]
My colleagues and I also passed agriculture disaster assistance as
part of the supplemental spending measure that funded Katrina relief
efforts and the war in Iraq. Because of a Presidential veto threat,
however, the vast majority of meaningful agriculture disaster
assistance was stripped out. The White House said that it would reject
money for our troops in Iraq and victims devastated by Hurricane
Katrina if that spending package contained a nickel of agriculture
disaster relief for our Nation's farm and ranch producers.
Secretary Johanns adopted a ``wait and see'' approach to aiding our
rural communities. The Secretary said this summer that he wanted to see
how the harvest looked after the combines ran before considering
further agriculture disaster aid for this production year. As the worst
drought since the Dust Bowl, however, combines haven't run at all in
parts of South Dakota. Our Nation's food security demands immediate
assistance, not stop-gap measures and delay tactics.
Agriculture disaster is like any other disaster, and producers
deserve meaningful relief. The administration continues to dig in their
heels on drought assistance for our Nation's producers. Yet, this White
House places a priority on rebuilding Iraqi agriculture while crying
poor and lack of revenue at home.
The truth is that the administration has the authority to provide
more comprehensive drought assistance at the stroke of a pen, if it
wants, just as it did in 2002.
I urged President Bush to establish a program that would target those
who suffer from actual losses, avoiding the type of waste and abuse
that was disclosed with the implementation of the 2002 program. I
expressed my interest in working with the Department of Agriculture to
develop an effective and timely plan before more producers sold the
family farm and were forced out of business. It has become painfully
clear that real drought relief is not on this administration's current
agenda.
The administration's lack of action on drought assistance underscores
a need to pass this drought amendment today. This comprehensive
agriculture disaster assistance measure covers 2005 and 2006 losses
with a livestock compensation program and resources for crop production
losses, and funds are included for impacted sheep producers. Small
business assistance grants will also offer critical help. This
amendment qualifies agriculture disaster money as an emergency,
deserving immediate attention--attention that has so far been denied.
Producers are faced with critical financial decisions, and for many
relief was needed frankly, months ago. Because of this drought and the
delay in assistance, many producers won't be able to rebuild their
herds.
A meaningful agriculture disaster relief package already passed the
Senate--it was only because of this administration's veto threat that
it was stripped out in conference by leadership.
Today I am pleased to join with my colleagues in offering
comprehensive agriculture disaster assistance for 2005 and 2006. I
thank Senator Conrad for offering this important legislation. An
agriculture disaster is a natural disaster, like a tornado or a
hurricane, and providing relief for our Nation's producers is simply
fair and simply just.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Conrad for
his leadership, my colleague Senator Johnson, and so many others,
Republicans and Democrats, who have worked together to try to construct
a piece of legislation that would provide some disaster help for
farmers, and then to try to get it through the Congress and get it to
the President's desk for his signature.
This has been a long, tortuous trail. Twice before the Senate has
passed disaster relief for family farmers--twice. Both times it went to
a conference with the House. I was a conferee on both occasions. I was
involved with my colleagues in attaching it to the appropriations bill
as it went to a conference. We got to conference. Both times the
President threatened to veto the legislation, to block it. And he got
the conferees on the House side to require that it be taken out of the
conference report. Therefore, this is the third attempt on the floor of
the Senate to do this piece of legislation. And it is very important.
Let me talk for a moment about this issue of farming because we all
come to work and we wear neckties and suits and take showers at the
start of the day. Farmers take showers at the end of the day because
their work is hard. They feed cattle. They plow the ground. They grease
a tractor. They run a combine. They put up hay. They do all the things
that represent very hard work out in the land, and they are economic
all-stars.
The ability of the American family farmer to feed more and more
people is pretty extraordinary. But they work very hard and they
produce a product. If things cooperate, if they get decent weather,
enough rain, the disasters don't come, the insects aren't there, then
they produce a crop. They produce a kernel of corn, perhaps some wheat,
a kernel of barley, some rice. What happens is the wheat gets puffed by
a company someplace, after it gets hauled by railroad, and then it gets
put in a box and sold as puffed wheat. The farmer gets almost nothing.
The railroads take too much, and the box of puffed wheat costs an
unbelievable amount of money.
The same is true with crisping rice. It goes into a box called Rice
Krispies. The same is true with corn. They flake the corn, put it in a
box, and call it corn flakes. The railroads get a lot of money for
hauling that corn to market, the people who sell the corn flakes get a
lot of profit, and the farmer gets almost nothing. That is what farming
has always been about. But they only get the crop in the first place if
they do not get wiped out by a natural disaster--whether disease,
insects, or so on.
Now, what has happened in the last couple of years, particularly in
our part of the country, the Dakotas were called the epicenter of a
drought, the epicenter of a drought. So those farmers, who in the
spring went out and planted their crops, discovered they did not have
any crop growth at all. Nothing came up in those fields.
It is pretty unbelievable to drive by a field that is supposed to be
a field of grain and see it look like a moonscape. I drove to Zeeland,
ND, one day, a very small town just north of the South Dakota border.
And as I drove into that town, to my left was a patch of ground that
looked like moonscape--no vegetation at all. There had been no rain
there. One hundred ranchers gathered in a small community hall in
Zeeland, ND, to talk about what this meant to them. One after another,
they stood up to talk about what it means when you don't get rain.
One fellow from another part of our country who had moved back to
North Dakota said: I had never, ever understood why they measured rain
in hundredths. How much rain did you get? Twenty hundredths, twenty-
four hundredths. I never understood before why they measured rain in
hundredths until I came to North Dakota, a State with 15 to 17 inches
of annual rainfall in an entire year. And then what happens? It stops
raining, and you have a drought and nothing grows; or it rains too
much, and you get one-third of the annual rainfall in one day. We have
had both happen. One happened the year before, in 2005; one happened in
2006.
Some will say: Well, you just come and talk about farming all the
time. Family farmers this, family farmers that. There is a writer in
North Dakota, a farmer, a rancher, down near Almont, I believe. His
name is Rodney Nelson. He asks in some of his prose some very important
questions: What is it worth to our country? What is it worth for a
young person to know how to plow a field, to grease a tractor? What is
it worth for a young person to know how to weld a seam, how to combine
a field of grain? What is it worth to have a young person know how to
build a lean-to, how to take care of cattle, how to care for livestock?
What is it worth to have young people know how to work in the bitter
cold and do chores in the morning in the bitter cold, or to be out in
the fields when it is unbelievably hot, combining that field of grain?
What is that worth? There is only one university in America where those
studies are taught, and that is America's family farms.
What is it worth to us? Do we want to save those farmers when they
run
[[Page S10892]]
through some tough times, when they reach a tough patch? That is what
has happened here.
Always before our country has said: Do you know what. When you are
out there alone, living under a yard light, and you and your family are
trying to make a living and you get hit with a natural disaster, this
country is going to help. This country wants to reach out a hand and
say: You are not alone. We want to help you.
Well, in the new farm bills, they took out the disaster title. There
ought to be one. I intend to offer legislation to put a disaster title
back in the farm bills so we are not begging at the end of every
session to try to provide some help to farmers who otherwise are going
to go broke.
Let me describe, as my colleague has done, this picture of a soybean
field in North Dakota. There are not any soybeans there. That is a
field that is dead, with barely any green at all. Normally, these
soybeans would be lush, filling that piece of ground, and would be a
foot tall. But, as you can see, these plants are worthless. There is
not much alive in that photograph.
I have talked to farmers who sold off their entire herds. I talked to
a young farmer who built a herd of cattle for 3 years. It was his
life's goal to take over from his parents. He built his herd for 3
years and was barely making it, and then this drought hit and he had
nothing to feed his cattle. If you don't have anything to feed your
cattle, those cows are going to market. His cows are gone. He is out of
business.
Shown in this picture is a man from my State who was a rancher. His
name is Frank Barnick. He is shown walking on a creekbed. It does not
look like that. It looks like, again, a moonscape. That is a creekbed
that would hold water for his cattle, but it is dry. Frank said this is
the worst drought he has ever seen.
These people, Frank and his neighbors and friends, are not asking a
lot from this country. They are asking if this country cares whether
family farmers are able to live on the land and continue farming. They
hope that the answer is yes and that this country understands farmers
contribute something very important. Family farmers contribute
something very important to this country. A fellow who I thought was a
wonderful author, used to write in a book about the nurturing of family
values in America. He always described that family values in America
came from family farms, the seedbed of family values, and they rolled
to small towns and big cities, nurturing the value system and culture
along the way.
We have attempted time and time again to get some disaster aid for
people who need help. We asked the President, in the middle of the
drought this year, to come out and do a drought tour. He was not able
to do that. I went back and recalled that President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt came out for a drought tour. We don't have a lot of
Presidents stop through North Dakota. When they do, we are enormously
honored to have them join us and be a part of North Dakota.
I wanted to read you a couple of things that President Roosevelt
said. He stopped in Huron, SD, exactly 70 years ago. Then he stopped in
North Dakota--both on a drought tour, both on a train--and spoke to
people. Here is what he said to our neighbors to the south in Huron,
SD, on a drought inspection trip. He said:
No city in an agricultural country can exist unless the
farms are prosperous.
I understand our economy has grown in ways that make this less than
an agricultural country, but it certainly has not been the case with
respect to agricultural States, where a predominant part of our
economic base is still agriculture and family farming.
Here is what else the President said in Huron, SD, 70 years ago,
understanding that family farmers were having great trouble during that
drought:
I have come out here to find you with your chins up,
looking toward the future with confidence and courage. I am
grateful to you for the attitude you are taking.
That is the only way you could ever farm. There isn't anybody who
would decide to be a farmer if they didn't look forward to the future
with hope. They plant a seed and hope. They hope what they planted will
produce a crop. It is the only way farmers can exist.
When Franklin Delano Roosevelt went to North Dakota 70 years ago on a
drought tour, here is what he said:
But, when you come to this water problem through here, you
are up against two things. In the first place, you are up
against the forces of nature and, secondly, you are up
against the fact that man, in his present stage of
development, cannot definitely control those forces.
He continued:
Today, out here, I do not ask you to have courage and
faith. You have it. You have demonstrated that through a good
many years. I am asking, however, that you keep up that
courage and, especially, keep up the faith.
If it is possible for Government to improve conditions in
this State, Government will do it.
We hope that Nature is going to open the Heavens. When I
came out on the platform this morning and saw a rather dark
cloud, I said to myself, ``Maybe it is going to rain.'' Well,
it didn't. All I can say is, I hope to goodness it is going
to rain, good and plenty.
My friends, I want to tell you that I am glad I came here.
I want to tell you I am not going to let up until I can give
my best service to solving the problems of North Dakota.
Again, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 70 years ago to family farmers: If
it is possible for Government to improve conditions, we will do that.
He said to the farmers: You are not alone. We want to help.
Let's say that again today, let the Congress say that to our farmers:
You matter. You make a difference to this country's future. Your
contribution to our culture and our economy is important. This Congress
has not forgotten that. We will remember it today by investing in the
future and saying to family farmers: We want you to be able to continue
to farm. We don't want you wandering, as you go into spring planting,
whether you are going to have the ability to remain on the farm with
your family, producing food for a hungry world.
We want to pass a disaster aid package, one that puts this Congress
in the same position that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in 70 years
ago, saying, if it is within the capability of this Government to help,
we intend to help.
Again, let me compliment my colleague, Senator Conrad. I am pleased
to work with him, as I have for many decades. This is an important
amendment to offer now. While this is not the optimum place to offer
this amendment, as this appropriations bill deals with different
appropriations, we have not had the opportunity to do anything but this
because we have not been given the opportunity to move this legislation
separately. We offer it hoping for good will and for the support of
others.
This is not partisan. It is bipartisan. Republicans and Democrats
from farm country understand the importance and the value of doing this
kind of legislation that says to family farmers: You matter to this
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I join in thanking my colleague from
North Dakota for giving me the opportunity to speak about the trials of
Minnesota farmers. I join in this bipartisan plea to deal with an issue
that is of great importance to many Minnesota farm families.
While my colleagues from North Dakota speak from the other side of
the aisle, our call for assistance for our farmers is made with one
voice. I particularly thank Senator Conrad for his leadership on this
issue. After last week's election, there was a lot of discussion about
how the parties can, and should, work together, how we should find
common ground on behalf of the American people. Here is one of our
first opportunities to display bipartisanship. Supporters of this
disaster assistance package hail from all over the country and from
both parties. This amendment is just the sort of bipartisan cooperation
that this body should embrace to meet the Nation's needs.
The need for agricultural disaster assistance is great. Minnesota
farmers have had to fend for themselves in the face of real natural
disaster; first, against record flooding in 2005 and now record drought
in 2006. In the sugar sector alone, revenue was reduced by $60 million
in Minnesota in 2005, thanks to this natural disaster. In one county,
crop loss exceeded $52 million and farmers were prevented from planting
over 60,000 acres, thanks to saturated fields. Now with one of the
worst droughts ever experienced in the Great
[[Page S10893]]
Plains, Minnesota farmers have experienced hundreds of millions of
dollars of crop loss in 2006. The pictures that we saw of North Dakota
show the same reality that is faced in Minnesota.
It isn't just about statistics. It is about farmers enduring personal
struggles. This summer, in Lake Bronson, MN, about 100 farmers showed
up, out of a town of 180, to talk about the impact on their lives and
families. It is about the farmers calling my office, desperate to save
the family farm. I have received letters from scores of Minnesota
farmers talking about the impact on their lives, on their families,
families that go back through generations of farming today could come
to an end because we haven't done something that needs to be done. The
producers who will not be coming back to the fields next year as a
result of catastrophic weather aren't just losing a family business,
many are losing a family tradition.
In June, I came this floor appalled that the Senate would pass an
emergency supplemental appropriations bill that offers a helping hand
to some Americans and a cold shoulder to others. Since then, the only
thing that has changed is that the burden of natural disaster has grown
heavier on American farmers with the addition of last summer's record
drought.
It isn't that this Congress has refused to pass agricultural disaster
assistance. In fact, we provided $1.6 billion in emergency agricultural
assistance. Of course, none of my farmers will benefit from this
assistance unless they happen to own a farm in one of the Gulf States.
Congress still hasn't provided a dime for farmers suffering from
natural disasters outside of the gulf region. It would shock many
Americans to learn that natural devastation must come in the right
package to be worthy of Federal aid. The message being sent is that
record flooding and droughts don't count, only hurricanes.
I traveled to the gulf to see the hurricane damage firsthand in order
to more fully understand what my fellow Americans who live far from my
home in Minnesota are suffering. I have wholeheartedly supported their
cause in Congress. At its core, this is an issue about equity and
fairness for all regions that are suffering. And to the thousands of
Minnesotans whose very livelihoods have been jeopardized and those
losing farms due to last year's disastrous weather, withholding
assistance is nothing short of cruel.
Some folks in Washington have cited the overall success of
agriculture in 2006, the aggregate numbers, as a justification for
withholding assistance. Congress didn't look at the overall economy
when determining what sort of assistance to send to the gulf after the
hurricanes. We didn't cite the Nation's robust GDP growth and lower
unemployment rate as reasons not to assist gulf communities whose local
economies were devastated by natural disaster, nor should we propose
such a false standard for comprehensive agricultural disaster
assistance.
Let us seize the opportunity for this body to show Americans that we
understand and reflect the character and the heart and soul of America,
a big heart that understands that Americans are there with a helping
hand for all those deserving of assistance in times of extraordinary
need. Let us show America that the Senate will work in a bipartisan
spirit to meet their needs.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this critical amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that I may call up amendment No. 5123.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from North
Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would reserve the right to object. This
presents us with somewhat of an awkward situation because I have
withheld offering my amendment. The only amendment pending is the
amendment of the Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka. But we have been on my
amendment. We withheld actually offering it. I would ask my colleague
if she would at least allow us to call up my amendment--Senator Akaka
was waiting to speak on the amendment--and then be able to lay that
amendment aside?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further objection? The Senator from
New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Reserving the right to object, I also wish to speak to the
amendment that is about to be called up by the Senator from North
Dakota. In order to maintain continuity, I would hope that I could
speak after the Senator from Hawaii, if that is going to be the
speaking order. If we are going to go to the Senator from Maine as an
intermediary event, that is fine, too. If we are going to continue on
this amendment, I would like to participate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Reserving the right to object, I had told the Senator
from North Dakota that he could offer the amendment, and then I asked
that he set it aside so that Senator Collins could offer her amendment,
after which we would have a voice vote, but his amendment would still
be in order. I did not know that Senator Akaka was going to speak on
it. I ask the Senator from Maine if it would be acceptable to allow the
Senator from Hawaii 10 minutes, the Senator from New Hampshire 10
minutes, if that is acceptable, and then the amendment would be set
aside and Senator Collins and Senator Feingold would be recognized for
their amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, that is certainly fine with me. I was
trying to follow the direction I got from the chairman and the floor
manager when we talked a few minutes ago. But if she wants to pursue
this and proceed as she has suggested, I have no objection, and I
withdraw my unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Hawaii seek recognition?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, might I now call up my amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator may offer his
amendment.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Conrad], for himself,
Mr. Coleman, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Hagel,
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Thune, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Reid, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Harkin, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Roberts,
Mr. Dayton, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Akaka, proposes amendment
numbered 5144.
Mr. CONRAD. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
be Senator Akaka for 10 minutes, Senator Gregg for 10 minutes, after
which the amendment would be set aside and Senator Collins would be
recognized for the Collins-Feingold amendment.
Mr. CONRAD. Reserving the right to object, I would like to be
included in that order so that I may be able to respond to whatever the
Senator from New Hampshire might say.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, after Senator Gregg, I amend my
request to include up to 5 minutes for Senator Conrad, after which
Senator Collins would be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I thank my colleague very much for the
opportunity to speak at this time. I rise today in support of Senator
Kent Conrad's amendment. I thank Senator Conrad for his leadership and
agreeing to include a provision on behalf of the senior Senator from
Hawaii, Dan Inouye, and myself to H.R. 5385, the Fiscal Year 2007
Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
Mr. President, I was in Hawaii on October 15, 2006, when we felt a
violent tremor, an earthquake measuring 6.7 in magnitude that rocked
the Hawaiian Islands, and it set off a series of aftershocks for days
afterward.
The earthquake loosened rocks, dirt, and building foundations, and
subsequent heavy rains have continued to
[[Page S10894]]
undermine the structural integrity of public utilities, buildings,
roads, and related infrastructure. In recognition of these damages,
President Bush on October 17, 2006, declared the State as a major
disaster area. While this declaration enabled some relief from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, a significant amount of
damage remains unaddressed.
The farming community was hit particularly hard by the earthquake.
The water intakes for the Lower and Upper Hamakua Ditches and the
Kohala Ditch on the Big Island were buried by landslides. The
earthquake and the many aftershocks also caused the collapse of earthen
tunnels and wooden flumes and cracks in dams. These irrigation systems
provide the sole source of water for most farmers and other members of
rural communities in the region. The Big Island also suffered a
collapsed lane on the Hawaii Belt Road on the Hamakua Coast, north of
Hilo town.
The provision would add $21 million to address the agriculture
damages caused by the October 15th earthquake:
$12 million to the Natural Resources Conservation Service,
NRCS, Emergency Watershed Protection Program for the repair
of the Lower Hamakua Ditch and the Waimea Irrigation System/
Upper Hamakua Ditch--which were heavily damaged by the
earthquake, and are negatively impacting the farming
community on the Big Island; $3 million to the Big Island
Resource Conservation and Development Council to repair of
the Kohala Ditch system that was also severely damaged by the
earthquake; $6 million to the Farm Service Agency, FSA, for
its Emergency Conservation Program to repair broken
irrigation pipelines and damaged and collapsed water tanks.
Of this amount, $2 million will go towards repairing the
damages to stone fences on cattle ranches in the Kona and
Kohala areas, and another $2 million is needed under the
Emergency Loan Program to cover losses of agricultural
income.
Mr. President, last week I met with Big Island farmers and ranchers
whose livelihoods have been dramatically impacted by the October
earthquake. They need water for their farms or they risk losing cattle
and crops. The damage done to Hawaii's irrigation systems is too severe
to be repaired by the State alone. I promised that I would not abandon
these hard-working individuals.
I ask my colleagues to support Senator Conrad's amendment, which
would also help Hawaii's farmers and ranchers recover from last month's
earthquake.
Senator Inouye and I urge our colleagues and ask them for their
support. Thank you very much. I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, it is my understanding that I have 10
minutes under the order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, there are some things so ironic around here
that you just have to smile. We are just coming off this election--and
I congratulate my colleagues on the other side for their success with a
significant and dramatic win. But if we listen to the rhetoric from
them, and certainly from the pundits who analyzed the election, it was
obviously about the war in Iraq, but it was also about fiscal
discipline.
I don't know how many times I have read from national pundits, from
the Washington Post and the New York Times, how the Democratic Party is
now the party of fiscal discipline. Yet the first amendment brought to
the floor of this Senate--the first amendment--increases the national
debt by $4.9 billion. It exceeds the budget by $4.9 billion and claims
it is an emergency, on an issue which has already been addressed by
this Senate, I think, two, maybe three times, and rejected.
Well, maybe the folks out there who voted and thought they were
voting for fiscal discipline when they voted to bring in the other
party should take a look at this amendment and ask: Where did this come
from? Is this a bill of goods I just got sold?
The first amendment brought up by the other side of the aisle after
they win this significant, important, dramatic victory is to ask for
$4.9 billion above the budget, throw it on the debt, increase spending.
It is, as I said, ironic. It makes you wonder. I wonder where we are
headed under this new regime. There is something called a regular
appropriations process. In fact, it is very likely that we will get to
an agriculture bill, an appropriations bill before we adjourn this
session, euphemistically referred to as a lameduck session. When that
bill comes up, if it is the belief, contention, and argument of those
in the farm communities who have been affected by what they feel is a
bad crop-year--if they believe they need additional funds, that bill
will have the opportunity to shift funds around, move funds to those
accounts that are needed, and which need additional funding, within the
context of the budget, within the limitations of the budget. That is
called regular order. But this is not regular order. This is a daytime
robbery of the Treasury, a heist, in open daylight, and I give them
credit for that.
There is nothing secretive about this. This is just saying we have
the votes, so we are going to come to the floor and spend $4.9 billion
and add it to the Federal debt and call it an emergency. It is going to
stuff the budget. It is not good policy. It is not good fiscal policy.
It clearly, in my humble opinion--I may have misread the election. I
wasn't up for reelection, but I have certainly read a lot about it, and
I participated on the stump enough.
I think it sells the people of this country who voted in the election
a bill of goods they didn't think they were buying--in fact, just the
opposite. I understand there are some folks on my side of the aisle who
also feel compelled to vote for this amendment. I regret that, too,
obviously. I hope they will reconsider. In any event, it is an
amendment that violates the budget. It is, therefore, subject to a 60-
vote point of order. We have 60-vote points of order here in order to
try to maintain some semblance of fiscal discipline. This will be our
first exercise in trying to maintain that semblance of fiscal
discipline in what you might call the new congressional year. It will
be a good test for us as a Senate for my colleagues on the other side
who are about to become the majority party, and for us on this side,
who will become the honorable minority. It will be a good test for us
to see if we have the courage to actually initiate fiscal discipline in
this new Congress. The opportunity is there. All we need is 41 votes.
Mr. President, 59 people can vote for their constituencies, vote to
raise spending, raise the debt, vote to increase spending outside the
budget. It will be a good test to see whether there are 41 people here
who took the message away from the election that the pundits have told
us is the message, that the national Democratic Party told us is the
message, and that some of our own folks on our side told us is the
message, which is that they expect the Congress to start living within
its budgets. It will be a good test of whether at least the working
minority heard that message.
At this point, I will make a point of order.
Mr. President, pursuant to the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I
raise a point of order against the emergency designation in the pending
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have listened to my colleague with great
interest. He is the chairman of the Budget Committee, someone with whom
I work closely and have respect for and affection for. But he has
talked about this violating the budget. There is no budget. No budget
has been passed. My colleagues have been in control, and we have not
passed a budget. Let's be square about this. There is no budget.
No. 2, this is not the new Congress; this is a continuation of the
old Congress. The old Congress didn't get the job done. Let's be
straight about that.
No. 3, the Senator said this has been defeated in the past in the
Senate. Wrong. This has passed the Senate. This passed the Senate with
77 votes. It wasn't defeated; it was passed with 77 votes on a
bipartisan basis. The package that passed was more generous than this
package because the White House raised objection to that package. The
White House said it was too much money. The White House said they did
not want the direct payments as an offset to the skyrocketing energy
prices, so we took those provisions out and saved $1.8 billion. That is
the package that is before this body. It is the package that has
passed. In fact, in the appropriations process, it passed several
[[Page S10895]]
times. In fact, it is waiting in the Agriculture appropriations bill
right now.
Unfortunately, that bill, we are told, is not going to be considered.
So the only opportunity we have to address the emergency disaster
concerns of people all across this country is with this amendment, make
no mistake. This amendment is fully bipartisan. We now have 20
cosponsors.
This is an emergency. So pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95,
the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006, I move to
waive section 402 of that concurrent resolution for purposes of the
pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I must respond briefly to the Senator from
North Dakota, whom I also greatly admire and with whom I have enjoyed
working. He has always been a responsible and effective Member of this
Senate, to say the least.
Let me make the point; he said there is no budget. There is no grand
budget, that is true, but there is a budget. That is why he had to
waive the Budget Act in order to get to this point. It is a function of
the fact that we put in place, as those who follow the arcane nature of
this institution know, a set of 302 allocations which are guiding how
much money can be spent in the Senate, and that is essentially the
budget. It is a pretty aggressive mechanism to put in place.
Innumerable budget points of order have been brought under that, some
sustained, some not sustained.
As to this amendment, this amendment did fail. It failed on an issue
of germaneness. So there is a history here. But more importantly, the
essence of the problem of this amendment is it busts the budget. It
adds $4.9 billion to the debt. And I would argue that maybe the Senator
from North Dakota doesn't feel he is in the new structure, but I
believe most people think, in this post-election environment, where the
election was so dramatic, that Congress shouldn't be functioning under
the old rules of just breaking the budget; we should be living under
the discipline, and we are not. That is my point.
If the American people's intent--and I think it was--was to send a
message to us as the keepers of their pocketbooks, we are, in my
opinion, not living up to that request when the first amendment brought
to the floor of the Senate after this election is an amendment to
increase spending by $4.9 billion above the budget and add that money
to the debt. It is not good policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this doesn't bust the budget. No, no, no.
We have always handled natural disasters in this way, with an emergency
designation. That is the rule, that is the precedent, that is what we
have done before, and that is what we should do now. This is not
breaking the budget. That is just not the case. The Senator knows it is
not the case.
This is a circumstance, as we have dealt with every natural disaster
in the past: We make a determination whether an emergency exists.
Clearly it does. We have been struck by the third worst drought in our
Nation's history. This provision passed this body with 77 votes.
The people who are out there expect the Congress, expect the Senate
to respond to the needs of the American people. We have a need for
security. We have a need, an absolute need, for a return to fiscal
responsibility. We also have a need to deal with natural disasters when
they strike the American family. This is a set of disasters almost
unprecedented in our history. The people who have been hit by them
deserve a response. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The Senator has a minute and a half
remaining.
Mr. CONRAD. Does the Senator from New Hampshire want to continue?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: It has come to my
attention that this language is not only increasing the appropriations,
it may also have authorizing language in it. Is this amendment subject
to rule XVI?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This amendment does constitute legislation on
an appropriations bill.
Mr. GREGG. I wish to speak to the other side. I reserve the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, we recognize the Senator would be within
his rights to make a motion under rule XVI. I say to the Senator, we
hope he will not do that. We hope we will have a chance for a vote on
the Senate floor on this question. I say to my colleagues, if we don't
get a vote now, we are not going to stop until we do get a vote.
I say to my colleague, it is certainly reasonable to bring a
challenge under the Budget Act and to require a supermajority vote, but
I hope very much that the Senator will not use rule XVI on a matter of
this importance to so many people across the country. I implore the
Senator not to invoke rule XVI.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be laid aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is laid
aside.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Amendment No. 5123
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Feingold,
I call up amendment No. 5123 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Leahy, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Sununu, Mr.
Kennedy, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Dorgan, Mr.
Wyden, Mr. Biden, Mr. Levin, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Warner, Ms. Snowe, Mr. McCain, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr.
Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 5123.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend the Office of the Inspector General for Iraq until
80 percent of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the
Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund has been expended)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. Section 3001(o) of the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense and for the Reconstruction of
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2004 (Public Law 108-106; 117 Stat.
1238; 5 U.S.C. App., note to section 8G of Public Law 95-
452), as amended by section 1054(b) of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364), is amended to read as follows:
``(o) Termination.--(1)(A) The Office of the Inspector
General shall terminate 10 months after 80 percent of the
funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund have been expended.
``(B) For purposes of calculating the termination of the
Office of the Inspector General under this subsection, any
United States funds appropriated or otherwise made available
for fiscal year 2006 for the reconstruction of Iraq,
irrespective of the designation of such funds, shall be
deemed to be amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
to the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
``(2) The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
shall, prior to the termination of the Office of the Special
Inspector General under paragraph (1), prepare a final
forensic audit report on all funds deemed to be amounts
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Iraq Relief
and Reconstruction Fund.''.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators
John McCain, Bill Nelson, and Judd Gregg be added as cosponsors to the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10896]]
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment, which the Senator from
Wisconsin and I have offered, would ensure continuing vigorous,
aggressive oversight of American tax dollars in Iraq by repealing the
premature termination date for the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction. This office will be prematurely
terminated by provisions that were recently enacted as part of the
conference report on the Defense authorization bill. Our amendment will
restore the special IG's termination date to its previous schedule of
10 months after 80 percent of the funds for the Iraqi reconstruction
projects have been expended.
The special IG has been very effective, and the important work of
this watchdog must continue as long as American funds are being used
for Iraq reconstruction. We should not terminate this mandate to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse by some arbitrary and premature date.
In fact, it is inconceivable to me that we would terminate this office
which has played such a vital role in spotlighting waste, fraud, and
abuse and has more than proven its worth.
The Office of the Special Inspector General has saved the American
taxpayers literally millions of dollars. In fact, when one looks at the
combined impact of the audits, the investigations, the cost avoidances,
and other savings, the potential financial impact of this office has
been nearly $2 billion. Yet the office has cost the American taxpayers
only $73 million since it was created. So $2 billion in savings, in
cost avoidances, versus a cost of only $73 million. This means that for
every dollar the special inspector general has spent, there has been a
financial impact of $25--an impressive ratio.
There is no question that the inspector general's office has been
extremely effective. Its work has led to convictions, to indictments,
to the recovery of funds, and to improvement in contracting. It was the
inspector general who told us about cost overruns on contracts--
Halliburton contracts, for example. It was the inspector general who
highlighted shoddy construction of health clinics, of a special police
station. It was the inspector general who made recommendations that
have improved contracting oversight and procedures in Iraq.
We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. It makes
absolutely no sense at all for this office, which has been such an
effective watchdog, to be brought to a premature end.
Some people say: Why can't you just have the regular IG from the
Department of Defense or the Department of State or USAID undertake
this work? I think in many ways the question answers itself. There are
many departments and agencies that are involved in the Iraqi
reconstruction projects. We need to have a special IG who has the
authority to follow the money no matter from what agency or department
it originated. Also, the special IG has proven its worth time and
again. The special IG is in Iraq even as we speak and has had a team on
the ground in harm's way. Also, the DOD IG's office has not had a team
on the ground in Iraq auditing, inspecting, and investigating on an
ongoing basis.
I am very pleased to join with the Senator from Wisconsin who has
been such a leader in this area, who originated the idea of having a
special inspector general in the first place, and I was very pleased to
partner with him in that effort years ago.
Let's correct this mistake right off so that the office doesn't have
to start shutting down its operations in anticipation of the
termination date next October. We can remedy this mistake right now,
and we should do so.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of amendment
5123 offered by Senators Collins and Feingold. This bipartisan
amendment would extend the life of the Office of the Special Inspector
General for Iraq Reconstruction, SIGIR, and restore the bipartisan
agreement made regarding the termination of the SIGIR in the Senate-
passed fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization bill.
The Collins-Feingold amendment is necessary to undo the damage of a
veiled provision inserted in the fiscal year 2007 Defense authorization
conference report by the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee
that terminates the SIGIR by an artificial date that has no basis in
the progress of reconstruction projects.
This amendment will sustain the valuable work of the special IG to
monitor, audit, and inspect funds made available for assistance for
Iraq in both the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund and in other
important accounts, which totals nearly $32 billion.
The amendment will restore the formula for calculating the SIGIR's
termination to 10 months after 80 percent of the funds appropriated for
Iraq reconstruction have been expended. While I strongly support this
amendment, I believe the SIGIR's authority should extend as long as
necessary to ensure that the billions of dollars appropriated for
Iraq's reconstruction be granted adequate oversight.
It is important that the special IG auditors continue their work as
long as taxpayer funds are being spent on reconstruction efforts. Thus
aspects of this amendment--including the 80 percent expended trigger
and the exclusion of future Iraq reconstruction appropriations will
need to be revisited in the coming months. I intend to work with other
Senators to ensure that all future Iraq reconstruction funds are
subject to the continued oversight of the SIGIR.
Wasteful spending and profiteering are especially offensive in
wartime, and our soldiers and the American people deserve more
oversight of how their tax dollars are being spent in Iraq, not less
oversight.
The special inspector general's work to date has been enormously
valuable to the executive branch, to Congress, and to American
taxpayers. The SIGIR has completed more than 55 audit reports, issued
more than 165 recommendations, and seized more than $13 million in
assets. What the SIGIR has uncovered proves the need for the work of
this office to continue.
The SIGIR's investigations have sent American reconstruction
officials to jail on bribery and conspiracy charges, exposed numerous
instances of colossal mismanagement in construction projects, and
uncovered case after case of waste, fraud, and abuse at the taxpayers'
expense. In fewer than 3 years, the special IG's operations have
resulted in savings to the U.S. Government and the taxpayers of more
than $24 million and uncovered considerable wasteful or fraudulent
spending.
The Collins-Feingold amendment will abolish the artificial and
arbitrary termination date inserted by one Member of the other body and
extend the SIGIR's charter with the recognition that the office has
performed crucial work, with much more remaining to be done.
I appreciate the work of Senators Collins and Feingold in offering
this commonsense amendment and urge its adoption by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the Senator from Maine has been a
wonderful leader on this issue. It is always a pleasure to work with
her. I am also pleased to be working with Senator Lieberman and a
number of other distinguished Members on this effort as well. It is
truly the kind of bipartisan work not only the American people have
called for with these elections but the American people deserve, and I
hope it is a sign of things to come.
As Senator Collins noted, this is an important bill. I have worked
hard with a few of my colleagues to create the SIGIR several years ago
and I am very proud of what we have accomplished.
To go back to how this started, this is all the way back to October
2003. We all remember the famous $87 billion bill that became famous
for other reasons. But included in the bill was the creation of the
original inspector general as a part of the Coalition Provisional
Authority. I was pleased we got it in there, but I obviously wasn't
certain it would work out and that it would be done well, but in fact
that is exactly what happened. Regardless of your view of the wisdom of
the Iraq war, we were able to come together and say: In any event, the
taxpayers' dollars for reconstruction should be monitored and
evaluated; there should be accountability.
Well, thanks to the appointment of Stuart Bowen, who is the inspector
general, that is exactly what has happened. The agency has worked
extremely well. As Senator Collins indicated, they go out into the
field in Iraq
[[Page S10897]]
in a way that other agencies have not done to do very effective
reports.
Now, these reports are troubling, many of them. They indicate things
aren't working well in a lot of places and a whole lot of money has to
be spent on security rather than on reconstruction. Nonetheless, they
are doing the taxpayers a service. We have run into a problem because
the Iraq war, of course, has been far less successful than people
expected, and this whole situation has continued much longer than was
originally anticipated. So not only did we create it in October 2003, I
had offered an amendment in June 2004 to extend it, and then again in
2005 with the help of Senator Collins and then again this year in 2006.
And unfortunately, after we had agreed to extend it because not all of
the dollars had been expended, a provision was added in the House in
conference that basically cuts this off artificially. It goes against
the whole assumption, which is that this agency should continue to do
its work until 80 percent--10 months after 80 percent of the funds have
been expended. That is the formula. We now estimate that work cannot be
done until approximately the end of 2009, given how long it is going to
take to expend this money. To cut this off prematurely in October of
2007 is to simply undo the good work of this agency.
So I am pleased Senator Collins and I were able to add an amendment
to the recent Defense authorization bill that expanded oversight
authority. We actually expanded its jurisdiction so it could monitor
and audit United States taxpayers' dollars being used for Iraq
reconstruction regardless of the type of account. So that actually
involves another $11 billion in accounts that need to be evaluated and
the taxpayers are going to get what they deserve. This is the problem
with the provision that cuts this off prematurely. This is no time to
terminate the office that has done so much to protect taxpayer dollars
in Iraq. Our work on the Defense authorization bill provided the Senate
with an estimated additional $11 billion in oversight responsibility
and that makes SIGIR's total oversight responsibility approximately $32
billion.
Now, for people listening, what kind of money is $32 billion? I
understand that roughly the entire foreign aid that we give to all of
the countries in the world in one year is only $20 billion. This is $32
billion, just for reconstruction in Iraq. Surely there needs to be
accountability for this, and we need to give this important office the
time to do its work and to make sure the money isn't subject to waste,
fraud, or abuse.
I am delighted we are working together, Senator Collins and I and
others, and I do hope we can simply reverse this unfortunate error in
the House version of the conference report and that we can restore this
office to its full form.
I yield the floor.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I again want to commend the Senator from
Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. It has been a great
pleasure to work with him. I mentioned we have 24 cosponsors of the
amendment. I did want to acknowledge that Senator Lieberman and Senator
Coleman have played important roles in drafting this bill, and both the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Senator Warner and Senator Levin, are cosponsors as well.
Finally, I want to thank the two floor managers, Senator Hutchison
and Senator Feinstein, for working with us on this bill. Senator
Feinstein is also a cosponsor of it, and I very much appreciate Senator
Hutchison assisting us to bring this to the floor. So I say thank you
to my colleagues.
Mr. President, if there is no further debate on the amendment, I ask
that the amendment be brought to a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5123) was agreed to.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5144
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I have been advised that the other side
may intend to raise rule XVI against my amendment. I would ask them
before they make that judgment, it would be entirely in order for me to
offer my amendment to the Vietnam PNTR legislation. And if we are going
to get treated this way, then I reserve my right to offer the amendment
on the Vietnam PNTR. That will assure that the Vietnam PNTR will not
get done during this week. So if others are going to treat us that way,
they should be prepared for me to play hardball, too.
I have been very patient. I have operated under the regular rules
repeatedly. But if others are going to give us short shrift, if they
are going to tell the farmers and the ranchers who have suffered
disaster that they don't even get a vote, then I am prepared to play
hardball, too.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Conrad amendment.
Mr. SANTORUM. My understanding is that this amendment, as the Senator
from North Dakota just talked about, is an amendment dealing with
agriculture. This is a military construction bill that is before us.
The Senator from North Dakota said we might want to raise a germaneness
question, which is rule XVI, and that would be treating the Senator
from North Dakota and others who support this legislation improperly. I
would make the point that the reason rule XVI is there is to make sure
we don't have amendments that are offered to appropriations bills that
are not germane. I think it is a great stretch to suggest an emergency
supplemental for agriculture is germane to military construction. That
is not treating my colleague any way other than how every other
colleague is treated here on a whole variety of different issues.
There are lots of opportunities we all would love to have to offer
amendments to appropriations bills we don't take because it is not
germane, and we don't do it as a result of that. That is the way in
which the Senate operates under some semblance of order. It doesn't
necessarily operate as seamlessly as we would like, but this is one of
the rules we have kept intact and used because we want to try to keep
to the subject at hand, particularly on the issue of appropriations.
So throw on top of that what I can tell you in my State and in lots
of other States and in lots of other races around the country is the
cry of deficit spending, which was heard loudly and clearly and echoed,
by the way, by both sides of the aisle, of how we were going to have
much more fiscal responsibility, and here we are with the first
amendment with nearly $5 billion in emergency spending on a military
construction bill having nothing to do with military construction. It
may be bipartisan but, as far as I am concerned, that is no excuse.
This is not what I think the message from the electorate was, that we
need to have a whole bunch of new spending nongermane to the matter at
hand.
So while I understand the need--and we have farmers in my State who
have suffered through floods earlier this year and I am sure will be
impacted by this, but it is absolutely essential that we take this
issue seriously, and I intend to do that.
So at this point I am going to suspend and ask for a quorum call and
I will be back in a minute. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SANTORUM. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I understand the Chair has reviewed the
amendment, amendment No. 5144, and I now raise a point of order against
the amendment. But first, before I do that, I understand the Chair is
currently reviewing this amendment, so I am going to suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
[[Page S10898]]
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
Let me be very clear. Senators have a right to invoke rule XVI. But
let's be clear. This is how emergency disasters have been dealt with
year after year after year in this body. What I am seeking to do is to
get a vote. The farmers and ranchers of this country deserve a vote.
Now, they can deny the vote, at least temporarily, but if they think
that is the end of the story, they are wrong. We are going to be back.
And, look: If my colleagues are going to invoke rule XVI on this
measure, when the underlying legislation has passed this body with 77
votes, and by that device prevent a vote, then things are going to get
very tough around here. I know the rules of the Senate. If Members
think they can ramrod things and deny farmers and ranchers in this
country a vote on desperately needed disaster assistance, then this
Senate is going to slow way down. My colleagues can use their rights
and I will use mine. Let there be no doubt about what the result will
be. This place is going to have a hard time functioning if there is not
comity, if there is not fairness, and if people are denied a vote
repeatedly. That is what is occurring.
The precedent is clear in this Senate. Virtually every disaster
package has been legislation on an appropriations bill. Rule XVI was
not invoked because it was recognized that is one of the few ways to
achieve the result.
The Senator has the right to invoke rule XVI. This Senator has a
right to object to unanimous consent agreements, to put the legislation
on Vietnam PNTR, and to move to seek a vote. It is only fair the
farmers and ranchers of this country, who have been devastated, get a
vote. Let the Members vote. That is what the people were saying in this
election. They want a process that is fair and that gets results for
the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this amendment
be set aside until we have the withdrawal of the previous motion.
Mr. CONRAD. I object.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I note that the majority leader is on the
Senate floor. I am prepared to speak for just about 5 minutes, if that
is acceptable. I thank the majority leader, and I thank the Senator
from North Dakota.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter and Mrs. Feinstein pertaining to the
introduction of S. 4051 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Quorum Call
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll, and the
following Senators entered the Chamber and answered to their names:
[Quorum No. 1 Leg.]
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson, Florida
Nelson, Nebraska
Obama
Pryor
Reed, Rhode Island
Reid, Nevada
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). A quorum is not present.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to
request the presence of absent Senators, and I ask for the yeas and
nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion of the Senator from
Tennessee.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from Rhode Island, (Mr. Chafee) and the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Thomas).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Are there any other Senators
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 1, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--1
Allen
NOT VOTING--4
Biden
Chafee
Kennedy
Thomas
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BOND. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
5142 to the Military Construction-Veteran Affairs bill be called up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Jeffords,
proposes an amendment numbered 5142.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S10899]]
(Purpose: To make available $18,000,000 for the provision of additional
mental health services through Vet Centers to veterans who served in
combat in Iraq or Afghanistan)
On page 106, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 229. Of the amount appropriated by this title, up to
$18,000,000 may be available for necessary expenses,
including salaries and expenses, for the provision of
additional mental health services through centers for
readjustment counseling and related mental health services
for veterans under section 1712A of title 38, United States
Code (commonly referred to as ``Vet Centers''), to veterans
who served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I thank the managers
of the bill for accepting this amendment. I do this as Senator
Kennedy's cosponsor, along with Senators Akaka, Boxer, and Jeffords.
What we have found is that all of the vet centers around the country
are enormously overburdened in trying to be able to take care of
returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, particularly those with PTSD
mental health issues. The staffing, unfortunately, is not up to what it
needs to be. Demand has doubled. So we have an obligation, which I
think everybody accepts, to try to make certain we do what is necessary
for those who have served as they return.
This amendment would add money that is offset; it comes out of the
fund within the bill itself. I am grateful to both Senators Feinstein
and Hutchison for their willingness to accept it. This will provide
quality care in our vet centers. We had a study in the Veterans'
Affairs Committee in the House which found that the number of returning
veterans requesting services has doubled.
One in four vet centers that have been surveyed around the country
have been forced to actually limit services or establish waiting lists
for critically needed services. So I think this will help us meet a
need, and I am grateful for my colleagues being willing to accept it.
It is our obligation to do everything possible to ensure that
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan can make the transition
home successfully.
``Welcome home'' must be more than something we say to our veterans.
It must be measured in actions taken, not just words spoken.
Today, I am offering an amendment to increase funding for the VA vet
centers to provide critically needed services to our returning
veterans.
The VA vet centers provide readjustment counseling and outreach
services to all veterans who served in any combat zone. Our veterans
earned these benefits through their service to country, and we must
fulfill Nation's commitment to them by providing the highest quality
services possible. Unfortunately, a recent report reveals that VA vet
centers need additional funding in order to provide the trained
professionals necessary to offer quality mental health services.
The vet center program was established to assist Vietnam-era veterans
who were experiencing readjustment problems. In 1991, Congress extended
the eligibility to veterans who served during other periods of armed
hostilities after the Vietnam era. The goal of the centers is to
provide a broad range of counseling, outreach and referral services to
help veterans successfully readjust to civilian life. Services include
individual counseling, group counseling, marital and family counseling,
bereavement counseling, medical referrals, assistance in applying for
VA benefits, and employment counseling.
A recent report by the House Veterans Affairs Committee Democratic
staff found that in 9 months, between October 2005 and June 2006, the
number of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who turned to
vet centers for post traumatic stress disorder services doubled.
The increased demand for services is beginning to affect access to
quality care. In fact, one in four vet centers surveyed has been forced
to limit services or establish waiting lists for critically needed
services. After serving this Nation and fighting for our country, our
veterans should not have to fight for critical adjustment services.
In November of 2004, VA Secretary Nicholson approved a mental health
strategic plan, acknowledging gaps in mental health services due to the
surge in demand from veterans of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Congress provided approximately $100 million to fund the VA mental
health strategic plan. However, a recent GAO report shows that the VA
has diverted or failed to utilize money that was intended for staffing
at vet centers and has not provided a full accounting of what has
happened to the funding. The GAO is expected to issue a full report on
these funding gaps later this year, but the preliminary results
indicate a possible misuse of mental health dollars.
One-third of the veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan come
to the VA with mental health concerns. We have seen the cases of PTSD
rise sharply along with the need for readjustment care when veterans
return home. It is imperative that our vet centers have enough trained
professionals to offer quality mental health services. There are 207
vet centers across the country. They are currently unable to deal with
the increasing demand for mental health services. Each of these centers
needs additional funding to hire sufficient staff to deal with the
recent influx of patients. y
John Rowan, National President of Vietnam Veterans of America,
recently said, ``The resources are not there in the VA Vet Centers.''
Mr. Rowan went on to say that ``Not only is the mental health and well-
being of veterans being placed at risk, the Vet Centers themselves are
at risk. Because of significantly increased work loads, some centers
have introduced waiting lists. Accommodating the ever-increasing demand
for readjustment counseling is taking a heavy toll on already
overworked staff.'' We need to do more to help our veterans.
My amendment would provide $18 million to hire additional mental
health staff at VA vet centers. This amount was recommended by the
Vietnam Veterans of America to allow the VA to hire the appropriate
staff needed to deal with the influx of veterans who need help. The
Vietnam Veterans of America and the National Military Family
Association support my amendment.
Our soldiers have sacrificed greatly for their country, and we owe
them the best care when they return. Many wounds of war are not
visible, which makes it that much more important that vet centers have
all the resources they need to serve those veterans who are suffering
in any way. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment to
provide appropriate funding to staff our vet centers.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last Saturday, all across the country, we
honored our Nation's veterans, and we renewed our commitment to care
for them, in the way Abraham Lincoln advised us in his Second Inaugural
Address: ``to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall
have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan.''
From the very beginning of America, brave men and women have
sacrificed their lives or suffered wounds while serving our country. We
owe each of them a debt of gratitude that we can never truly repay, and
we must honor them and support them whenever we can.
In doing so, we must take great care to remember that not all wounds
are visible and that, when we call upon our best and brightest, we
often send their precious minds, as well as their bodies, into harm's
way. The continuing current missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been
especially demanding of, and damaging to, our troops.
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association and conducted by a medical research team at the Walter Reed
Army Institute of Research surveyed soldiers and Marines returning from
Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations yielded disturbing results.
According to the survey, post-traumatic stress disorder, major
depression, substance abuse, or other mental health disorders may
afflict nearly 1 in 5 service members returning from Iraq and more than
1 in ten returning from Afghanistan.
The Veterans Health Administration estimates that a large percentage
of the veterans of Iraq or Afghanistan who have sought VA care have
exhibited symptoms of one or more mental disorders and have sought
treatment from veterans centers. Last month, the Washington Post
reported that, as of the end of June, the VA treated a third
[[Page S10900]]
of the more than 184,000 veterans of Afghanistan and Iraq for these
symptoms. Nearly half of those treated were diagnosed as possible
victims of post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to the Post, the VA's estimate represents a tenfold
increase in the number of cases treated in only 18 months, and the
number is likely to increase as our forces continue to serve multiple
tours of duty in hostile areas. The number may be further increased by
ongoing medical outreach programs conducted by the military to increase
service members' awareness of the indications and implications of the
types of psychological trauma associated with combat deployments.
As their awareness grows, many more veterans will likely seek mental
health treatment, and veterans groups are deeply concerned that the VA
is already straining to meet the increased demand. All too frequently
we read reports of reduced services, staff shortages, and long waits
for minimal or intermittent care.
In August, the Washington Post reported the example of a veteran of
Iraq who receives only 30 minutes of treatment a month for post-
traumatic stress disorder. In October, the Post reported that another
veteran of Iraq was told he would have to wait 2\1/2\ months for an
appointment at a VA facility to treat his sleep disorder.
We need to be sure that our veterans receive the care they deserve,
and that the VA has the capacity to provide adequately specialized
services to every veteran who needs counseling or treatment. We can't
allow the heavy demands of our commitments overseas to impair the
quality of assistance that our veterans actually receive. The more we
ask of our brave men and women, the more we must provide them in
return.
The Kerry amendment will help the Veterans' Administration to better
address the surge in mental health needs of our veterans and help to
provide a higher standard of medical care to them in a more productive
and efficient manner. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Our veterans need and deserve this support. We owe them nothing less
in light of the intense dangers and stresses they have faced and
endured so courageously.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am looking for the chairman on this
bill. I know she has no objections. I request a voice vote on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The amendment (No. 5142) was agreed to.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, unfortunately, the Republican leader just
left the floor. We were about to be in a position to resolve this
matter. I ask the leader's staff to ask the leader to return to the
floor so we can resolve this.
Maybe for the interest of my colleagues, I will try to reflect on
where we are. I had offered an amendment for disaster aid for farmers
and ranchers. The chairman of the Budget Committee, within his rights,
raised a budget point of order against my amendment. It was then
suggested that rule XVI would be raised as well. We have had, over the
last several hours, a series of discussions to find a way to resolve
this matter. At this hour, it appears the best way to resolve it is to
have a commitment that we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations
bill tomorrow and try to do that in a tight timeframe of limited
amendments, and that I would have a chance to offer the amendment at
that time and other Senators' rights would be reserved, and that I
would withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that
we would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow. That is
what we had tentatively agreed to. I think we just have to have the
leader indicate publicly that that is his understanding as well. Then
we can break the gridlock here and proceed to finish Military
Construction.
While we are waiting, I might indicate how much I appreciate the
patience of the chairman and the ranking member of the Military
Construction bill and their very constructive efforts to try to find a
way out of this. I for one deeply appreciate it. I also very much
appreciate the work of both the majority leader, Senator Frist, who has
made his best efforts to try to resolve this matter, and our own
leader, Senator Reid, for his assistance as well. Certainly a special
thanks goes to Senator Bennett and ranking member Senator Kohl for
their constructive efforts and their agreement to go to their bill
tomorrow. I also thank Senator Dorgan, my colleague, for his efforts to
try to move this matter along.
With that, I yield the floor and hope that we have a chance to hear
from the majority leader, so we can start the process to unwind this
and reach a conclusion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, while the Senator who was talking is
still on the floor, let me say if a unanimous consent request is
propounded that is consistent with what he has said, I would have to
object. I want to make sure everybody knows this.
We have a bill, Energy and Water, authored by this Senator and
Senator Reid, soon to be majority leader. It is our bill, Energy and
Water. We want to make sure that during these operative days we are
going to get some work done and that this bill gets in line to be taken
up. We are not asking for any special privileges, but if you are going
to propound it the way you have, then I am going to ask that House bill
5427, which is Energy and Water, be put in order behind the Agriculture
bill, to be taken up after it. Otherwise, I would object, until we sit
down and talk and make sure that H.R. 5427 gets some position in the
Senate before we are gone and find no way to take it up. Those in
leadership know I have been talking to the leaders and others. So I am
not bringing anything up that is brand new. In these times, you don't
know what is going to come up. This is the best way to bring it up and
nobody can say you didn't bring it up. I am bringing it up to whoever
is supposed to have things brought up to them. I hope that is enough.
The distinguished leader is here. I wanted to put that in the Record so
nobody had a misunderstanding.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I notice the majority leader has returned
to the floor. I tried to recount for our colleagues the status of our
discussion, and the understanding that we had reached, that I would
withdraw my amendment from this bill with the understanding that we
would go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill tomorrow and have a
chance to offer it there. All Senators' rights would be reserved. That
is the status of it. I just ask if that is the majority leader's
understanding. If it is, I will then be willing to withdraw my
amendment from the Military Construction bill and we can conclude that.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in the last hour or so we have had numerous
discussions on the floor, as our colleagues have observed, and many
participated in the discussion. My understanding and the general
agreement that we have is to go to the Agriculture Appropriations bill
tomorrow. That does facilitate the progress we need to make on the
current bill that is on the floor, which I hope and expect to be able
to finish tonight. If that is the case, we plan on going to the
Agriculture bill tomorrow. All rights will be reserved for all
Senators, of course. We don't have an agreement, but that is the
intention. The disaster ag relief bill is very important and has been
talked about by Republicans and Democrats and we expect to debate it
tomorrow. It is a more appropriate place for this amendment. So I think
this is a good understanding.
Other bills, such as Energy and Water, we want to come to very soon.
We have a number of appropriation bills--10 of them--out there. I have
not talked to the Democratic leader specifically about the Energy and
Water bill. I am not sure if the chairman has, but it is a bill that I
hope we will be able to go to quickly, as well.
[[Page S10901]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I say to the distinguished leader,
if it is being asked of the Senate that we concur by unanimous consent
that the arrangement to bring up Agriculture in the method and manner
described, if that is going to be a UC, then I have to object because I
want to be treated fairly on a comparable bill.
If nothing else other than a simple sentence is added that says when
the Agriculture bill is completed that the next bill to be taken up
would be H.R. 5427, the Energy and Water appropriations bill, if that
is part of the UC, I have no objection.
Mr. FRIST. I don't think there is a formal UC on the floor, but I
have to object to that only because as leader, I am going to have every
chairman coming out putting bills in order. I want to be able to keep
that flexibility a bit, just as we have today, because if we don't
reach some sort of agreement working together, we are not going to
finish even the first MILCON bill on the floor of the Senate.
What I can say is what I intend to do tomorrow--again without any UC;
I guess we can write up something--is complete this bill that is on the
floor tonight and then tomorrow go to the Agriculture bill, finish that
bill, and then very high on the list would be Energy and Water.
What I don't want to do is get in the overall sequencing of bills
when I don't know how long this bill is going to take--hopefully
tonight--or the Agriculture bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, might I inquire--first, I thank the
leader for his words, which appear to be accommodating and perhaps
efficient at this moment. I am not sure, but I want to ask another
question.
Mr. FRIST. I hope so.
Mr. DOMENICI. The leader is aware of an Agriculture amendment that
has rather broad support that we discussed today in the meetings and
other Democrats have discussed with me which has to do with how manure
and the like from cows and pigs is defined under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. I want to
offer that amendment on the Agriculture bill. Nothing is going to
preclude that in what we have talked about, is it?
Mr. FRIST. No, all rights will be preserved for Senators as we go on
the Agriculture bill tomorrow. My understanding is the Senator from
North Dakota will withdraw--in fact, why don't we go ahead and do that.
The pending amendment will be withdrawn, and we will proceed with the
MILCON bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Amendment No. 5144, Withdrawn
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for being very
constructive. I thank my friend from New Mexico for his zealous
guarding of the rights of his chairmanship of his committee. I
certainly recognize that position.
I think we have made significant progress. We can move to the
Agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow. That is the place this
amendment ought to be. I only offered it on this bill because we had no
prospect of going to the Agriculture appropriations bill any time this
year without this agreement.
I thank the majority leader. I thank very much the chairman of the
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, the very able Senator from
Utah. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl. I very much thank
the chairman of this committee, the Senator from Texas, and the Senator
from California, the ranking member, who have been so constructive
today. And again, special thanks to my colleague Senator Dorgan for his
assistance throughout.
I withdraw my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the two Senators from North
Dakota. We have worked well together. I think we have come to the right
accommodation. He has been a gentleman to work with, and I appreciate
it.
I am now going to start clearing amendments with voice votes. They
have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. We have a couple of other
small issues that need to be cleared. I hope by the time I finish, we
can go to final passage.
I ask Senator Brownback to come to the floor to work out his issue
because we are about to go to final passage.
Amendment No. 5122
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5122 offered
by Senator Stevens and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Stevens,
proposes an amendment numbered 5122.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title for Family Housing Operation and Maintenance,
Army, $7,500,000 may be available for the lease of not more than 300
additional housing units in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. (a) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Family Housing
Operation and Maintenance, Army'', $7,500,000 may be
available for the lease of not more than 300 additional
housing units in the vicinity of Fairbanks, Alaska. Such
funds may not be available for the construction or purchase
of such units.
(b)(1) The total cost of a unit leased under subsection
(a), including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and
operation, may not exceed $25,000 per year.
(2) A lease entered into under subsection (a) may not
exceed 5 years in duration or include an option to extend the
lease beyond the 5-year period beginning on the date the
lease commences.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5122) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. 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. 5125
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5125 offered
by Senator Reed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Reed,
proposes an amendment numbered 5125.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide that, of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available for Military Construction, Navy and Marine Corps, $3,410,000
shall be available for the replacement of a vehicle bridge at Naval
Station, Newport, Rhode Island, and to provide an offset)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. (a) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'', $3,410,000 may be
available for the replacement of a vehicle bridge at Naval
Station, Newport, Rhode Island.
(b) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title under the heading ``Military Construction, Navy
and Marine Corps'' and available for the Hazardous Material
Storage Facility at Naval Station, Newport, Rhode Island, is
hereby reduced by $3,410,000.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5125) was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5131, as Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5131 offered
by Senator Thune, and I send a modification to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thune,
proposes an amendment numbered 5131, as modified.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S10902]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase by $750,000 the amount appropriated or otherwise
made available for Military Construction, Air Force and available for
the Air Force Financial Management Center, and to provide an offset)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. (a) The amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by this title under the heading ``Military
Construction, Air Force'' is hereby increased by $750,000.
(b) Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made available
by this title under the heading ``Military Construction, Air
Force'', as increased by subsection (a), $750,000 may be
available for the Air Force Financial Management Center.
(c) The amount appropriated or otherwise made available by
this title under the heading ``North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Security Investment Program'' is hereby reduced
by $750,000.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I have no objection to amendment No.
5131, as modified.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5131), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, beg your pardon, if this is by voice
vote, I suggest we have a voice vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Amendment No. 5125 has been already approved; is that
correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was no objection to the amendment, and
it was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5126
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5126 offered
by Senator Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mrs.
Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 5126.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To repeal the requirement for the Secretary of the Interior
to cease the plan to exterminate the deer and elk population on Santa
Rosa Island, Channel Islands, California)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. Subsection (c) of section 1077 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
(Public Law 109-364) is hereby repealed.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? There being no
further debate, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5126) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5127
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5127 offered
by Senator Feinstein.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mrs.
Feinstein, proposes an amendment numbered 5127.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report on actions taken by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to test veterans for vestibular damage)
On page 106, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 229. Not later than 60 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report on the actions taken by the
Secretary to test veterans for vestibular damage.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5127) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5129
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5129 offered
by Senator Craig.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Craig,
proposes an amendment numbered 5129.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To increase to $10,000,000 the threshold for major medical
facility projects of the Department of Veterans Affairs)
On page 106, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following
new section:
Sec. 229. (a) Increase in Threshold for Major Medical
Facility Projects.--Section 8104(a)(3)(A) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``$7,000,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on October 1, 2006, and shall apply with
respect to fiscal years beginning on or after that date.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5129) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5135
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5135 offered
by Senator Hutchison. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Craig and
Allard be added as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself, Mr.
Craig, and Mr. Allard, proposes an amendment numbered 5135.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs to continue major
medical facility projects and leases which have funds previously
appropriated)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
Sec. 229. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary is authorized to carry out major medical facility
projects and leases for which any funds have been
appropriated under this Act or any other Act. Further, for
major medical facility projects authorized under Public Law
108-170, the Secretary may carry out contracts through
September 30, 2007, including land purchase on projects for
which Phase I design has been authorized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5135) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5141
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5141.
[[Page S10903]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an
amendment numbered 5141.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the amount of a military construction project)
At the appropriate place insert the following:
``Sec. 126. (a) the amount available for `Military
Construction, Air Force' is hereby reduced by $25,400,000 for
`Basic Expeditionary Airmen Training Facility, Lackland AFB,
Texas.'
``(b) The amount available for `Department of Defense Base
Closure Account 2005' is hereby increased by $25,400,000.''
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5141) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5128, as Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5128 offered
by Senator Akaka, and I send a modification to the amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 5128), as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide, with an offset, an additional $2,500,000 for the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the Office of Inspector General)
At the end of title II, add the following:
Sec. __. (a) Additional Amount for Office of Inspector
General of Department of Veterans Affairs.--The amount
appropriated by this title under the heading ``Office of
Inspector General'' is hereby increased by $2,500,000.
(b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by this title under
the heading ``Construction, Major Projects'' is hereby
reduced by $2,500,000.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment, as modified, is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5128), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5130, as Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5130 offered
by Senator Thune, and I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Thune,
proposes an amendment numbered 5130, as modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the business plan of the Veterans Integrated
Service Network 23 for the implementation of a Community Based
Outpatient Clinic in Wagner, South Dakota, to include an evaluation and
an analysis of the prospect of colocating such clinic with the Wagner
Indian Health Service unit in Wagner, South Dakota)
On page 106, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
Sec. 229. (a) Colocation of Community Based Outpatient
Clinic With Wagner Indian Health Service Unit, Wagner, South
Dakota.--No amount appropriated or otherwise made available
for the Department of Veterans Affairs by this title may be
obligated or expended to implement a business plan of
Veterans Integrated Service Network 23 (VISN 23) for the
implementation a Community Based Outpatient Clinic (CBOC) in
Wagner, South Dakota, unless such business plan contains an
evaluation and an analysis of the prospect of colocating such
Community Based Outpatient Clinic with the Wagner Indian
Health Service unit in Wagner, South Dakota.
(b) Availability of Amounts for Emergency Room Services at
Wagner Indian Health Service Unit.--Of the amount
appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of
Veterans Affairs by this title under the heading ``Medical
Facilities'', at the discretion of the Secretary of the
Department of Veterans Affairs up to $500,000 may be
available for emergency room services at the Wagner Indian
Health Service unit pending implementation of a business plan
meeting the requirements in subsection (a).
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5130), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5138, as Modified
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5138 offered
by Senator Obama, and I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Obama,
proposes an amendment numbered 5138, as modified.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require a report on the costs of the Comprehensive Service
Programs for homeless veterans)
At the appropriate place in title II, insert the following:
Sec. __. (a) Study on Costs of Comprehensive Service
Programs for Homeless Veterans.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall carry out a study of costs associated with the
Comprehensive Service Programs authorized by sections 2011
and 2012 of title 38 United States Code.
(b) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Appropriations of the
Senate and the Committees on Veterans' Affairs and
Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report on
the study required by subsection (a). The report shall set
forth the following:
(1) The number of authorized and operational transitional
housing beds and service centers under the programs referred
to in subsection (a) in fiscal year 2006, and the number of
such beds and centers in each State and in each Congressional
District during such fiscal year.
(2) The cost in fiscal year 2006 of grants under section
2011 of title 38, United States Code, to authorized and
operational transitional housing beds and service centers
under the programs referred to in that subsection.
(3) The cost in fiscal year 2006 of per diem payments under
section 2012 of title 38 United States Code, to authorized
and operational transitional housing beds and service centers
under the programs referred to in that subsection.
(5) The number of applications received, scored as
qualified, and awarded pursuant to the Capital Grant Notice
of Funds Availability published on April 20, 2006.
(6) The range of per diem payment rates, the average per
diem payment rate, and the median per diem payment rate paid
to recipients of grants under section 2012 of title 38,
United States Code, in fiscal year 2006.
(7) The number and percentage of total recipients of grants
under section 2011 of title 38 United States Code, in fiscal
year 2006 being paid under section 2012 of title 38, United
States Code, the rate authorized for State homes for
domiciliary care under section 1741(a)(1)(A) of that title
for fiscal year 2006.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5138), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 5146
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5146 offered
by Senator Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Cochran,
for himself, and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered
5146.
The amendment is as follows:
[[Page S10904]]
(Purpose: To provide that of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by chapter 7 of title I of the Department of Defense,
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf
of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006 for Military Construction,
Navy and Marine Corps, and available for the replacement of a Bachelor
Enlisted Quarters at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport,
Mississippi, $13,400,000 may be available for the construction of an
additional Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at such center)
On page 82, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
Sec. 126. Of the amount appropriated or otherwise made
available by chapter 7 of title I of the Department of
Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act,
2006 (Public Law 109-148) under the heading ``Military
Construction, Navy and Marine Corps'' and available for the
replacement of a Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval
Construction Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi,
$13,400,000 may be available for the construction of an
additional Bachelor Enlisted Quarters at Naval Construction
Battalion Center, Gulfport, Mississippi.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5146) was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are now down to two amendments that
we are still clearing with the proper committees and one more that is
still not yet agreed to.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand the chairman and ranking
member are trying to work out the final amendments on this bill, and
they have both done an excellent job in putting the Military
Construction bill together for the Nation. But also, while my colleague
from Idaho is on the floor, Senator Craig, who is leading on the
authorization side, I wanted to come to the floor on behalf of the
people of Louisiana and the gulf coast, really, to thank the chair and
ranking member for putting in this MILCON bill, the Military
Construction appropriations bill, a full authorization for the veterans
hospital that was destroyed or heavily damaged in Hurricane Katrina,
and then, of course, flooded again in Hurricane Rita. Four hundred
thousand veterans from Louisiana rely on this hospital, as well as
hundreds of thousands from the gulf coast: Texas, Mississippi, and
Alabama.
We have worked very hard to reestablish the veterans infrastructure
along the gulf coast. This has been extremely problematic because of
some tensions between several committees. But the good work of Senator
Hutchison from Texas and Senator Feinstein from California and, of
course, Senator Craig's good help and support has helped us to get this
authorization done in this way. We are extremely grateful. It may be
the first public-private partnership in the Nation, or one of the
earliest. We think it is going to be an excellent model of health care,
not only for our veterans but a real economic anchor, if you will, for
the revitalization of New Orleans and the gulf coast. We are looking
forward to doing an excellent job with this money for the taxpayer and
for the veterans, who have come to rely on this hospital and the
services we provide as a lifeline, literally. Now they look at it as
more than just a place to go for health care; they look at it as a flag
that will be raised in the devastated part of New Orleans to rebuild
this great city and region. It has really become a symbol of hope, not
just for veterans, which it always is, and their families, but now it
has become a symbol of hope for our whole community.
So I just wanted, while that is being worked out and other things are
being worked out, to take this time to thank them and to tell them how
grateful we are in Louisiana and those in the New Orleans area for
their help and support and for their confidence in moving this project
forward. As a member of the committee, I have been very pleased to work
on this and have it accomplished in this way.
I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I want to announce for our colleagues
that it is our intention in the next 15 minutes to finish this bill and
go to final passage. We are intending to voice-vote final passage.
However, we are still working out two amendments: an amendment by
Senator Reid and an amendment by Senator Allen. I cannot say for sure
that there will not be a record vote on one of those amendments, but we
are trying to avoid that. I will just say the disposition of the Reid
and Allen amendments will be the last measures in this bill to be
agreed to, and we will then go to final passage.
I would just tell my colleagues we are hoping not to have any more
rollcall votes, but it is not totally clear yet. I hope to be able to
finish this by 7 o'clock. I will report back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Amendment No. 5143
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5143 by
Senator Allen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for Mr. Allen,
proposes an amendment numbered 5143.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of
Amendments.'')
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I urge passage of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 5143) was agreed to.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Yellowstone County National Veterans Cemetery Project
Mr. BAUCUS. Is the distinguished Senator from California aware of the
need for a new veterans cemetery in Yellowstone County in Montana?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am aware that there is a need for more veterans
cemeteries nationwide. I would be very interested in hearing about the
situation in Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. In Montana, we have the highest percentage of veterans
per capita of any State in the country. Yellowstone County has 17.5
percent of all of the State's veterans, and when added to the
surrounding counties, the greater Yellowstone area includes 25 percent
of the State's veterans. The other national cemetery in the area--the
Little Bighorn National Cemetery--is full. Eastern Montana faces a
severe shortage in burial locations for Veterans.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. What is being done to address this need?
Mr. BAUCUS. On November 7 of this year the voters of Yellowstone
County in my home State of Montana overwhelmingly approved a mill levy
to provide $250,000 to the opening phase of the construction of the new
Yellowstone County National Veterans Cemetery. However, the local mill
levy only provides part of the funding needed and is to be used in
conjunction with anticipated Federal funding as well as
[[Page S10905]]
private donations because the first phase of the project has a
preliminary cost estimate of over $1 million for roads, irrigation, and
site improvements. Federal funds are needed for the project to begin.
This funding is very important to Montana because we are out of burial
space for our veterans. This new cemetery would provide burial spaces
for our veterans for the next 20 to 30 years.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I applaud the initiative of the residents of
Yellowstone County, and I can assure the distinguished Senator from
Montana that I will work in conference on this bill to include language
in the Statement of Managers directing the Secretary of the Department
of Veterans Affairs to review the status and progress of the
Yellowstone County National Veterans Cemetery project and report his
findings back to Congress.
Mr. BAUCUS. I deeply appreciate the commitment of my distinguished
colleague from California to the State of Montana's veterans.
Child Care Center at Beale Air Force Base
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to
discuss an issue of critical importance to the military families at
Beale Air Force Base in Yuba City, CA.
The Child Development Center, CDC, at Beale Air Force Base is in dire
need of refurbishment. While the Beale community has gone to great
lengths to ensure that the dependents of military personnel at Beale
have a safe place to be cared for and to learn, the reality is that the
existing CDC is woefully inadequate.
The existing structure which is approximately 40 years old is worn,
outdated, and far too small. In fact, I understand that for over the
past 5 years, the waiting list for placing students in the facility has
not dropped below 100 children.
To make matters worse, the CDC may even pose a potential health risk
to children. Old and worn carpet cannot be replaced because doing so
would expose the children to asbestos. This is unacceptable.
Our men and women who are serving our country simply should not have
to worry that their children are being exposed to hazardous material.
We owe them far more than that.
The Air Force has reached the conclusion that it will take $14
million to refurbish the Beale CDC. It is my understanding that funding
to upgrade the CDC is included in the fiscal year Defense plan for
2008. It is extremely important that this funding for the CDC be
included in the President's budget request for 2008.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I share my home State colleague's concern for the
Child Development Center at Beale. As the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, I, too,
believe that it is critical to fund the CDC at Beale. The Air Force has
included $14 million in its Future Years Defense Plan for fiscal year
2008, which clearly indicates the Air Force intends to include this
project for funding in the President's budget request. I strongly urge
the Air Force to retain this project in its projection for funding in
next year's request.
funding for blinded veterans' services
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, as we consider legislation to fund the
Department of Veterans Affairs for fiscal year 2007, I want to briefly
discuss the importance of providing adequate funding for blinded
veterans' services.
Visual impairment or blindness is an increasingly frequent injury
among our fighting men and women. In my visits to military hospitals, I
have seen firsthand the impact that these severe eye injuries can have
on the lives of our young men and women in uniform. While none of them
ever complains, the sacrifice they have made for their country is
starkly evident, and we owe it to them to ensure they are taken care of
when they return home.
The good news is that VA's Blind Rehabilitative Service is a global
leader in providing comprehensive blind rehabilitation to America's
blinded veterans, and the care available from the Nation's 10 Blind
Rehabilitation Centers is dependable and effective. The bad news is
that, while these 10 rehabilitation centers provide inpatient care
effectively and efficiently, that is not always the case at other VA
medical centers across the country.
The VA Medical Center in Denver, CO, treats approximately 900 blinded
veterans, many of whom require rehabilitative services that the Denver
facility cannot provide. Instead, those men and women must travel to
Tucson, AZ, or even farther to the American Lake Blind Center in
Washington State to receive the care they have earned. The problem is
not limited to my State of Colorado; VA's own analysis in April 2005
found that 78 VA medical centers currently do not have any basic
existing outpatient blind rehabilitative services.
I am glad that, in its budget request for fiscal year 2007, the VA
provided an increase in its line item for blind services of $5.4
million over last year. However, I am concerned that with growing
medical costs and the rising numbers of service members returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan with severe eye injuries, such an increase is not
enough.
Walter Reed Army Medical Center recently reported to the Veterans
Health Administration that, between March 2003 and April 2006, 16
percent of all service members evacuated from the war in Iraq had eye
injuries, and of the 1,800 service members wounded with traumatic brain
jury, 19 percent experienced post trauma visual Syndrome, PTVS, with
neurological visual impairments requiring long-term specialized care.
It is clear from these figures that the VA workload with respect to
low-vision and blinded veterans is going to increase in coming years,
on top of the already aging population of veterans with blindness.
The strong report language contained in this legislation, which
directs the VA to begin implementing a plan to expand more outpatient
blind rehabilitation services and training and directs the VA to report
back to Congress on the status of these efforts, is a good start. I am
grateful to Chairwoman Hutchison and Ranking Member Feinstein and their
staffs for their work in this area and hope we can work together to
build on these efforts to ensure adequate funding for blinded veterans'
services in years to come.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Salazar for his
dedication to our Nation's veterans and to the effort to provide
comprehensive care to blinded veterans in particular. I certainly
understand the devastating impact that severe eye injuries have on the
lives of service men and women returning from combat and agree we must
work to ensure that our efforts in Congress keep pace with the rising
costs of providing care to these men and women and with the growing
numbers of service members returning home in need of such care.
The language contained in this report is strong, and I am confident
it will help to push the VA in the right direction as we strive to
provide care for blinded veterans in the most comprehensive and
efficient way possible. I remain committed to that effort and to
working with my colleagues in both parties to see that blinded veterans
receive the best services our government can provide.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, again, I thank the chair and the ranking
member for their leadership on this legislation and look forward to
working closely with both of them on behalf of our Nation's blinded
veterans.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I support the Smith and Burns amendments
and take just a few minutes to address both issues which are truly an
emergency.
First, Mr. Smith has filed an amendment to extend the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self-Determination Act for 1 year. Without a one
year extension, the 780 counties that benefit from the Act will face
difficult funding decisions regarding the next school year. This act
expired September 30th of this year and the last payment is in the
process of being made. Without this funding, school districts will have
to decide what programs should be cut in order to make ends meet. For
many districts this will include the decision of which schools to keep
open and which schools to close. We are about to experience an
emergency in our schools if funding is not addressed.
The act has been an enormous success in achieving and even surpassing
the goals of Congress. This act has restored programs for students in
rural schools and prevented the closure of numerous isolated rural
schools. It has been a primary funding mechanism to provide rural
school students with educational opportunities comparable to
[[Page S10906]]
suburban and urban students. Over 4,400 rural schools receive funds
because of this act.
Next, the act has allowed rural county road districts and county road
departments to address the severe maintenance backlog. Snow removal has
been restored for citizens, tourists, and school buses. Bridges have
been upgraded and replaced and culverts that are hazardous to fish
passage have been upgraded and replaced.
The legacy of this act over the last few years is positive and
substantial. This law should be extended so it can continue to benefit
the forest counties, their schools, and continue to contribute to
improving the health of our national forests.
If we do not work to reauthorize this act, all of the progress of the
last years will be lost. Schools in timber dependant communities will
lose a substantial part of their funding. These school districts will
have to start making tough budget decisions such as keeping or
canceling after school programs, sports programs, music programs, and
trying to determine what is the basic educational needs of our
children. Next, counties will have to reprioritize road maintenance so
that only the essential services of the county are met because that is
all they will be able to afford.
Thirty of our colleagues, have joined Senator Wyden and me in
recognizing the importance of the reauthorization of this Act by
cosponsoring S. 267.
Next, Mr. Burns' has filed an amendment addressing wildfire
suppression funding. As we all know, this has been an extraordinary
year with 89,524 fires on 9.5 million acres of land across the country
to date. Indeed, this has been the worst fire season on record in terms
of acres burned. By way of comparison, the 10-year average projection
for fiscal year 2006 was 60,726 fires on 4.9 million acres, or about
half of what is likely to burn for this year.
Due to the severity of this year's fire season, the Forest Service
and Department of the Interior, DOI, will exhaust their appropriated
funds for wildfire suppression before the end of this fiscal year which
will force them to borrow from nonfire program accounts. Additional
funds are needed to repay these borrowed funds or these agencies will
face serious disruptions to critical programs. When borrowing from non-
fire program accounts occurs, it causes numerous project delays and
cancellations, strained relationships with state and local agency
partners, and disruptions in essential program management efforts.
Frequently, these cancellations and delays increase costs and the time
needed to complete the projects. Again, we need to address this
emergency before it causes significant havoc for our public lands.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in July the Senate Appropriations
Committee approved the fiscal year 2007 Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill. As a member of the committee, I
supported this measure, and it is now being considered by the full
Senate.
The bill provides a total of $94.3 billion in spending, including
funding to make a number of critical upgrades to our military
infrastructure. As a member of the appropriations subcommittee that has
oversight on military construction, I was able to use my position to
ensure that $23.4 million was included for three military construction
projects in South Dakota.
Investing in our military infrastructure ensures that our military
personnel have the tools they need to perform their mission. This bill
provides $7.5 million to construct a new base civil engineer
maintenance complex for the South Dakota Air National Guard at Joe Foss
Field. This funding is necessary because the current complex is
undersized and inadequate. The new facility will help the 114th Fighter
Wing maintain a combat-ready force of civil engineers.
In addition to this infrastructure upgrade, Ellsworth Air Force Base
will receive $3 million to install an urgently needed base water well.
Likewise, a new Armed Forces Reserve Center will be constructed in
Sioux Falls. Currently Army Reserve and Navy Reserve operations are
housed in leased facilities that are over 40 years old. The new center
will consolidate all operations into a new complex.
The bill also includes nearly $78 billion for the Department of
Veterans Affairs, which is $6.45 billion above last year's funding
level. This amount includes $28.7 billion for medical services--an
increase of $3 billion from last year.
Most importantly, the Senate Appropriations Committee rejected
President Bush's budget proposal to implement a $250 annual enrollment
fee and increased pharmacy copayments for category 7 and 8 veterans.
These fees are designed to generate revenue in order to help offset VA
expenditures. In reality, they may force veterans to seek health care
elsewhere because they cannot afford either the annual enrollment fees
or the increased copayment costs.
Rather than relying on budget proposals aimed at driving veterans out
of the VA in order to save money, I am pleased that the Senate opposed
President Bush's proposal. I firmly believe that we should provide
adequate funding to ensure all those who have defended our country
receive the health care they have earned and deserve.
Mr. President, I continue to have deep concerns about the spending
priorities of the Bush administration, but I do believe this bill will
help provide our service members with top-notch military facilities.
And while we can always do more for our veterans, this bill is a step
in the right direction toward honoring our commitment to all those who
served.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill because of its
commitment to VA health care as well as its support of vital and
necessary military facilities in the State of Colorado.
I am pleased that this bill increases funding to essential programs
that maintain and improve the quality of life for our veterans. It
important to note that this is the sixth consecutive year that Congress
has increased funding for veterans health care programs. This year the
committee recommends that Veterans Health Administration be
appropriated at $32.67 billon, which is a $3.32 billion increase over
last year's level.
Furthermore, I would like to commend the committee for maintaining
their commitment to Capital Asset Realignment Enhanced Services, CARES,
process. CARES is the most comprehensive analysis of the VA's health
care infrastructure that has ever been conducted and is important in
prioritizing the VA's budget. Specifically, I am especially pleased
with the committee's recommendation of $52 million for a replacement
hospital in Denver, CO.
The current Denver VA hospital was built more than 50 years ago and
medical technology has far surpassed what the builders of the Denver VA
originally envisioned. While I cannot say enough about the care and
service our veterans receive at the current facility, many changes and
improvements can and should be made, and a new facility is the only way
to accomplish these goals.
The construction plans present credible proof that a new Fitzsimons
facility will increase healthcare quality and quantity for our
veterans. It is my hope, and it is a likely one, that a new hospital
will also serve as a regional beacon for modern veteran medical care
science and will fill an important void for the large number of
veterans in Colorado.
I would like to acknowledge the recommendation of $161 million for
the National Cemetery Administration, which saw an increase of $4.1
million over the fiscal year 2006 level. Specifically, I am pleased the
committee recognizes the need for a VA cemetery in the Pikes Peak
region of southern Colorado. This area is home to over 125,000
veterans, and would be well served by a national cemetery.
Additionally, I support portions of this appropriations bill that
recommend $50.1 million for necessary military construction
improvements at Fort Carson, and an additional $130.6 million for
projects in Colorado.
Specifically at Fort Carson, this bill recommends funds for the
completion of phase 2 of the airfield arrival/departure complex as well
as funds for the Special Operations Complex. Fort Carson, known as the
Mountain Post, plays an essential role for the Army.
I am also pleased at the committee's recommendation that directs the
U.S. Air Force to submit a master infrastructure recapitalization plan
for the
[[Page S10907]]
U.S. Air Force Academy facilities. This plan will begin the process of
updating and improving necessary infrastructure concerns. As the
Academy enters its sixth decade of operation, these important
improvements will better enable the Academy to fulfill its mission of
education, training and equipping cadets.
Other projects in Colorado funded by this bill includes funds for the
Space Test and Evaluation Facility at Schriever Air Force Base,
continued construction at the Pueblo Chemical Weapons Depot, $10.7
million for a consolidated fuels facility at Buckley AFB and $7 million
for the Air National Guard F-16 Fighter Squadron Operations Center,
also at Buckley AFB. These projects are vital to the continued success
of our military at all levels.
I urge the Senate to expeditiously pass this bill in order to send it
to the President's desk as soon as possible. I would also like to thank
Chairwoman Hutchison for her leadership and diligence on this committee
over the years and look forward to continuing to work with her in the
future.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senate
concerning the legislation before us, the Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. This bill is
particularly important in this time of ongoing war, structural changes
in the force, and an aging veteran population. The committee has worked
to produce a bill that, while imperfect, addresses many of the issues
that challenge our armed services and veterans, and I thank them for
their work.
America remains at war, a war that continues to unite Americans in
pursuit of a common goal--to defeat terrorism. Americans have and will
continue to make sacrifices for this war. Our service men and women in
particular are truly on the front lines in this war, separated from
their families, risking their lives, and working extraordinarily long
hours under the most difficult conditions to accomplish the ambitious
but necessary task their country has set for them.
It is important that we understand the context of this year's
military construction legislation. Three processes are playing out
simultaneously that require reasoned and appropriate congressional
action on this bill. First, America's struggle for peace in Iraq
continues. Second, our largest service, the Army, is undertaking
significant structural changes and redeploying thousands of troops.
Third, the recent round of base realignment and closure that
streamlined the defense infrastructure is now being implemented. These
three issues have defined the requirements of the legislation before
us. The committee has recognized the challenges and outlined military
construction spending that, in large part, meets them.
I am pleased to note that the Appropriations Committee has met the
spending level requested by the administration for the Department of
Veterans Affairs. This is particularly important in light of the
growing numbers of young veterans who look to the VA for care. To date
more than 184,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have sought care
through the VA. Of that number, 30,000 have been found to exhibit
symptoms similar to post-traumatic stress or PTSD, and I applaud the
committee's support for PTSD programs and funding. This legislation
also provides $32.7 billion for the Veterans Health Administration for
fiscal year 2007, nearly equivalent to the President's request.
I commend the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for her
willingness to work with the Senate Armed Services Committee, SASC, to
ensure this bill generally funds MILCON projects consistent with the
authorizing committee's views. The chairman has always made a
considerable effort to work with the authorizers to mitigate
differences in the defense funding and authorizing bills.
In particular, I appreciate the chairman's efforts to remove an
unrequested and unauthorized MILCON project for Lackland Air Force Base
after I brought my concerns to her attention. That project was not
requested by the administration, nor is it listed in the Air Force's
Unfunded Priority List, UPL. It was added only after the Air Force
Chief of Staff sought the funding outside the regular process, without
the concurrence of DOD or OMB and without any notification to or
feedback from the authorizing committees.
When the authoring committees finally learned about this project, we
had already completed committee markups and passed Defense
authorization bills in both chambers. The authorizing committees
refused to add an out-of-scope provision into the final conference
report to authorize this Air Force earmark, and as such, the chairman
has since agreed to remove it from the pending bill in a manager's
amendment on the Senate floor.
I wanted to spend time on the Senate floor to highlight this Air
Force MILCON earmark because it demonstrates how authorizers and
appropriators can and should work together. While ideally the provision
would never have been included in the bill since it wasn't requested,
the chairman was more than willing to listen to my concerns as an
authorizer, and she acted most appropriately by agreeing to remove the
earmark. Again, I thank Senator Hutchison for her steadfast leadership
and accommodation of the authorization committees' wishes.
Unfortunately, the bill before us is not entirely free of earmarks. I
am concerned that, while this bill is some $434 million below the
administration's request, it nonetheless recommends almost $90 million
in unrequested spending that is directed at unauthorized projects.
While I recognize that many of the earmarks added to this legislation
may sound worthwhile, they do not belong in the bill or its report.
Needless to say, it is distressing that in this time of fiscal
constraints, lawmakers continue to earmark military funds while
underfunding the President's overall request.
Let me mention a few examples of money earmarked in the committee
report for specific projects that were not requested by the Department
of Defense: $1.5 million for a general instruction building in Fort
Lewis, WA; $1.5 million for officer's quarters in Ravenna, OH; $1.5
million for a dining facility at Camp Roberts in San Miguel, CA; $3.4
million for an Aviation Readiness Center at Helena Regional Airport,
MT; $1.4 million for an engine shop in Fort Worth, TX; $900,000 for an
information technology complex at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH; and $2.0
million for a regional training institute in West Virginia.
Almost all the earmarked money will go to the States represented by
members of the committee. These examples are only part of the nearly
$60 million in unrequested earmarks that siphon funds away from
important programs needed for enhancing our warfighting capability.
This means that the armed services have come to us with urgent needs,
and we have responded by giving them less than what they asked for
while requiring that they spend it to suit our parochial needs rather
than military necessity.
The problems facing our active and retired veterans, whether in the
form of force structure or modernization or enhancing quality of life
benefits, are properly addressed in a deliberative budget process.
However, we should think twice before diverting money away from
military necessities to fund home State projects. The American taxpayer
expects more of us, as do our brave service men and women who are
fighting this war on global terrorism on our behalf.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are now ready to go to final
passage. I ask for a voice vote on passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the
amendments and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall the bill pass?
The bill (H.R. 5385), as amended, was passed.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the title
amendment be agreed to.
[[Page S10908]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The title was amended so as to read:
An Act making appropriations for Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I think that finalizes the bill, the
Military Construction appropriations bill and Veterans Affairs
appropriations bill for 2007. I thank all of my colleagues for their
cooperation and patience, especially my colleague, Senator Feinstein,
my ranking member who has been such a great colleague to work with on
this bill. Her staff and my staff have done an incredible job. I
appreciate this opportunity and look forward to going to conference and
having our military personnel be housed and have the equipment that is
in the Military Construction bill which they so readily deserve.
Especially, I have to say that funding the veterans and their needs
is a special privilege for all of us because we have young men and
women coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak with injuries
that we want to assure are cared for and healed, and where necessary
that we have the rehabilitation which they so richly deserve.
I think we have done a good job of covering these needs. I am very
pleased that we have taken one more step to finalize this bill.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I might, I thank the chairman, my
friend, the Senator from Texas. We usually have a very easy time with
this bill. There are usually not many amendments to this bill. But
perhaps because this is the first vehicle to move a number of items,
they seemed to come up this afternoon. I think the chairman has shown
great leadership and flexibility. Sometimes they go together and
sometimes they do not, but she has possessed both today.
I am very grateful, and the Democratic side is very grateful for it
as well. This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. It takes good
care of veterans. It eliminates the problem of financing that we had
last year. Overall, it is an excellent bill. I am very proud to have
worked with the chairman. I thank her.
I thank the majority staff. And, of course, I thank my staff, of
which Christina Evans is sitting on my left, and B.G. Wright and Chad
Schulken back in the box.
It has been a good day. At least we have accomplished a substantial
bill.
I yield the floor.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________