[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 22940-22951]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. Res. 445, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 445) to eliminate certain 
     restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select 
     Committee on Intelligence.

  Pending:

       McConnell/Reid/Frist/Daschle Amendment No. 3981, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Bingaman (for Domenici) Amendment No. 4040 (to Amendment 
     No. 3981), to transfer jurisdiction over organization and 
     management of United States nuclear export policy to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 
11:15 a.m. shall be equally divided between the managers, with 30 
minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. Who 
yields time?
  The majority leader is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4035, As Modified

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the consideration of the modified 
version of my amendment No. 4035, which is at the desk.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:


[[Page 22941]]

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4035, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of section 201, insert the following:
       (i) Public Disclosure.--Section 8 of S. Res. 400 is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``shall notify the 
     President of such vote'' and inserting ``shall--
       ``(A) first, notify the Majority Leader and Minority Leader 
     of the Senate of such vote; and
       ``(B) second, consult with the Majority Leader and Minority 
     Leader before notifying the President of such vote.'';
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``transmitted to the 
     President'' and inserting ``transmitted to the Majority 
     Leader and the Minority Leader and the President''; and
       (C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows:
       ``(3) If the President, personally, in writing, notifies 
     the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate and the 
     select Committee of his objections to the disclosure of such 
     information as provided in paragraph (2), the Majority Leader 
     and Minority Leader jointly or the select Committee, by 
     majority vote, may refer the question of the disclosure of 
     such information to the Senate for consideration.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 4035), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of amendments that are 
still outstanding. We disposed of the Frist amendment this morning, and 
we still have Collins, Nickles, Hutchison, Bingaman, and Rockefeller 
that are in order. I don't know if they are going to offer all of those 
amendments, but we have 1 hour and 5 minutes until we start voting. 
Everyone should understand, as I understand the order entered, a half 
hour over the next 65 minutes is for Senator Harkin. So we have 35 
minutes to debate these amendments. If they are not debated, we will 
start voting on them.
  I think it would be unfortunate if people had to act on amendments 
without hearing something from someone. I hope they will either 
withdraw the amendments or present them. It puts Senator McConnell and 
me in an awkward position when the amendments are in order and nobody 
is here to offer them. It is not fair to the Senate that there is not 
someone who lets us know whether they are going to be withdrawn or be 
offered, because some of the subject matter of the amendments is not 
very clear, as least to this Senator.
  I have been told the Rockefeller amendment is not going to be 
offered.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, floor staff also informs me that the 
Collins amendment will not be offered.
  As Senator Reid indicated, we hope to hear from others who are on the 
list as to what their intentions might be. If they want to offer their 
amendment, now would be a good time to come and explain it.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator need to withdraw that 
amendment?
  Mr. REID. The Collins amendment is withdrawn?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the Chair's understanding that it 
will not be offered. I do not know if it is pending.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is not pending.
  Mr. REID. It is not pending, so I ask that it be deleted from our 
list because it is on the list of amendments that was entered into last 
night. So we still have the Nickles, Hutchison, and Bingaman 
amendments.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I have been informed that Senator Nickles does intend 
to offer his amendment.


  Amendment No. 4027 to Amendment No. 3981, and Amendment No. 4041 to 
                      Amendment No. 4027, en bloc

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4027 by Senator 
Nickles and also a second-degree amendment by Senator Nickles, No. 
4041. As I indicated, Senator Nickles will be here to debate that 
amendment later.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, 
     for himself, and Mr. Conrad proposes an amendment numbered 
     4027.

  The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, for 
himself, and Mr. Conrad proposes an amendment numbered 4041 to 
amendment No. 4027.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 4027

(Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in 
                      the Committee on the Budget)

       At the end of Section 101, insert the following:
       ``(e) Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Committee on the Budget 
     shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the 
     congressional budget process, including:
       (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget 
     Committee;
       (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional 
     Budget Office;
       (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the 
     appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, 
     deficits of surpluses, and public debt--including 
     subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of 
     mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on 
     revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent 
     resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on 
     the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement 
     mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables;
       (4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices;
       (5) the timetables for Presidential submission of 
     appropriations and authorization requests;
       (6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such 
     as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals'';
       (7) the process and determination by which impoundments 
     must be reported to and considered by Congress;
       (8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the 
     provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as 
     GAO review and lawsuits; and
       (9) the provisions which affect the content or 
     determination of amounts included in or excluded from the 
     congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts, 
     including the definition of terms provided by the Budget 
     Act.''


                amendment no. 4041 to amendment no. 4027

(Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in 
 the Committee on the Budget, and to give the Committee on the Budget 
  joint jurisdiction with the Governmental Affairs Committee over the 
    process of reviewing, holding hearings, and voting on persons, 
nominated by the President to fill the positions of Director and Deputy 
    Director for Budget within the Office of Management and Budget)

       Strike all after the first word, and insert the following:
       Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding 
     paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and except as otherwise 
     provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the 
     Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction 
     over measures affecting the congressional budget process, 
     which are:
       (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget 
     Committee;
       (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional 
     Budget Office;
       (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the 
     appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, 
     deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including 
     subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of 
     mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on 
     revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent 
     resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on 
     the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement 
     mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables;
       (4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices;
       (5) the timetables for Presidential submission of 
     appropriations and authorization requests;
       (6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such 
     as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals'';
       (7) the process and determination by which impoundments 
     must be reported to and considered by Congress;
       (8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the 
     provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as 
     GAO review and lawsuits; and
       (9) the provisions which affect the content or 
     determination of amounts included in or excluded from the 
     congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts, 
     including the definition of terms provided by the Budget Act.
       (f) OMB Nominees.--The Committee on the Budget and the 
     Governmental Affairs Committee shall have joint jurisdiction 
     over the

[[Page 22942]]

     nominations of persons nominated by the President to fill the 
     positions of Director and Deputy Director for Budget within 
     the Office of Management and Budget, and if one committee 
     votes to order reported such a nomination, the other must 
     report within 30 calendar days session, or be automatically 
     discharged.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. 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.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa, we have 
a few amendments that may be offered. I am concerned that the offerors 
will have no time at all to explain their amendments prior to the votes 
at 11:15. I am wondering if the Senator from Iowa would object if we 
have Senators who want to offer amendments on our list, which they are 
entitled to do, prior to the vote at 11:15, how we could accommodate 
them and give them an opportunity to explain what the amendment was 
about.
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not mind. I thought I had half an hour under the 
rule. I do not care when I take my half hour. I can take it now or I 
will take it whenever. It does not make any difference to me.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, his half hour is unrelated to the 
underlying bill.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct, and the time of the 
quorum has not been charged against the Senator from Iowa. He has 30 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. I do not have to take it now if the Senator wants to do 
something else.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for his 30 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have a half hour of time 
yielded to me. I may have to yield it to another Senator, but I will 
take some time right now.


                        Natural Disaster Relief

  Mr. President, the resolution I have offered is very straightforward. 
It simply reiterates the policy that this Senate and this Congress has 
endorsed repeatedly over the decades. It basically is that agricultural 
disaster assistance should be designated as emergency spending and not 
taken out of other farm programs. This is the way we have done this 
going back 50 years or more. In fact, I have looked and I have only 
found one instance in the last 50 years where we have offset, as they 
say, disaster assistance with some other money from the same program.
  That was 2 years ago and that was corrected right away. We are now 
about to do the same thing.
  Mr. President, one of the few uncertainties about agriculture is the 
uncertainty of the weather. And that is true whether it is farming or 
ranching, growing orchard crops or growing any other type of 
agricultural production. Even when a farmer has used his best 
practices, taken prudent steps to produce a crop, severe weather events 
can destroy years of work and threaten their livelihood.
  Let me just quote from the USDA Web site:

       Natural disaster is a constant threat to America's farmers 
     and ranchers. From drought to flood, freeze, tornadoes, or 
     other calamity, natural events can severely hurt even the 
     best run agricultural operation.

  We have responded to these disasters through emergency legislation in 
the past because we believed it was essential to respond to natural 
disasters to lessen the financial hardship involved. We do have 
programs in place such as crop insurance, loans, and so forth. However, 
major disasters can easily overwhelm these programs, and that is why 
Congress has consistently responded to natural disasters by providing 
emergency assistance. This emergency assistance usually covers crop 
losses, forages--that is hay and things like that--pasture losses for 
livestock producers, funding for tree assistance programs, and again 
there is some misconception that this disaster money makes the producer 
whole, puts the producer where he would be if the disaster never 
happened. That is just not true.
  Let me give you an example. It is only available, first of all, if 
you have over 35 percent loss of your expected production. So if you 
have a loss under 35 percent, you don't get anything anyway. But let's 
take an example of a Kansas farmer who, in a normal year, produces 100 
bushels of grain sorghum per acre. Now he only harvests 80 bushels. 
Well, if the grain sorghum is worth $2.30 a bushel, that farmer will 
have an income shortfall of $46 an acre, but he will not be eligible 
for any disaster assistance because he only had a 20-percent loss, so 
he gets nothing. If the yield is only 50 percent, that means he has a 
50-percent loss. His income shortfall is $115 an acre. Now the farmer 
is eligible for disaster assistance for 15 bushels of that loss--at a 
low payment rate. So, again, it is only a small fraction of what he 
gets. He loses $115, and receives only about $20. So some people think 
disaster assistance puts you back where you were if you were whole. No, 
it does not. It basically just kind of keeps you going, and that is 
about it.
  Now, you will hear a lot of reference to drought relief or a drought 
bill or drought emergency assistance. Well, that is a misconception. It 
has been a misconception all along. While that may be the most common 
problem, disaster legislation covers the whole range of weather-related 
losses. The bill language covers losses ``due to damaging weather or 
related conditions.''
  In addition to drought, the regulations that carry out disaster 
assistance include hurricanes, hail, floods, fires, freezes, tornadoes, 
mud slides, pest infestation, and other calamities--in short, just 
about anything Mother Nature can throw agriculture's way. It doesn't 
matter what weather event causes the loss. It doesn't matter if it is 
part of a hurricane that has a name or just a plain old ordinary storm 
that strikes the Midwest. It doesn't matter whether the crop loss 
happens in a catastrophic afternoon storm or whether it is the result 
of a drought that lasts 9 or 10 or 12 months. We have always included 
those in disaster assistance and treated them alike. That is what we 
passed in the Senate a few weeks ago. We passed an amendment 
unanimously on a voice vote to cover all types of weather-related 
disaster losses across the country and treated them the same.
  That is basically what my resolution says. The White House and the 
House of Representatives decided to take a different approach. 
President Bush sent Congress the disaster assistance proposal that 
included agricultural disaster payments only for losses caused by 
hurricanes and left out assistance for a whole range of other disaster 
losses across the country. Furthermore, this hurricane disaster 
assistance would be designated emergency spending, meaning that it 
would not be taken away from other programs. The President was adamant 
that if Congress is going to respond to any other disasters across the 
country, then the cost has to be offset from the farm bill, and that is 
what the House measure did. It is interesting, the States included in 
the House hurricane package are Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, 
Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania. So if you are a farmer in those States and you have a 
hurricane-related loss, your losses are covered without offsets. You 
get the emergency spending measure assistance. Here is the interesting 
wrinkle, Mr. President, in the President's package. If you are a farmer 
in one of those hurricane States that I just mentioned, but your loss 
was not from the hurricane--let's say you had a hailstorm. Let's say 
you had high wind damage from a severe storm in May. Let's say you had 
a pest infestation or something like that. Guess what. You get no 
assistance. In the House, in what the President proposed, if you suffer 
loss from a hurricane, your payments are under emergency spending. But 
if you are in a hurricane State and you have another disaster caused by 
a hailstorm, well, then the cost of your assistance comes out of the 
farm bill.
  What kind of nonsense is that?
  A sugarcane farmer, God bless him, in Florida lost his crop because 
of the

[[Page 22943]]

hurricane. That farmer gets compensated out of the emergency package. 
Let's say you are a corn farmer in Ohio and your crop was knocked down 
by a tornado. Guess what. You are not in. Whatever assistance you get 
has to come out of the farm bill. So why is it, why is it that if you 
got hit by a hurricane, you are treated one way; if you get hit by a 
tornado or a hailstorm or a fire or a drought, you are treated another 
way. It absolutely makes no sense. So, again, we draw these artificial 
lines. The President has drawn them. Why discriminate against certain 
farmers? If you are a farmer and you lose your crop, as I said, to a 
tornado or high winds in Ohio or Wisconsin or Iowa or Minnesota or 
Missouri, well, guess what. They are going to take it out of one pocket 
and put it into your other pocket. But if you are a farmer down in 
Florida, they don't take it out of your pocket. The whole country, all 
of us, help pay for those disasters as we have done for the last 50 
years.
  Now the President wants to take the money out of the Conservation 
Security Program. That program covers the entire United States of 
America. Why would you want to take money out of a State such as 
Pennsylvania that uses conservation money or Ohio or Wisconsin or 
Minnesota or Iowa or Missouri, taking money out of those States to send 
to Texas or Oklahoma or Wyoming or Colorado to help the farmers who had 
a drought? That doesn't make sense. It seems if you are going to have a 
disaster assistance package, the whole country ought to pay for it, all 
of it. When you have an earthquake in Alaska, do we take the money out 
of one State, just one State, and pay for that--or two States--or do we 
just take it out of a State that maybe--we take it out of California 
because they have an earthquake and we send it to Alaska? No.
  The entire United States of America, all of our people contribute to 
make sure that anyone who is hurt by an earthquake in Alaska or 
California or a flood in Iowa gets compensated and gets help. We had a 
flood in Iowa in 1993 that devastated our State. We didn't take money 
out of South Dakota or we didn't take out of Missouri or another State, 
out of what they get. The whole country came to our assistance.
  As I said, I feel sorry for the people who have been hit by 
hurricanes, and we should help them, but we ought to do it on a 
national basis and not try to take it out of one pocket, one part to 
help another. That is not right. It is not right to discriminate 
against farmers.
  One last thing I will say before I yield the floor. We don't take 
away a community's Federal funds for highways or housing or hospitals 
to fund civil disaster assistance. In other words, if we have a civil 
disaster, why should we take the money out of the highway money? If we 
are going to help Florida out, why don't we take it out of Florida's 
highway money? Take it out of their housing money? Take it out of their 
hospital money to pay for their civil disaster? We don't do that. So 
why should we do it in agriculture, on farmers? Why should we take it 
out of the farmers' pockets to pay for a disaster? Why don't we take 
the money out of the highway money going to Florida to pay for the 
hurricane? Take it out of their hospital money? Take it out of their 
housing money? We don't do that. We don't do it because it is not the 
right thing to do. We should not take it from the farm bill either.
  I realize those of us who represent farmers and farm States, we get 
hit often because they say farmers get this and that. I want to point 
out, as I have pointed out time and time again, since we passed the 
farm bill in 2002 and the President signed it in May of 2002, we have 
saved the taxpayers of this country over $15 billion in less commodity 
program spending. I think that is a pretty healthy contribution by our 
farmers and our ranchers to help reduce the deficit of this country. 
Now they want to take more money out of agriculture to pay for a 
disaster. It is wrong. That is why I have offered this resolution which 
basically says:

       It is the sense of the Senate that the 108th Congress 
     should provide the necessary funds to make disaster 
     assistance available for all customarily eligible 
     agricultural producers as emergency spending and not funded 
     by cuts to the farmer.

  It is very simple and straightforward.
  Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator has 16 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I don't know if anyone wants any time. I 
will be glad to yield to my friend from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to support the ranking 
member on the Senate Agriculture Committee in what he is saying. I am 
in my 18th year in the Senate. Only once before in that entire time 
have we taken money from other farmers to provide the funds to cover a 
natural disaster for others. That is just wrong. That is not the way we 
have operated. We have always dealt with natural disasters through 
emergency funding because none of us can know who is going to get hit 
by a natural disaster. None of us can know who is going to have a 
hurricane or a drought or a freeze.
  In my State we have had three of the four. We didn't have hurricanes. 
We don't get hurricanes in North Dakota. But we have had drought in the 
southwestern part of the State. I have just taken a drought tour, and 
it looks like a moonscape. Nothing is growing. It is disastrous. The 
corn crop is about a foot high. There are no ears in the corn crop.
  I go to the northern part of my State, and it is flooded. It is 
unbelievable. We have a lake in north central North Dakota called 
Devils Lake. That lake has risen 25 feet in the last 7 years. That lake 
is now 2\1/2\ times the size of the District of Columbia, and it has 
risen 25 vertical feet, taking up hundreds of thousands of acres.
  We, as a Federal Government, have already had to buy out the entire 
town of Church's Ferry. We have had other towns that are on the brink 
of being swallowed up. We have spent tens of millions of dollars 
protecting the town of Devils Lake. We have moved over 600 structures.
  All across the northern tier of North Dakota, something very unusual 
is happening. We have had extraordinarily wet conditions over a 
prolonged period. The result is 2 million acres they could not even 
plant this year--2 million acres. That is bigger than the size of the 
State of Delaware--land that couldn't be planted.
  The land that could be planted is now so wet they can't drive the 
equipment in to harvest the crop. So you drive by the road and it looks 
like a fabulous crop, like there is a tremendous barley crop out there. 
It looks like 90- to 100-bushel barley. But you can't get into the land 
to take it off because the ground is soaked.
  I was just at a farmer's home and he pointed up to the top of the 
rafters in his barn. He said: Senator, that is where the water is going 
to be 6 months from now, according to the State water commission, 
because the whole area is flooding.
  In the midst of that we had a freeze in early August. Drought, flood, 
freeze--I have lived in North Dakota all my life, and I have never seen 
such a collection of natural disasters. So while I have great sympathy 
for the people of Florida and Southeastern United States who have 
suffered hurricanes, and I am prepared with my vote to help them, we 
would expect the same in return. They are not the only ones who have 
been hurt. I have tens of thousands of farm families who are wondering 
now, Is Washington going to help or is Washington going to turn its 
back?
  We have not been on the news. The networks haven't been out there 
covering this drought. They have not covered this flooding because this 
is a slow-motion disaster. This is not the kind of thing that makes 
good television, as the water rises in North Dakota. That doesn't make 
good television. It is a slow-motion disaster, but it is a disaster 
nonetheless. People's lives are being devastated.
  Always before we have had emergency funding--with one exception in

[[Page 22944]]

the 18 years I have been here. Always before, when an area suffered 
natural disasters, we have voted emergency funding to give them some 
help.
  Let me make clear to my colleagues--I have heard some say: If you 
would have had preventive planning, you wouldn't have any losses 
because you didn't have to plant the crop. That is not the way it 
works. You still have your land payment, you still have all your 
management expenses, and in most cases people put on fertilizer in 
anticipation of being able to plant. This idea that they don't have 
expenses is just wrong.
  Then I have heard they will get more help than what they have lost. 
That is just wrong. People have said: They have crop insurance. Crop 
insurance will make them whole. No.
  Crop insurance will not come anywhere close to making them whole; 
nowhere close. First of all, you have to have a 35-percent loss before 
you get anything. Then you only get a percentage of your loss over 35 
percent. That is not going to make people anywhere close to whole--
nowhere close. Even if you take disaster assistance and crop insurance, 
you are nowhere close to whole. You still have significant losses. That 
is the fact of the matter.
  The disaster assistance we pass in the Senate is desperately needed, 
and it should not be taken away from other farmers in order to pay for 
it. We shouldn't take from what they need in order to try to provide 
assistance for those who have suffered natural disasters. That is not 
right. It is not fair. It has not been done before, with one exception 
in the 18 years I have been in the Senate. I had my staff go back and 
research the whole history. We have never done things that way with one 
exception.
  We should not go down this path of turning our back on people who 
have suffered natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane, whether it 
is a flood, whether it is a drought, whether it is a freeze, or some 
horrific outbreak of disease. We need to stand ready to reach out with 
a helping hand.
  I thank the ranking member from the State of Iowa, Senator Harkin, 
for standing up, fighting back and being very clear about what is at 
stake here; and to our leader, Senator Daschle. The truth is without 
Senator Daschle as our leader, we wouldn't have a prayer of getting the 
assistance our area desperately needs. That is a fact.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
North Dakota for his very kind words. There are a number of people who 
deserve great credit, beginning, of course, with our distinguished 
ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has been the 
most forceful, the most passionate, the most articulate voice for 
agriculture and I am proud to call him my leader.
  He and I were in the room when we wrote this a couple of years ago. I 
remember so vividly. It was in the room across the hall. This 
legislation wouldn't even exist were it not for what Senator Harkin did 
in the room across the hall as we negotiated these issues and got the 
commitment from this administration and from our Republican friends 
that this conservation program would be fully funded. We got a 
commitment. Almost before the ink was dry, that commitment withered 
away. It disappeared.
  I can understand the frustration of the distinguished Senator, the 
anger and the disappointment that after being given the commitment over 
and over again it was virtually the last thing we decided. Only because 
he held out as aggressively as he did, we finally said yes. OK. If this 
means getting the farm bill, we will agree to this and we will commit 
to funding. I was there in the room. I heard it myself, and here we 
are.
  This isn't the first time. This is now the second time he has had to 
come to the floor.
  I know a lot of Senators are inconvenienced, but I must say nobody is 
more inconvenienced by the doubletalk and the lack of commitment and 
the willingness to keep their word than our ranchers and farmers who 
are so desperate for the help Senator Conrad and Senator Harkin have so 
eloquently described.
  Senator Johnson and I have the same situation in South Dakota. I 
talked to a rancher in the southwest near Edgemont. He broke down in 
tears, telling me that he is now going to be forced to sell his herd--a 
herd he has had all of his life. He said, I have never seen anything 
like this. His lips curled and he choked up. I felt so sorry for him. 
He said, But I am not alone. I am at the end of my career.
  I worry about those young farmers and ranchers who are just getting 
started. What are they going to do?
  This assistance is critical. But the double standard is so outrageous 
that I can understand why Member after Member representing farmer and 
rancher after farmer and rancher is coming to the floor to express 
their outrage and indignation.
  You talk about heroes. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for 
making the effort he did so gallantly. Senator Johnson offered an 
amendment to say let's treat this disaster assistance the way we are 
treating all other disaster assistance. I understand it is about $11 
billion. Let us treat it exactly the same. He made a passionate defense 
of that argument and lost on a 6-to-5 vote, as I understand it. It was 
a party-line vote.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, may I direct a question to my 
colleague?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield for a question from the 
Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I want to report to the body that I have just come from 
the Military Construction Subcommittee conference markup. Oddly enough, 
military construction--the way things work around here--is now the 
vehicle for bringing up disaster relief to Florida and on the Northern 
Plains. We were able to obtain nearly a $3 billion drought relief 
package on that bill, thanks to Senator Daschle in large part, and 
Senator Harkin, of course, with his leadership. But I don't believe it 
would be on the floor at all were it not for Senator Daschle's 
leadership.
  That drought relief passed with a unanimous bipartisan vote in the 
Senate earlier this year. Yet when it came back to the Military 
Construction Subcommittee as part of this disaster aid we are adding, 
it had this very convoluted offset that is stretched out for over 10 
years.
  I have to ask the leader, Senator Daschle, who has been through this 
and has championed agriculture for so many years as an extraordinary 
representative and as a leader on rural and agricultural issues, if 
there is any logic the leader can discern why disaster relief for 
hurricane victims is emergency funding, and disaster relief as it turns 
out now for farmers and ranchers suffering from drought is cannibalized 
out of the agriculture budget for the rest of the decade. What logic is 
there to that? What fairness is there to that kind of approach to this 
disaster relief bill that is now likely to pass? We are grateful for 
disaster relief, but this uneven treatment between farmers and 
hurricane victims strikes me as sadly peculiar and an unfortunate 
precedent that rural people will suffer from for years to come.
  I would be interested in any response, given the great experience and 
leadership Senator Daschle has afforded rural America for all of these 
years, whether he sees any logic to this kind of separate treatment of 
farmers versus others in America today.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my dear friend from South Dakota for his 
question and for his kind words.
  I simply say there is no logical conclusion one can draw from this 
except that there are those in the administration and apparently here 
in Congress who believe farmers and ranchers ought to be subject to a 
double standard; that they aren't as poor as other victims and the 
other people who have experienced disasters of other kinds.
  For some reason, this administration has minimized the losses in 
agriculture almost from the beginning. As the Senator so well knows, 
because he was right in the middle of the fight 2 years ago, we tried 
to persuade the administration to help farmers and ranchers

[[Page 22945]]

with $6 billion disaster assistance. That was actually passed here on 
the Senate floor. They sat on it. They stalled it. They did everything 
they could to prevent it. Ultimately, all we got before the end of the 
year was about $1 billion--$5 billion less. It is no surprise. This 
isn't something new for this administration or some of our colleagues 
in the Congress.
  This is yet another illustration and pattern of demonstration of how 
minimally they are prepared to support agriculture and our farmers and 
ranchers. It is a double standard. It is a shell game. They are telling 
farmers and ranchers we are going to take money out of your right-hand 
pocket and put it in your left-hand pocket, and we want you to feel 
good about it. There is no net additional revenue to be provided to 
agriculture as a result of this disaster relief. We are simply taking 
it out of their right pocket and putting it in their left pocket.
  I can't imagine--and Senator Conrad and others have noted how a 
rancher or a farmer could be anything but offended--that somebody would 
insist farmers and ranchers pay for their own grass and drought 
assistance, disaster assistance and flood assistance, when at the very 
same time, simultaneously, we are providing meaningful new assistance 
to the victims of hurricanes, which we all support.
  The double standard, the shell game, the extraordinary intransigence 
on the part of those who are opposing the Johnson amendment and 
opposing our efforts to make farmers and ranchers whole is 
inexplicable. There is no logic. I appreciate very much his words.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. We all need leaders to organize us, to inspire us, to get 
us moving in the right direction. Our distinguished leader, Senator 
Daschle from South Dakota, was kind enough to say good things about me 
with regard to the Agriculture bill, but we would never have gotten it 
together had it not been for his leadership. We, on this side of the 
aisle, all rely on his inspiration and his leadership, pulling us 
together. Nowhere is that more evident than our fight for farmers and 
ranchers and people who live in small towns and communities all over 
America.
  I thank my good friend and my leader from South Dakota for what he 
has done for the people who live in the little towns such as my home 
town, Cummings, IA, with 150 people, for the farmers and ranchers of 
Iowa, South Dakota, and all over this country. Senator Daschle has been 
their voice and their leader, as he has been our leader. I daresay we 
wouldn't have half of the things we have for agriculture today had it 
not been for Senator Daschle, in making sure we had a good farm bill 2 
years ago.
  As Members can tell today, his passion is still there. I thank the 
good farmers and ranchers and rural people of South Dakota for having 
him here and having him as our leader.
  Madam President, I ask that an editorial from the Des Moines Register 
of October 9 be printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. HARKIN. I will read one sentence from the editorial:

       "The reality of the situation is that there will be no 
     disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget 
     offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture 
     Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.

  Easy for him to say; farmers in his State are covered by the 
hurricane disaster assistance package. He doesn't have to worry about 
whether it is emergency money.
  What kind of selfishness is that around here? If you are from a State 
where you get the hurricane disaster assistance, to heck with everybody 
else?
  The Des Moines Register editorial said:

       Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would 
     amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving 
     it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the 
     Dakotas and other Plains states.

  I want to help those farmers. They should be helped. But as Senator 
Daschle said, they should not take it out of one pocket and put it in 
another.
  I also ask that a letter from a number of different farm groups 
opposing the using of farm bill conservation money for disaster 
assistance be printed in the Record following my remarks. This is in 
opposition to the President's position.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask that a letter from a number of conservation groups 
be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, asking that 
money not be taken out of the conservation title.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my 
remarks a letter to a number of Representatives on the House side from 
a number of conservation groups also be printed at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 4.)
  Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, I have heard the argument that drought is long 
term; there is some kind of climate change, but for the western part of 
the United States, which has had droughts for the last 4 or 5 years, we 
cannot continue to give disaster money if it is going to be a drought 
one year after another.
  Guess what. Florida sits in hurricane alley. They have had hurricanes 
going back for 100 years. Guess what. Hurricanes are going to hit 
Florida next year and the year after and the year after. Should we say 
we cannot give disaster money to Florida because this is a long-term 
type thing? That is what I heard about drought assistance because we 
have had it for 5 years. Because we have been hit by 5 years of 
drought, that is long term and therefore we cannot help you?
  Maybe we ought to take a look at hurricane alley. Maybe they 
shouldn't get help because they will get hit by another hurricane next 
year or the year after. We don't get hit by hurricanes in Iowa. They do 
not bother us. But we get hit by things such as tornados and hail 
damage and drought and, yes, floods.
  Lastly, this bill, in helping the drought-stricken farmers--and my 
friend from North Dakota knows this very well--it only covers 1 year. 
We have had a drought for 4, 5, or 6 years. Farmers who suffered crop 
losses in both 2003 and 2004 will get to pick 1 year, either 2003 or 
2004, you pick one, that is all the disaster assistance you get. It 
does not cover 7 years; it covers 1 year.
  I wanted to clear this up. I hear rumors and misconceptions around 
here. I wanted to make the record clear that, yes, we have had some 
problems--such as tornados. Oklahoma gets hit by tornados, and Kansas 
and Nebraska and Iowa. We have had a lot. We will next summer because 
we are in tornado alley. Does that mean if a tornado strikes we should 
not get any disaster money because we get hit by tornados every year? 
No. Neither should the farmers in the Dakotas or Montana or places that 
have a drought right now, nor should they be penalized because they 
have been hit by some dry weather for a few years.

                               Exhibit 1

              [From the Des Moines Register, Oct. 9, 2004]

             Midwest Farmers May Lose Out With Disaster Aid

       Washington, DC.--Farmers hit by a succession of crop losses 
     hoped an election year would bring some extra cash from the 
     government.
       However, House Republicans are pushing for cuts in farm 
     programs to pay for a $3 billion package of farm-disaster 
     assistance, and agriculture groups may drop their support for 
     the aid.
       Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would 
     amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving 
     it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the 
     Dakotas and other Plains states. The prime target for the 
     cuts is the popular

[[Page 22946]]

     Conservation Security Program written by Sen. Tom Harkin.
       ``If disaster assistance comes out of the farm bill, then 
     we oppose disaster assistance,'' said Mary Kay Thatcher, a 
     lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
       Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy. The White House 
     is pushing Congress to pass special emergency assistance for 
     Florida hurricane victims, including farmers there, without 
     demanding spending cuts. Florida is a key state in the 
     presidential race. ``It is not right to treat farmers in one 
     part of this country different than farmers in another,'' 
     Harkin said.
       The House passed legislation earlier in the week that would 
     pay for the drought assistance by capping the cost of the 
     Conservation Security Program.
       ``The reality of the situation is that there will be no 
     disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget 
     offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture 
     Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Friday, lawmakers were 
     looking into trimming things other than the Conservation 
     Security Program because of technical problems with targeting 
     the conservation payments, congressional aides said. Harkin, 
     a Democrat, pledged to slow some must-pass bills unless 
     Republicans backed off making the cuts. Friday afternoon, he 
     blocked the Senate from considering amendments to an 
     intelligence-reform bill.
       The Senate passed a version of the drought aid paid for by 
     adding to the federal budget deficit. Farmers could get 
     payments for losses in either 2003 or 2004.
       Iowa farmers would likely receive about $200 million to 
     $250 million in disaster payments, primarily to cover damage 
     to soybean fields, according to Harkin's staff. The Iowa Farm 
     Bureau has estimated damage from the 2003 drought at $750 
     million.
       The Conservation Security Program is designed to reward 
     farmers for practices that prevent soil erosion and other 
     environmental problems.
       Some 2,188 farms, including 290 in Iowa, were signed up for 
     the program this year. Enrollment was limited to 18 
     watersheds, or river drainage areas. The National Corn 
     Growers Association never endorsed the disaster aid package, 
     partly out of concern that it mean reductions in other farm 
     spending, said Jon Doggett, a lobbyist for the group.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                                  October 7, 2004.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC

     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC

     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee 
         on Homeland Security, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC

       Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The House and Senate 
     have approved virtually identical legislation to provide 
     vitally important financial assistance to assist farmers and 
     ranchers who have suffered devastating crop losses due to 
     hurricanes and drought. Importantly, the provisions approved 
     by the House and Senate allow producers to choose to receive 
     assistance for either 2003 or 2004 crop losses. And, since 
     the legislation is similar to previous disaster programs, 
     USDA should be able to deliver the assistance in a timely and 
     cost efficient manner.
       We understand that the free-standing legislation passed by 
     the House on October 6 may serve as the House position in the 
     conference on FY05 funding for Homeland Security. We are 
     concerned that the House provision providing assistance for 
     agricultural losses includes a funding offset, which reduces 
     funding for a conservation program authorized in the 2002 
     farm bill. The Senate passed provision, which is included in 
     the Homeland Security bill does not include an off-set. As 
     you know, farm and commodity organizations have consistently 
     opposed opening the farm bill, which is carefully balanced 
     and has provided important, predictable financial stability 
     for farmers, ranchers and rural Americans. While the House 
     passed provision includes an off-set for a portion of the 
     agriculture assistance, the other assistance was approved 
     with an emergency designation and the House overwhelmingly 
     rejected an amendment that would have offset the entire bill.
       The purpose of this letter is to respectfully urge the 
     conferees to retain the disaster assistance provisions as 
     part of the Homeland Security funding but to eliminate the 
     requirement that a portion of the funds for agricultural 
     disaster assistance be off-set by a reduction in conservation 
     programs or any other programs authorized by the 2002 farm 
     bill. We believe the delivery of much needed assistance to 
     farmers and ranchers suffering losses due to drought, 
     hurricanes and other adverse weather is critically important 
     to those who have suffered devastating losses, but we also 
     believe preservation of the provisions of the 2002 farm law 
     is important to all farmers and ranchers. We would also note 
     that expenditures under the 2002 farm bill have been 
     substantially less than that projected at the time of 
     passage. Unfortunately budget rules do not allow use of those 
     funds for other purposes, but we believe this should be a 
     favorable factor in the consideration of our request.
       As always, thank you for your consideration of our views 
     and your leadership on matters critical to the U.S. 
     agricultural community.
       Sincerely,
         Alabama Farmers Federation
         American Corn Growers Association
         American Farm Bureau Federation
         American Soybean Association
         Ducks Unlimited
         Georgia Peanut Commission
         Independent Community Bankers of America
         National Association of Farmer Elected Committees
         National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
         National Association of Wheat Growers
         National Barley Growers Association
         National Cotton Council
         National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
         National Farmers Organization
         National Farmers Union
         National Grain Sorghum Producers
         National Milk Producers Federation
         Southern Peanut Farmers Federation
         National Sunflower Association
         Soybean Producers of America
         US Canola Association
         USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
         USA Rice Federation
         USA Rice Producers Association
         Women Involved in Farm Economics.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

         American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American Land 
           Conservancy, Archery Trade Association, Bowhunting 
           Preservation Alliance, Congressional Sportsmen's 
           Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, International Hunter 
           Education Association, International Association of 
           Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton League of 
           America, Orion-The Hunters Institute, Pheasants 
           Forever, Sand County Foundation, Texas Wildlife 
           Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 
           Partnership, The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Forever, 
           Wildlife Management Institute,
                                                  October 7, 2004.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Hon. Tom Daschle,
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Dennis Hastert,
     Hon. Tom DeLay,
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Hon. Bill Young,
     Hon. David Obey,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senate and House Leadership. The above listed 
     conservation and sportsmen's organizations, which represent a 
     diverse spectrum of interests with a combined membership of 
     millions, stand together urging you to reject any attempt to 
     offset the costs of the disaster package's assistance to U.S. 
     farmers and ranchers with cuts to the 2002 Farm Bill's 
     conservation assistance programs. We fully support a disaster 
     assistance package that is appropriately designated by 
     Congress as emergency spending.
       Conservation funding was critical to securing passage of 
     the 2002 Farm Bill. These conservation programs have become 
     win-win solutions for landowners and wildlife, while at the 
     same time guard against economic impacts from droughts and 
     floods. Each of the programs is oversubscribed, with farmer 
     demand continuing to outpace available funding.
       We strongly oppose the use of conservation program spending 
     as an offset for disaster assistance. If you have questions 
     about this issue, please contact Barton James (Ducks 
     Unlimited) at (202) 347-1530.
       Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this 
     matter.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 4

                                                  October 5, 2004.
     Hon. C.W. Bill Young,
     Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, H-218 Capitol 
         Building, Washington, DC

     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, S-128 Capitol 
         Building, Washington, DC

     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senate Committee 
         on Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building Rm-135, 
         Washington, DC

     Hon. Martin Olav Sabo,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House 
         Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn HOB B-307, 
         Washington, DC

     Hon. David Obey,

[[Page 22947]]

     Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, 1016 
         Longworth HOB, Washington, DC

     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, S-112 
         Capitol Building, Washington, DC

     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House Committee 
         on Appropriations, Rayburn HOB B-307, Washington, DC
       Dear Appropriations Conferee: As you conference the fiscal 
     year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill and consider 
     the Senate-passed agricultural disaster package, we urge you 
     to reject any attempt to offset the costs of the disaster 
     package with cuts to the 2002 Farm Bill's conservation 
     assistance programs.
       Conservation funding was critical to securing passage of 
     the 2002 Farm Bill. Conservation programs in the 2002 Farm 
     Bill provide farmers and ranchers with important financial 
     assistance while addressing the nation's urgent natural 
     resource and environmental needs. These programs guard 
     against heightened natural resource and economic impacts from 
     droughts and floods, and thus the long-term costs of weather 
     related disasters, by improving soil and water quality and 
     conservation. Each of the programs is oversubscribed, with 
     farmer demand continuing to outpace available funding.
       We strongly oppose the use of conservation program spending 
     as an offset for the disaster package. In our view, it is 
     unfair to single out agricultural disasters for offsets and 
     unwise to single out conservation as the potential offset.
       Thank you for considering our views.
           Sincerely,
         American Farmland Trust
         American Rivers
         Chesapeake Bay Foundation
         Defenders of Wildlife
         Environmental Defense
         National Association of Conservation Districts
         National Catholic Rural Life Conference
         National Wildlife Federation
         Natural Resources Defense Council
         Sierra Club
         Soil and Water Conservation Society
         Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
         Union of Concerned Scientists.

  Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 40 seconds.
  Mr. HARKIN. Whatever time I have remaining I would be glad to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. Let me, in the few moments remaining, thank the Senator 
from Iowa. Yesterday, someone asked him what he was doing, and he said: 
I am supporting my farmers.
  The fact is, farmers in his State, our State and others, have been 
hit by weather-related disasters. You ought not treat farmers in 
different parts of the country in different ways. If you are going to 
provide disaster assistance to people in one part of the country, those 
farmers who have been hit with weather-related disasters in other parts 
of the country deserve to be helped as well.
  This is a case of the Government saying to farmers during a tough 
period, you are not alone; we are here to help you. This is not a case 
of farmers begging to be helped. It is a case, for example, in our part 
of the country, where torrential rains wiped out the opportunity for 
farmers to even plant a crop on 1.7 million acres. Think of that. There 
were 1.7 million acres that could not be planted. These are farmers 
that will lose their farms if we do not offer some help.
  The Senator from Iowa has been doing something very simple and 
powerful in the Senate. He is standing up for family farmers.
  My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, myself, and others 
are insistent we provide disaster relief and do so in the right way.
  What is being done in the conferences, back and forth, the ping-
ponging of inadequate proposals, proposals that are unusual, is not 
fair.
  I commend the Senator from Iowa for being unwilling to sit by idly, 
silently, and allowing this to happen. I stand with him, as does my 
colleague, Senator Conrad, and many others.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask permission to withdraw 
from the list the Bingaman-Domenici amendment as listed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 4027

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, later on today we will be discussing 
an amendment submitted by Senator Nickles. The amendment's alleged 
purpose is to clarify the shared jurisdiction of the congressional 
budget process between Governmental Affairs and the budget situation 
that grew out of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process of 
1974.
  Senate committees rarely share jurisdiction, and joint referral of 
legislation is accomplished by unanimous consent. Today, anything that 
deals with the budget either coming out of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee or coming out of Budget has to be referred to the 
Governmental Affairs Committee and within 30 days some action has to be 
taken so there is a joint referral.
  This amendment would eliminate that and say that all of the budgetary 
process is within the jurisdiction only of the Budget Committee and 
would also require that instead of the nominations for the Director of 
the Office of Management and Budget and the deputy director being the 
sole jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that would be 
a joint jurisdiction. In other words, the Presidential appointee to 
Director of Budget and Management, Deputy Director, and other people, 
would have to come to the Governmental Affairs Committee and also go to 
the Budget Committee for their approval.
  I think one of the things we are trying to do here is to streamline 
that whole process, that we have too many people who are being, 
frankly, nominated, and too much advice and consent.
  One of the things in an amendment to the Homeland Security Act that 
we were able to get done was the provision that says we are going to 
ask the administration to come back with recommendations on how they 
can reduce the number of people who are sent to the Senate for advice 
and consent to streamline the process.
  This amendment would make this Presidential appointment process in 
regard to the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director 
much more complicated than it is today. I would also argue--with due 
respect to the expertise that is on the Budget Committee--that this 
process has not been looked at since 1974.
  As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the oversight 
of Government management in the Federal workforce, I have been 
concerned that we have not looked at that process since 1974--that we 
have discussed the feasibility of going to a 2-year budget. There are 
many things, in my opinion, that this body should be doing, and if it 
were solely within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, it might 
not get done. The Governmental Affairs Committee looks at the big 
picture.
  I would also argue that too often in the Office of Budget and 
Management, there is no ``M'' in OMB. I am pleased to say that this 
administration has undertaken some very aggressive management 
responsibilities. I, quite frankly, think they would not have 
undertaken those management responsibilities had it not been for the 
fact that they had to be confirmed by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee of the U.S. Senate.
  I know the relationships that I have built personally with the 
Director of the Office of Budget and Management; Sean O'Keefe, who was 
the Deputy Director, and now Director Josh Bolten, have really accrued 
to the benefit of our country in terms of improving the management of 
Government.
  So what I am trying to say is the budget process is important not 
only to the Budget Committee but the budget process is important to the 
entire country and to the operation of Government because it has such a 
large impact on the whole operation of Government.
  I respect the chairman of the Budget Committee, but as one who has 
been concerned about modernizing our procedures, I believe this would 
not promote what is in the best interest of the

[[Page 22948]]

Senate or, for that matter, our country.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the human 
capital changes that have occurred since 1999 that have come out of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich, Ohio--An Agenda To Reform the Federal 
                       Workforce: Accomplishments

       Senator Voinovich has made identifying and developing 
     solutions to the federal government's strategic human capital 
     challenges his highest priority for his Subcommittee on 
     Oversight of Government Management. He has held 15 hearings 
     on the subject, spoken at numerous public conferences, and 
     was a key participant in the Harvard University John F. 
     Kennedy School of Government Executive Sessions on the Future 
     of the Public Service in 2001-2002. He has brought together 
     the best minds in academia, government and the private sector 
     to address these issues and developed a forward-looking 
     legislative agenda. Taken together, the legislation he has 
     sponsored and cosponsored represents the most significant 
     governmentwide changes to the federal civil service system 
     since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.
       Legislation sponsored by Senator Voinovich enacted into 
     law:
       Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Reshaping 
     Authority as part of the FY 2001 Defense Authorization, 
     became law on October 30, 2000.
       Several major provisions of S. 2651, the Federal Workforce 
     Improvement Act of 2002, were included in the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002. 
     Its most important provisions: agency chief human capital 
     officers (at the 24 largest federal agencies); an interagency 
     chief human capital officers council (codifying the Human 
     Resources Management Council); an OPM-designed set of 
     systems, including metrics, for assessing agency human 
     capital management; inclusion of agency human capital 
     strategic planning in annual performance plans and program 
     performance reports required by GPRA; reform of the 
     competitive service hiring process (use of a category ranking 
     system instead of the Rule of Three); permanent extension, 
     revision, and expansion of voluntary separation incentive pay 
     and voluntary early retirement (``buyouts'' and ``early-
     outs'');
       S. 926, the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act, 
     Public Law 108-123, November 11, 2003. The law raises to 
     $10,000 and $60,000, respectively, the annual and aggregate 
     limits of student loan repayment federal agencies may offer 
     employees as incentives.
       S. 1683, the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits 
     Parity Act of 2003, Public Law 108-196, December 19, 2003. 
     The law required OPM to conduct a study of federal law 
     enforcement compensation and classification to inform reform 
     efforts. It was submitted to Congress on July 16, 2004.
       S. 610, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, Public Law 
     108-201, February 24, 2004. The law provides new personnel 
     flexibilities to the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to recruit and retain a technology savvy 
     workforce for NASA's high-tech mission.
       H.R. 2751, GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 
     108-271, July 7, 2004. H.R. 2751 was the House companion to 
     Senator Voinovich's bill S. 1522, which passed the Senate on 
     November 24, 2003. It provides several new personnel 
     flexibilities to the now U.S. Government Accountability 
     Office.
       Legislation cosponsored by Senator Voinovich enacted into 
     law:
       The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, 
     November 25, 2002, allowed the new department to design a new 
     personnel system for its 170,000 employees to meet its 
     mission needs.
       The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
     2004, Public Law 108-136, November 24, 2003, includes the 
     National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Senator Voinovich 
     had a role in drafting the Senate version of NSPS, S. 1166. 
     NSPS will provide significant personnel flexibilities to the 
     Department of Defense similar to those at the Department of 
     Homeland Security. In addition, this Act contains a provision 
     that alleviates pay compression in the Senior Executive 
     Service. Senator Voinovich had introduced a separate bill, S. 
     768, to accomplish this.
       Legislation sponsored by Senator Voinovich currently under 
     Congressional consideration:
       S. 129, Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003, was 
     passed by the Senate on April 8, 2004, and it contains 
     additional governmentwide human capital reforms. The House 
     Committee on Government Reform considered and reported S. 129 
     to the full House on June 24, 2004. Senator Voinovich 
     understands that the bill should pass the House the week of 
     October 4th and return to the Senate for final passage.

  Mr. VOINOVICH. I would like to emphasize for my colleagues how 
important it is that this jurisdiction in terms of the Director of 
Budget and Management and the Deputy Director remains in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee.
  I would like to make one other point; that point is, the jurisdiction 
of our committee has been stripped out for the last couple of days. So 
I just urge my colleagues--I am going to ask for a vote. I think it is 
important to the management of our country.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, for my friend to say the jurisdiction of the 
committee has been stripped out in the last few days, he should come in 
contact with reality. It simply is not true. How many times people come 
and say that does not make it true. The governmental affairs/homeland 
security committee is going to be one of most powerful committees in 
the Congress. Last year, as I understand, they had about 900 bills 
referred to them. This next year, it will probably be 3,000 bills 
referred to them. They have jurisdiction over wide-ranging matters. A 
few little things have been taken from Governmental Affairs, but they 
have been given a truckload of stuff.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator in 
Nevada for his comments. He is exactly right. For anybody to suggest 
Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction reduced here, I mean, 
come on. Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction dramatically 
increased.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today with my 
ranking member, Senator Conrad, would consolidate jurisdiction for the 
congressional budget process within the Senate Committee on the Budget 
and establish shared jurisdiction with the new Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs over the nomination and confirmation 
of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The amendment 
would preserve the Government Affairs Committee's jurisdiction over 
management and accounting measures.
  Under current Senate rules, jurisdiction over budget process matters 
is shared with the Committee on Governmental Affairs, a situation that 
grew out of the creation of the Budget Committee and the modern budget 
process in 1974.
  This shared jurisdiction is unique in the Senate, where committees 
rarely share jurisdiction, and where joint referral of legislation is 
only accomplished by unanimous consent.
  Since 1977, the Budget and Governmental Affairs Committees have 
received joint referral for legislation affecting the budget process 
pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. Under that UC, if one 
committee acts on a bill the other committee must act within 30 days or 
be automatically discharged. Our amendment would supercede this consent 
agreement.
  We all know the Federal budget process is very complicated. The 
expertise on this subject clearly resides in the Budget Committee, and 
Senator Conrad and I believe that is where these issues should be 
addressed.
  Over the years, the Governmental Affairs Committee has done little 
work on the budget process. Although the current jurisdictional 
situation has not necessarily created significant problems, we believe 
it is simply unnecessary to have two committees involved in these 
issues.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has a very broad and expansive 
jurisdiction which the resolution being considered would expand even 
further to matters of homeland security.
  Senator Conrad and I believe consolidating jurisdiction over budget 
process issues within the Budget Committee would eliminate confusion 
and guarantee that this work is performed by those with the expertise.
  I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the 
amendment from the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles.

[[Page 22949]]

  Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio just got it wrong, what the 
amendment of the Senator who is the chairman of the Budget Committee 
does. We do not take the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs on 
management issues at all, not at all. That is not what the amendment 
does.
  What the amendment does do is end the duplication of the jurisdiction 
of the committees on budget process issues. I would submit to my 
colleagues, it does not make any sense any longer, after 30 years, for 
Governmental Affairs and Budget to have joint jurisdiction on budget 
process issues.
  The reason they have that joint jurisdiction is because Governmental 
Affairs wrote the Budget Act. There was no Budget Committee, so at that 
time they had expertise that the Budget Committee simply did not have, 
so they were included on jurisdiction on budget process issues.
  Well, 30 years have passed. The expertise on these issues is on the 
Budget Committee. It makes no sense in any management sense to have 
joint jurisdiction on budget process issues--not on the management 
issues. The management issues are retained by Governmental Affairs, as 
they should be. But budget process issues, as the chairman of the 
Budget Committee has suggested in his amendment, ought to be the 
jurisdiction of the Budget Committee.
  Second, it makes no earthly sense for the nominee to be the Budget 
Director only to go before the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is 
what happens now. I think my colleagues would be stunned--I must say, I 
was very surprised, serving on the Budget Committee--that the Director 
of the Budget does not come before the Budget Committee. What sense 
does that make?
  The amendment of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator 
Nickles of Oklahoma, does not expand the jurisdiction of the Senate 
Budget Committee. It simply eliminates the overlap in jurisdiction 
between the two committees on the narrow issue of budget process 
issues.
  The expertise on budget process issues, on pay-go, on discretionary 
caps, on oversight of budget agreements, does not reside with the 
Committee on Governmental Affairs; it resides in the Budget Committee. 
We ought to clean up this overlap that has existed for 30 years that 
started for a good reason--because the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs wrote the Budget Act because there was no Budget Committee. But 
now there is a Budget Committee. It has been in existence 30 years. It 
ought to have jurisdiction over budget process issues. That just makes 
common sense.
  Who could possibly defend the notion that a Budget Director should 
not come before the Budget Committee for confirmation? It makes no 
earthly sense.
  The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is entirely reasonable. It 
is rational. It improves the operations of both committees. It does not 
take jurisdiction to the Budget Committee; it simply reduces the common 
jurisdiction that currently exists between Governmental Affairs and the 
Budget Committee on the narrow issue of budget process.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield after this statement.
  And it gives to the Budget Committee the right to hear from the 
Office of Management and Budget, the man who is named or the woman who 
is named Budget Director in the confirmation process. That just makes 
common sense.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. The question I would like to ask is, Has the procedure 
that we now have in terms of the appointment--and this has been for 30 
years--diminished the effectiveness of the Budget Committee, because of 
the fact that they have not participated in the nomination of the 
Budget Director?
  Mr. CONRAD. I believe the answer simply has to be yes. It makes no 
earthly sense for the person who is named to be the budget director of 
the United States not to come before the Budget Committee. What sense 
could that possibly make?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Dakota has 
expired.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Ohio. 
We are running out of time, and the distinguished senior Senator from 
Texas has an amendment she needs to be able to describe.


                Amendment No. 4015 to Amendment No. 3981

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4015.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4015.

  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.

 (Purpose: To implement responsible subcommittee reorganization in the 
                      Committee on Appropriations)

       In section 402, strike the second sentence and insert the 
     following: ``The Committee on Appropriations shall reorganize 
     into 13 subcommittees not later than 2 weeks after the 
     convening of the 109th Congress.''.

                Amendment No. 4042 To Amendment No. 4015

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment 
No. 4042.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 4042 to amendment No. 4015.

  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 as follows:

 (Purpose: To implement responsible subcommittee reorganization in the 
                      Committee on Appropriations)

       Strike ``not later than 2 weeks'' and insert ``as soon as 
     possible''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for adoption 
of the second-degree amendment.
  Mr. REID. I object.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
second-degree amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4042) was agreed to.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment simply keeps what the 
Senate has said it wants, and that is an intelligence subcommittee on 
Appropriations, and it keeps the 13 subcommittees of Appropriations. It 
says the Appropriations Committee will organize into 13 subcommittees 
with the intelligence subcommittee as soon as possible after the 
convening of the 109th Congress.
  All my amendment does is keep the Appropriations subcommittees at the 
same number, making sure there is one intelligence subcommittee, but it 
does not require the merging of Defense and Military Construction.
  It may be that when the Appropriations Committee looks at all of the 
options for the making of 13 subcommittees, that that will happen, but 
I think the Appropriations Committee should be the one that makes the 
recommendations to the Senate. We do not have to rush to make this 
decision for the Appropriations Committee.
  According to the CRS, eliminating a subcommittee through a measure on 
the Senate floor is unprecedented. In more than 200 years, the CRS 
says, the Senate has never eliminated a subcommittee through floor 
action without the committee bringing it to the floor. The Senate has 
created subcommittees, as with the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on 
Investigations in 1952, but not eliminated subcommittees. Merging 
subcommittees to create room for the new one may be the right thing to 
do, but the floor is the wrong place to do it.
  What is proposed today will set a precedent that could impact every 
committee by pulling the ability of the committee to organize itself 
and having that agreed to by the Senate. This is a precedent that 
should concern

[[Page 22950]]

every committee. It should concern the majority and the minority. There 
is no reason to make this decision now.
  Also, these changes must be made in conjunction with the House. The 
House Appropriations subcommittees and the Senate Appropriations 
subcommittees should match so that when we conference, we will have a 
finite subcommittee that deals with the same issues; otherwise, there 
could be many problems with the appropriations process that would 
complicate an already complicated process.
  The House has not made any decisions about reorganizing itself on the 
Appropriations Committee. The wise thing for the Senate to do would be 
to create the new intelligence subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee, determine that there will be 13 subcommittees but require 
the Appropriations Committee to do the reorganization, after which the 
Senate would be asked to agree. That is all my amendment does.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 
minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I serve on the Appropriations Committee with 
the distinguished Senator from Texas. She certainly is one of the 
finest Senators here. But on this issue I disagree with her. In the 
underlying legislation before the Senate, there has been a 
consolidation of Defense appropriations and Military Construction. This 
certainly makes sense. The subject matter is related to the same 
players, same departments, military, same basis. It does not make sense 
to make the artificial divide for Construction. I have served as 
chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and I enjoyed it, 
but I always wondered why it was a separate subcommittee.
  It does, however, make sense to pull intelligence from defense and 
make it a separate subcommittee. That is what we have done. We have 
talked to experts, and we think this is the best way to do it. We 
should keep this plan intact. It is the right thing to do.
  The legislation we now have before the Senate is a good package. I 
don't think it should be splintered with trying to have the Committee 
on Appropriations rearrange what we have done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remaining time that I have to the Senator 
from Ohio.


                           Amendment No. 4027

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would just like to emphasize again 
that the current situation is one that is working. Unless one can show 
that it is not working in terms of the authority or the jurisdiction of 
the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would argue, why change it.
  Secondly, this amendment would then subject the appointees of the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Director, 
and other people to jurisdictions in two committees, which would make 
the appointment process longer than it is today in an area that is 
particularly important to the President. What he wants to do 
immediately is to get his director of budget on board.
  Secondly, I think we need to point out that the budget process is not 
just the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Under this amendment, if 
I want to put a bill in, for example, to reform the budget process to 
2-year budgets, to require that the budget include a presentation on 
the accrued liabilities of the United States and, for that matter, go 
back and look at the Budget Act of 1974, which should be updated, that 
bill would have to go to the Budget Committee. If the members of that 
committee were unhappy with that, if they like the process of 1-year 
budgets because of the fact that they like to take a bite out of the 
apple each year, that bill would be dead.
  Under the current situation, if someone has an idea of improving the 
budget process that impacts not only the budget but the entire 
operation of Government, they can bring it to the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. We could handle that legislation, and then that legislation 
would have to be referred to the Budget Committee for their 
consideration. The fact is, this is too large a responsibility just to 
put it within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I argue that it 
makes a lot of sense to leave the situation as it is unless somebody 
can tell me that it is not working.
  I will say one other thing: Our Government's biggest problem today is 
management. Having jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget 
in Governmental Affairs has given this Senator a lot of leverage to get 
this administration to do some things that are important for the 
country.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that when 
I spoke regarding Senator Voinovich earlier, I said there were 
approximately 900 bills referred to the Governmental Operations 
Committee. I misspoke. It is 300. I want the record to reflect the 
proper number.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first 
vote occur on the Nickles amendment, to be followed by a vote on the 
Hutchison amendment.


                       Vote On Amendment No. 4041

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe we need the yeas and nays on the 
Nickles amendment.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second. All time has expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Nickles second-degree amendment 
No. 4041.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. 
Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would vote ``yea.''
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. 
Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 35, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Allard
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham (FL)
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Thomas
     Wyden

                                NAYS--35

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allen
     Bennett
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Carper
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     DeWine
     Durbin
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Pryor
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bayh
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Campbell
     Chambliss
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Edwards
     Graham (SC)
     Hollings
     Kerry
     Miller
     Sarbanes
     Specter
     Sununu
  The amendment (No. 4041) was agreed to.

[[Page 22951]]


  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy have a 
crime bill that has been agreed to on both sides. I ask unanimous 
consent that they be allowed to bring up that bill, with debate time 
limited to 1 minute on each side.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. May we have order in the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Also, just prior to that, I ask consent that Senator 
Nickles have 1 minute to speak on the amendment just voted on.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry, I couldn't hear that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. One minute to speak on the amendment just voted on by 
Senator Nickles, followed by 2 minutes equally divided by Senator Hatch 
and Senator Leahy.
  Mr. REID. I ask the Senator to modify his request to allow 1 minute 
on each side prior to voting on the Hutchison amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues for the vote on 
the last amendment. I especially thank my colleague and friend, Senator 
Conrad, for his eloquent debate on it, as well as for his support and 
cosponsorship of the amendment.
  I think it is a good amendment. I think it helps the budget process. 
Also, I compliment my friend. It has been a pleasure to work with him 
on the Budget Committee. This was a good, positive budget change. I 
thank him for his leadership on this amendment.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my reading of 
this procedural matter will not be counted against my 1 minute on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________