[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________