[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 20068-20087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, 
   AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006--Continued


           Amendments Nos. 1650, As Modified, 1653, and 1704

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the managers' 
amendments that I now send to the desk be considered and agreed to, en 
bloc. These noncontroversial amendments have been cleared on both sides 
of the aisle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, en bloc, as follows:


                    amendment no. 1650, as modified

(Purpose: To make funds available to implement the Harmful Algal Bloom 
                  and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004)

       On page 170, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       Sec. 304. Of the amounts made available under the heading 
     ``National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration'' and the 
     subheading ``operations, research, and facilities'', 
     sufficient funds may be provided to implement the Harmful 
     Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 (title I of 
     Public Law 108-456; 16 U.S.C. 1451 note).


                           amendment no. 1653

  (Purpose: To increase funding for child abuse training programs for 
                 judicial personnel and practitioners)

       On page 133, line 11, strike ``$2,287,000'' and insert 
     ``$5,287,000''.


                           amendment no. 1704

 (Purpose: To extend the term of the National Prison Rape Elimination 
                              Commission)

       On page 142, after line 3, insert the following:
       Sec. __. Section 7(d)(3)(A) of the Prison Rape Elimination 
     Act of 2003 (42 U.S.C. 15606) is amended by striking ``2 
     years'' and inserting ``3 years''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 1687, As Modified

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending 
amendments be set aside. I call up amendment No. 1687, and I send a 
modification to the desk for immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1687), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide funding for interoperable communications equipment 
                                grants)

       On page 190, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:
        Sec. 522. (a) There are appropriated out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2006, $5,000,000,000 for interoperable 
     communications equipment grants under State and local 
     programs administered by the Office of State and Local 
     Government Coordination and Preparedness of the Department of 
     Homeland Security.

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators 
Levin, Schumer, Obama, Clinton, and Boxer be added as cosponsors of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, all of America is hurting with the 
Katrina victims and their families. We are finding ways to help, to 
reach out, to make a difference in these critical weeks following the 
hurricane and the horrible

[[Page 20069]]

disaster. Americans are donating record amounts of money, time, and 
supplies to help those displaced by the hurricane. The most important 
thing to do now is to save life, to provide shelter, food, and medical 
care for the people affected by this tragedy.
  As is happening in many States, last week two jetliners arrived in 
Michigan with the first group of 289 hurricane evacuees. Troops and 
volunteers at our Battle Creek Air National Guard base are providing 
clean shelter, food, and clothing to all of these Americans. Last 
Friday, 46 more Americans were welcomed into Michigan, and we expect 
many more in the coming weeks.
  We also have several Michigan State police teams, and more than 500 
members of the Michigan National Guard in Louisiana and Mississippi 
assisting with relief efforts.
  There are stories about people all across our great Nation who are 
answering the call to help the men and women who have been displaced 
and hurt by the hurricane. In Michigan, families and businesses are 
working together to help the victims. Michigan-based Whirlpool, for 
example, is donating $1 million in cash and products for Hurricane 
Katrina relief efforts.
  On Friday, the State of Michigan held a statewide on-air fundraiser 
where Michiganians generously donated time and dollars for Red Cross 
hurricane relief efforts.
  There are so many individual stories of heroism and generosity rising 
from the depth of this catastrophe, both in the States affected by the 
hurricane and in communities such as mine all across America. These are 
important stories right now--saving lives, finding shelter, food, and 
medical care, and raising money to help hurricane victims. But there is 
another story to tell here as well. It is about the Federal Government 
and our responsibility to all Americans to be prepared not only for 
this kind of disaster but for a coordinated response to help save lives 
and prevent chaos.
  We all watched in horror the images of families trapped in New 
Orleans after the hurricane; mothers with babies and young children 
stranded on highway overpasses, making their desperate pleas for help; 
families clinging to the roof of their flooded home, waving the shirts 
off their backs for help; senior citizens trapped in flooded nursing 
homes without food, water, and medical care. An estimated 55,000 people 
were stranded in the New Orleans Superdome and convention center, left 
for days--left for days--without food, water, and working bathrooms, 
waiting to be rescued. Thousands of people sat outside the Superdome in 
the heat and the filth for days waiting for convoys of buses which were 
slow to arrive because of FEMA's lack of planning and poor 
communication.
  How could this happen in the United States of America, the greatest 
country on Earth? How could this happen? How could we allow stranded 
people to die without getting them water and food and medical care?
  In this time immediately following this disaster, we have an 
obligation to correct the mistakes on crisis response. We need to 
address how the Federal Government could have better handled the 
response to Hurricane Katrina and what should have been done to prevent 
the disorder and death that followed this tragedy. It is absolutely 
critical that local communities have the tools they need to 
communicate, coordinate, and respond effectively when disaster hits. 
They did not have that in New Orleans and the other places that were 
hit, where the police departments in three nearby parishes were on 
different radio systems. They did not have enough satellite phones. 
They had ground and cell phone lines that were taken out with this 
storm. The communications systems they did have, like most in local 
communities across the Nation, were not interoperable. They were not 
connected. They didn't work together. Police officers called Senator 
Landrieu's office, and I am sure Senator Vitter's office as well, 
because they could not reach commanders on the ground in New Orleans.
  In the absence of communication with other emergency responders due 
to the lack of interoperability, power, or dying batteries, responders 
shared satellite phones that were in short supply.
  According to Aaron Broussard, president of the Jefferson Parish, FEMA 
came in, and, without warning, cut the emergency communication lines 
for local law enforcement and hooked up their own. Local law 
enforcement and first responders were left without any way to 
communicate with each other.
  This collapse in communications was not just a local and State 
problem. FEMA, who is supposed to be coordinating the Federal response 
and helping rescue evacuees, was working in the dark. In several 
interviews, former FEMA Director Brown admitted that FEMA learned about 
25,000 hungry, and in some cases dying, people trapped in the New 
Orleans convention center from listening to news reports. Even he 
conceded that emergency assistance and delivery problems were caused by 
``the total lack of communication''--the inability to hear and have 
good intelligence on the ground. We knew before Katrina hit that too 
many of our police and fire and emergency medical services and 
transportation officials cannot communicate with each other, and our 
local departments are not able to link their communications with State 
and Federal emergency response agencies.
  The September 11 attack highlighted the interoperability crisis when 
New York police and firefighters, while on different radio systems, 
couldn't communicate when we had police officers and firefighters 
running in the buildings that they should have been running out of 
because they weren't able to communicate with the others on floors 
above them to know what was happening. Over 50 different public safety 
organizations from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia 
reported to the Pentagon, but they could not talk to each other. The 
result of this lack of connectedness in communications is nothing short 
of chaos.
  This past Sunday, Thomas Kean, the former Republican Governor of New 
Jersey, an esteemed cochair of the 9/11 Commission, said that the 
Federal Government's response was similar to September 11, including 
first responders not being able to talk to each other and a lack of 
command and control. The Commission's cochair, Lee Hamilton, also told 
CNN that ``he has had an uneasy feeling for a long time that the 
government simply was not acting with a sense of crisis, with a sense 
of urgency.'' Now I hope and pray we have that sense of urgency.
  A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found that 94 percent of 
our cities do not have interoperable capability between police, fire, 
and emergency medical services, and 60 percent of our cities do not 
have that same capability with the State emergency operations centers. 
Majority Leader Frist spoke in the Senate last week about seeing this 
problem firsthand in the gulf coast, how people were working without 
functioning radios and could not communicate from one end of the 
airport terminal to the other, much less to another building or another 
part of town.
  Almost half of the cities surveyed said that a lack of interoperable 
communications had made response to an incident within the last year 
difficult. The most startling finding was that over 80 percent of 
cities do not have interoperable communications with the Department of 
Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Heaven forbid, if there 
is another natural disaster or terrorist attack soon, our communities 
will not be able to communicate with FEMA or the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Michigan first responders have told me, as I have said before in the 
Senate, that they have to watch the cable news to get notifications of 
raised alert levels because they are not able to be contacted by the 
Department of Homeland Security. As I mentioned before, FEMA found out 
about the 25,000 people trapped in the New Orleans convention center 
from watching the news reports.
  Last Sunday was the fourth anniversary, as we all know, of the 
horrendous attacks on September 11, and this is the State of our 
Federal communications and emergency response system? We can do better. 
It is time to have a sense of urgency and do better.

[[Page 20070]]

  They are only beginning the process of recovering the bodies of the 
Katrina victims in the gulf coast. Some of these victims lost their 
lives because of the hurricane. How many lost their lives because of 
the poor disaster response and the total lack of communications? How 
many lost their lives because they were left without food or water for 
days, without any hope of aid, and no ability to communicate? How many 
lost their lives because they were trapped in their homes, in churches, 
and highway overpasses waiting to be rescued? How many lost their lives 
because they were elderly and sick or dying and stranded without 
medical care or medicine? How many of these lives would have been saved 
if FEMA had been able to communicate with local first responders and 
hospitals and get good information on where to send help first, what 
was most urgent? FEMA failed these victim and their families. There is 
a wide understanding of that. This is unconscionable in terms of the 
lack of infrastructure and communications. The lack of communications 
is a crisis, and we are putting our communities in danger. We need to 
address this now. We all need to address it, together.
  Two months ago in the Senate, I offered an amendment to provide $5 
billion for interoperable communications equipment grants for first 
responders to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. The amendment, 
unfortunately, was defeated. Why? Many stated it was a local 
responsibility to pay for this equipment. But how is communication, 
connecting all across the country--local, State, and Federal--to 
respond to a national emergency or regional emergency, how is this a 
local responsibility when we have seen what happened?
  I know none of my colleagues believe rebuilding from the devastation 
of Hurricane Katrina is a local responsibility alone or that somehow 
helping those who have lost their homes, lost so much, that somehow 
that is a local responsibility alone. We understand we have a 
responsibility, together, to help these Americans, and everyone is 
coming together to do that. No one in the Senate is saying it is a 
local responsibility to rebuild the gulf coast.
  After September 11, we came together. The terrorists did not just 
attack New York and Washington, DC; they attacked the entire country. 
We responded by coming together and having a Federal response. Why is 
it, then, that communications equipment that would allow local, State, 
and Federal first responders to coordinate and work as a team has been 
considered a local responsibility? I hope that will no longer be the 
case. Coordinated communications would decrease the loss of life and 
the devastation of a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina and in 
the case of terrorism could very well prevent an attack.
  That is why I am again offering my amendment. My amendment provides 
$5 billion for interoperable communications grants for America's first 
responders to provide a strong Federal commitment to address this 
problem.
  Estimates from the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office place the 
cost of equipping America's first responders with interoperable 
communication in excess of $15 billion. In November 2003, the CBO 
testified before Congress that there is insufficient funding in place 
to solve the Nation's interoperability problem and that it would cost 
over $15 billion to move us in the direction of solving the problem. 
This $5 billion provides a strong Federal commitment toward the goal. I 
hope we will make that commitment to do that investment this year, next 
year, and the year after, and complete this issue and get it right, 
solve this problem. There is no time to wait. We need to act now. We 
should have acted before. I am hopeful we will come together now and 
act.
  The Federal Government has not made a significant commitment to solve 
this problem up to this point. In previous years, tiny amounts of money 
have been allocated to interoperability projects on a very small scale. 
Obviously, it has been not enough to get the job done. According to the 
Department of Homeland Security, since September 11 the Department of 
Homeland Security has spent only $280 million directly on interoperable 
communications. None of these funds have been provided to help State 
and local emergency responders purchase the equipment they need so they 
can talk with each other.
  Nearly 4 years after September 11, 2001, the top request for support 
I receive each year from communities in Michigan is for communications 
equipment and connectedness, the ability to talk with each other. In 
Michigan, we still have police departments that cannot talk to the fire 
department, the sheriff who cannot talk to the local community, and 
those who are not able to talk with Homeland Security or State 
authorities.
  We in government failed the people of the gulf coast because we did 
not address this sooner. Now we need to provide the resources to make 
sure the communications equipment works, it is interoperable, and that 
they can get the job done in the future to save lives and respond--
whether it is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
  This shock and horror of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will live 
with us forever. We salute the heroes of this disaster, and our prayers 
are with the victims.
  The American people, as they always do, rose to the challenge and are 
helping out all across this great country. I again am so proud of all 
we are doing in the great State of Michigan. We have to step up and 
show leadership and do our part, do what we can and should do but only 
we can do, and that is to make sure that across the country we have 
done the job to put together the communications infrastructure to make 
sure in case of emergency all of our citizens--State, local, Federal 
officials--can talk to each other, can respond with efficiency and 
effectiveness, and can do what needs to be done to save lives and save 
communities. We have the power to do that.
  I ask support for my amendment and urge all of my colleagues to 
support this effort to get this done. We need a sense of urgency. If we 
do not feel it now, I don't know when we will. I hope we will get this 
done.
  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.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. 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. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to amending 
the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill for the purposes of 
providing additional grant money to fund interoperable communications 
for our first responders.
  I compliment my colleague from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, for 
bringing this up and helping us to address, in an expeditious fashion, 
some very dire needs that exist out there among those on whom we depend 
the most.
  In many instances, whether it is a natural disaster or any kind of an 
emergency circumstance, we find our first responders, without a doubt, 
are those who come to our aid first and foremost.
  Without a doubt, in this age of technology and advanced 
communications, there is no excuse for us, as a nation, to not be able 
to provide to our first responders and to all of our Government 
assistance agencies the kind of communication that keeps us connected.
  This past week, I visited some evacuees from Katrina in my home State 
of Arkansas. Our people in Arkansas are our greatest asset. I have 
always said that. Watching the Governor, he moved quickly to put people 
into place and to put systems into place to find available beds at 
everything from church camps to gymnasiums and other places, to move 
quickly to put into place something the Red Cross could respond to and 
so that evacuees could get to a place where they could begin to find 
some comfort and to be able to relax a little bit from the unbelievable 
experiences they have been going through.
  I found, in one of these evacuee camps, the Red Cross had gone in and 
had taken a lot of the registry information of individuals so they 
could help

[[Page 20071]]

reconnect them with their families and make sure they could make 
available the information that they were safe and where they were 
located. They did this for a tremendous number of evacuees, only to 
find that when FEMA finally arrived in Arkansas, several days later, 
their communication systems were not compatible. So we had to get 
volunteers from the local school to come in and reenter all of the 
information about these evacuees so they could also get their presence, 
through the FEMA modes of communication, out to all the different 
outlets where, hopefully, they could reconnect with their families.
  We are in a day and age where communication should be easier than we 
are making it. There is no doubt there is technology that is more 
advanced than what we are providing in cases of emergency and 
particularly to our first responders.
  A little over 4 years ago, this Nation confronted an attack like no 
other. We remembered, on September 11 of this year, September 11 of 
2001. It was a day none of us will ever forget. That day showed us our 
weaknesses as well as our strengths. We vowed, at that time, to learn 
from our mistakes, great and small. One of the issues we learned we 
needed to address was the ability of our first responders, whether they 
be Federal, State, or local, to communicate with one another in an 
emergency situation in order that they all may do the best job possible 
for those whom they are trying to serve.
  Four years have passed since we, as a nation, became painfully aware 
of the need to address this deficiency in our communication systems.
  With twin boys who are 9 years old, who are quickly getting into lots 
of different types of activities--whether it is baseball or soccer, 
whether it is the chess club or learning how to play a musical 
instrument--I continually tell them: Just do your best. Just do your 
best. All anyone can ask of you is to do your best. Then you can be 
confident you have given your all and that you have done your best. And 
as you continue to try to do your best, you will always improve.
  Think of how our first responders must feel when they know, with a 
little bit of today's technology, they could be doing better, they 
could be doing their best. They could be doing their best saving lives, 
reuniting families, bringing to people the kind of help and aid they 
have been trained to bring. There is no greater, more horrific feeling 
than to know you are capable of providing something such as that and 
yet are handicapped in being able to do your very best.
  We recently had our first wide-scale test of what progress we have 
made with respect to this problem in communication. The results have 
been less than stellar. It is painfully clear we have not made the 
strides we must if we are to have the American people's confidence that 
their Government maintains a basic level of competence in times of 
emergency.
  Emergency responders from my home State, the State of Arkansas, 
rushed to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina hit. Being a neighbor to 
the north, we wanted to do all we possibly could do to help our 
neighbors in their time of need. When they arrived, they found they 
could not communicate properly with officials in the area. They lost 
precious time which could have been better spent getting help to 
victims, saving lives, rescuing individuals, doing their very best.
  In considering whether to support this amendment, I asked myself a 
simple question: Are the communications tools that our brave first 
responders have at their disposal the best we have to offer? The answer 
is clearly no. We as a nation, we as a people, we, as a human race, 
with the good minds that God has given us, have produced technology 
that can assist them in doing their very best as responders in 
emergency situations. We can do better. With this amendment, we will 
give our first responders the ability to respond, using the skills, 
using the talents they have developed, using the very courage that is 
in their hearts and in their minds to help their fellow man.
  I have seen what happens when we put our minds to correcting similar 
communications problems. We have an example in our own State of 
Arkansas called Justice Exchange. It is an innovative program that 
allows law enforcement officials to check the records of people they 
have arrested from around the country. It started with a small grant we 
were able to get for our Sheriffs' Association in the State of 
Arkansas. Working with computer operators and technology, we were able 
to design a system that was compatible, Web-based, so we could, in 
turn, share it with other States, other law enforcement agencies across 
the Nation.
  A great example: A deputy in one of our counties southwest of Little 
Rock picked up a man on a traffic violation, but he had a little bit of 
a suspicion. He held him, detained him for a while, and tried to look 
him up on the computer. The name did not produce anything. So he asked 
one of the other deputies to go back and see if he could get a real 
name from this gentleman. In building that trust, he got a real name. 
He put it in the computer and found out that individual was wanted for 
two counts of murder--two counts of murder--in New Jersey or one of the 
other east coast States.
  The fact is, in communicating, in building a system where people can 
share information and work together, such as in our law enforcement, we 
can solve so many of these problems.
  This is not technology that is brand new. Much of it has been here 
for the last decade, to be able to connect and to use compatible 
software and compatible technology so these groups can communicate.
  I think this amendment represents a very important step toward 
helping our first responders save lives. I believe it is the best 
reason to support this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to 
recognize the opportunity we have to say, after the horrific natural 
disaster that occurred in the Gulf Coast, we have learned enough to 
know our first responders need our help. They need current-day 
technology to be able to do the very best they are trained to do.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1665

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have offered an amendment that is 
pending on this appropriations bill, and I wanted to speak to that 
amendment in the hope that we will be able to get a vote on that 
amendment at some point soon.
  The amendment deals with trade, and because this appropriations bill 
deals with funding for the Department of Commerce and also the U.S. 
Trade Representative, this is the right place to propose that 
amendment.
  Let me begin by talking for a moment about what is happening in 
trade. As you know, we have the largest trade deficit in the history of 
our country by far. It continues to grow and grow and grow and grow. 
This trade deficit is dangerous. It is irresponsible for us to continue 
to run these kinds of trade deficits. Yet nearly every day in this 
country, 7 days a week, all year long, we are importing about $2 
billion more than we are exporting. We are importing a substantial 
amount of product--yes, energy and food but shirts and shoes and 
trinkets and trousers--from every part of the world, and the fact is we 
are exporting American jobs.
  Let me describe a couple of those jobs, and then I am going to 
describe what my amendment does.
  A young woman named Natasha Humphries did what we are supposed to do 
in this country. She did everything American workers are supposed to do 
to compete in this global economy. She got a degree from Stanford 
University in 1996. She went to work for Apple Computer. She continued 
to acquire all kinds of new skills in high tech through classes and 
seminars. And she moved down to become a senior software testing 
engineer at palmOne, the

[[Page 20072]]

company that makes the well-known hand held computing device called 
Palm Pilot. I want to show you the last message that this young woman 
left on her Palm Pilot. Natasha Humphries left this message on her Palm 
Pilot:

       My job has gone to India.

  She lost her job. Natasha Humphries got fired and the company moved 
all those jobs to India. Oh, there is one more thing. Natasha was 
required by her company to train the Indian workers who took her job. 
And so the company, searching for lower priced labor, fires American 
workers and moves their jobs to India. That was 2002 that palmOne's 
management decided to move all their product testing to India and China 
where they can pay $2 an hour and less. They learned that some of those 
workers were not quite as productive as the American workers, but they 
decided to make a change, so that the workers in India were more 
productive, by sending American engineers to India. And so they sent 
American workers to India, trained the Indian engineers and then came 
back and fired the American workers. And so Natasha was laid off August 
2003, along with 40 percent of her U.S. coworkers. She sued palmOne for 
wrongful termination. She also filed a reverse discrimination case.
  Then she found herself on the unemployment line struggling to cover 
health care costs for her 6-year-old son who has sickle cell anemia. So 
this is a message from this Stanford graduate, this engineer:

       My job has gone to India.

  It could have been a message repeated 1.5 million times. Oh, not by 
anybody who wears a blue suit, though, who is in the Senate; nobody who 
wears suspenders and smokes cigars and wears blue suits and in big 
business or politics ever loses their jobs. It is the other folks who 
lose their jobs.
  Let me describe a few. You recognize this. Fruit of the Loom. You 
know Fruit of the Loom; they had advertised with the folks who wear 
grape outfits, red grapes, apples, the fruit folks, catchy little 
commercials on television, except that Fruit of the Loom has now left 
America. If you are wearing Fruit of the Loom shorts today, you are 
wearing Chinese shorts or Mexican shorts. Or you are wearing Chinese T-
shirts or Mexican T-shirts. Yes, it is clever and cute, except that 
3,200 people who worked for Fruit of the Loom in the United States of 
America don't work for them anymore because these shirts and shorts and 
the things that Fruit of the Loom makes are gone. They are gone in 
search of 30-cent-an-hour labor.
  I will not speak at great length about Huffy bicycles because I have 
spoken at great length about Huffy bicycles so often, except to say 
this. This is a new decal between the handlebars and the fenders, and 
you will see it is a decal of the globe. That used to be an American 
flag when American workers produced them, but the American workers made 
11 dollars an hour plus, so all those jobs went to China.
  Now Huffy pays its workers 33 cents an hour, 7 days a week, 12 to 14 
hours a day and, by the way, there is no more American flag on this 
bike. It is a globe. Oh, they still call Huffy an American brand. It is 
just not made in America, and all the American workers who used to make 
it lost their jobs.
  You remember the television commercials about the Maytag repairman 
really struggling to stay awake because you don't repair a Maytag. 
Well, 1,600 Maytag U.S. jobs have gone to Mexico and Korea.
  Big Blue, IBM. It is interesting, the paper trail from IBM; 13,000 
IBM workers in Europe and the United States went to India where they 
hired more than 14,000 workers, and if you look at the internal 
documents, IBM said, Oh, by the way, we do not want to suggest to our 
employees this is offshoring or outsourcing; never use those words.
  The last thing they wrote to their employees was: This has nothing to 
do with your performance. Oh, no, it is never personal, is it? It has 
nothing to do with your performance that you are losing your job.
  Trade deal after trade deal, trade agreement after trade agreement, 
through Democratic and Republican administrations, have been 
incompetent, fundamentally incompetent in standing up for the economic 
interests of this country. Who on Earth is going to stand up for the 
interests of American workers?
  People say: But you don't understand, Senator Dorgan, this is the way 
of the future; this is a global economy. It is global all right. We 
galloped along toward the global economy, but the rules have not kept 
pace. So we are now able to go to the big box stores and buy products 
that were made by sweat labor of people who all too often are earning 
20, 30, 40 cents an hour, maybe $1 an hour, and no benefits, working 6 
days a week, 7 days a week. And we say to the American workers, that is 
what you should compete with?
  We have been through a trade agreement called GATT, a trade agreement 
with the United States and Canada, one with the United States and 
Canada and Mexico called NAFTA, a trade agreement called CAFTA, the 
Central American Free Trade Agreement. We have been through all these 
free-trade agreements. Every trade agreement we approved--I should say 
without my vote in support--has resulted in a larger trade deficit for 
this country.
  Why is that the case? They are negotiated incompetently by American 
negotiators who do not stand up for the economic interests of this 
country. They feel they have nothing to protect.
  Right now we have something called the Doha round. Have you been to 
Doha recently? I suspect not. There is a reason they do these trade 
rounds in far, out of the way places. In Doha, they are negotiating new 
trade agreements behind closed doors, in secret. Does anybody here know 
what those trade agreements are, what might be in them? We know this: 
There are 100 separate proposals in this round of trade negotiations, 
100 separate proposals by other countries that would weaken the 
remedies in American trade law to protect our interests.
  We also know our trade negotiators have said everything is on the 
table, meaning they are willing to negotiate away, if necessary, the 
protections in our trade laws. These are the laws that allow us to 
impose countervailing duties on other countries that wish to sell 
unfairly subsidized products into our marketplace and destroy a 
domestic industry. They are willing to negotiate away our antidumping 
laws that would allow another country to dump products into our country 
at below cost and destroy an American industry or business and jobs.
  Why would American negotiators be willing to put that on the table? 
Are they not willing to stand up for this country's economic interests, 
for this country's jobs, good jobs?
  The amendment I have offered is very simple, painfully simple. 
Interestingly enough, the White House has issued a veto warning should 
my amendment prevail in the Senate today.
  My amendment is very simple. My amendment says no funds in this act 
funding the U.S. Trade Representative's office and the Commerce 
Department may be used to be involved in negotiations that will weaken 
America's protections in trade law, the protections that exist--
countervailing duties, antidumping--nothing shall be done or can be 
done using these funds in this act to weaken America's trade laws to 
protect our economic interests.
  For that, we get a letter from Secretary Gutierrez and Rob Portman, 
the U.S. Trade Representative, saying they strongly oppose this 
amendment. We heard all morning the administration will recommend a 
veto if this is adopted.
  Let me give a bit of background. On May 14, 2002, 61 Senators voted 
for an amendment that Senators Dayton, Craig, and I cosponsored. That 
amendment said that any trade agreement that weakened U.S. trade laws, 
especially remedies that protect our country against unfair trade, 
could not be considered by the Senate under fast-track rules. Sixty-one 
Senators voted for that amendment. It is essentially the same as the 
amendment I am offering today.
  The question is, Are you going to stand up for the economic interests 
of this country?
  I don't even know where to start or stop when I talk about trade 
because

[[Page 20073]]

the pain of bad trade agreements is not a pain inflicted on those who 
are privileged, and that includes all of us because we have not lost 
our jobs. But no country will long remain a world economic power if it 
does not have a strong, vibrant manufacturing base. The manufacturing 
jobs traditionally and historically in this country have been the jobs 
that pay well, the jobs that have good benefits.
  It is interesting, when we take a look at the changes from 30, 35, 40 
years ago, the largest corporation in our country was General Motors. 
They paid good wages, they paid very substantial benefits, and most 
people who went to work for General Motors worked there for a lifetime. 
Now the largest American corporation, I am told, is Wal-Mart. Their 
wages are not so hot, do not have many benefits for a lot of their 
workers, the average wage is $17,000 a year, and their turnover is 
about 70 percent. If those figures are wrong, perhaps someone can 
correct me.
  The point I am making simply is this: Times have changed. Those who 
control the economic levers in this country--bigger and bigger 
enterprises--have decided that it is in their interest to find the 
lowest cost labor in the world with the least nuisance attached to that 
labor. That is the nuisance of not being able to hire children, the 
nuisance of not being able to pollute the rivers or pollute the air. If 
they can find labor under those circumstances, employ it, and then 
produce the shirts, socks, shoes, trinkets, and toys, and ship them to 
the American marketplace, have them sit on the store shelf in Los 
Angeles, Fargo, Denver, Tampa, or New York and have the consumers buy 
those products, that somehow everyone will be better off. That is as 
flawed a set of economic assumptions as I have seen in my studies of 
economics. This is not working, and yet everyone insists it is.
  Let me put up the chart that shows our trade deficits. I went to a 
small school, I told my colleagues before, a high school senior class 
of nine in a small farming community. I was in the top five, and that 
qualified me for the Senate from back home. But I was smart enough 
coming from that school to understand what this is. This is a barrel 
full of trouble--deep, deep, and deeper Federal trade deficits every 
single year. This is running in the wrong direction and hurting our 
country.
  Does anybody seem to care much at all? Is the President paying any 
attention to this? Does Congress pay much attention to this? Nobody. 
No, we all have to pretend this is working well, like this is good for 
our country. We put on our pressed blue suits every morning and talk 
about how wonderful all of this is.
  Maybe if the politicians' jobs were at stake, maybe if some CEOs' 
jobs were at stake they would have a different view.
  Let me give a couple examples of what concerns me. I have talked at 
great length about unfair trade. I could give you a good many examples. 
One example: We are now negotiating with Korea. Let me talk about 
automobile trade with Korea.
  Last year, we took from Korea about 680,000 automobiles into our 
marketplace for the American consumer to purchase; 680,000 Korean cars 
came here from Korea. Guess how many American cars we sold in Korea--
3,800. That is right, 680,000 coming in this direction, and we sold 
3,800 cars in Korea. Is that because they don't want American cars in 
Korea? No, it is because the Koreans don't want cars sold in Korea 
coming from the United States, and they have all kinds of policies and 
interesting devices to try to shut down the sale of U.S. automobiles to 
Korea; otherwise, what would explain that dramatic imbalance?
  That is how out of whack our trade policy is. Let me describe to you 
another example of this incompetence. This country did a bilateral 
trade agreement with China just a few years ago. The agreement said 
that after a phase-in, any U.S. cars we would sell in China would bear 
a tariff of 25 percent. Any Chinese cars they would sell in America 
would bear a tariff of 2.5 percent. So our negotiators sat down with a 
country with whom we had a trade deficit of somewhere around $100 
billion a year and said: With respect to automobiles, you can charge a 
tariff that is 10 times higher than that which we will charge on 
bilateral automobile trade.
  That is just incompetence, in my judgment, and a failure to stand up 
for this country's economic interests.
  Oh, yes, this is a footnote: China is ramping up a very significant 
automobile industry. General Motors, as a matter of fact, has sued an 
enterprise in China called Chery, C-h-e-r-y, one letter away from 
``Chevy.'' By the way, General Motors sued them for stealing production 
line blueprints for a car called QQ. And China is moving very rapidly 
to develop an automobile industry, a robust industry, and one that will 
be an export industry.
  Mark my words, Chinese cars will be sold in this country because our 
negotiators agreed to a proposition that they could impose a tariff 10 
times higher on U.S. cars sold in China than we would impose on Chinese 
cars sold in the United States.
  I would like to find the name of the negotiator who agreed to that 
because that person was not standing up for American workers, American 
business, or America's economic future.
  I talked about cars from Korea, and a bilateral agreement on 
automobile trade from China. I could talk about dozens and dozens of 
similar circumstances. The list goes on and on.
  The letter I received from the White House with respect to this 
amendment is a letter that says:

       By taking off the negotiating table any agreements that 
     would lead to changes in U.S. trade remedy law, the amendment 
     would prevent us from negotiating agreements to improve 
     protections against foreign unfair trade practices.

  What a lot of rubbish. Does anybody really think that they are going 
to negotiate an improvement to protections for this country in trade? I 
don't think so. They don't intend to negotiate improvements. What is 
going to happen is, they will put the antidumping and countervailing 
duty laws on the table for negotiating. They have said they are willing 
to put them on the table, and they will get negotiated away.
  These negotiations are not about any strengthening of our trade 
protections. I know ``protection'' is a dirty word among those who 
stand on the street corners in robes and chant free trade, but we do 
have to protect our interests when another company decides to dump into 
our country products that are produced at a much higher cost than they 
are willing to be sold in this country because they want to destroy a 
domestic industry. We have to protect ourselves in that circumstance.
  The Commerce Secretary and Mr. Portman, the trade ambassador, are 
saying this amendment would prevent them from improving protections. 
Please. Our foreign trading partners don't come to the negotiating 
table looking to strengthen America's trade protections. They come to 
weaken them. And our negotiators are all too willing to trade away our 
trade laws.
  No one wants to address this trade crisis. The President has been 
busy gassing up Air Force One trying to privatize Social Security the 
last 9 months or so.
  What I think we ought to do is stare this problem straight in the 
eye, just stare this problem straight in the eye and say: This is a 
problem for our country. This is about America's future. It is about 
economic growth. It is about opportunity and jobs for our kids. But 
nobody wants to do much of that anymore.
  Oh, we can compete, they say. Go to school, get a little better 
educational resume, and we can compete. I just described the 
circumstance of a young woman who competed, and her last message on her 
Palm Pilot, as that young engineer from Stanford lost her job was: My 
job is going to China.
  This is not a tough choice, it seems to me. This amendment I have 
offered is very straightforward. It will, I am sure, not be the subject 
of substantial debate. I would love to have a debate on the floor of 
the Senate about this issue. I do not expect to have much of a debate 
because those who support all of this trade strategy that has begun to 
weaken this country, the trade strategy that has produced choking trade

[[Page 20074]]

deficits, they don't talk much about it publicly; they just vote for 
all of this nonsense.
  My hope is we will have a vote on this.
  My guess is that at some point in the future, we are going to look 
back and we are going to say, What on Earth happened in this country? 
It is not as if we didn't have notice. There has been a lot of 
discussion these days: Did we have notice? Were we prepared? Did we 
take action?
  Let me talk about this crisis, about the loss of American jobs, a lot 
of them. Ask yourself, Did we have notice about this? In the last 10 
years, did we have notice that company after company after company did 
not say the Pledge of Allegiance in the boardroom anymore because they 
are not American companies, they are international enterprises 
responsible to their stockholders, believing if they can find 30-cent-
an-hour labor in Indonesia or India or Sri Lanka or China or 
Bangladesh, that is where they ought to produce and they ought to do 
that at the expense of American jobs? My guess is somebody is going to 
look back at some point soon and say, What on Earth were we thinking, 
sleeping through this problem, deciding that once we had lifted 
ourselves up as a country, once we had lifted America up as a country, 
with minimum wage, safe workplaces, the right to organize, the right to 
understand you should not pollute the air and the water as you produce, 
all of those things we did that made this a better place in which to 
live and all those things we did that grew a middle class in America--
that once we decided that, that we ought not to protect it? We are 
going to say, Why didn't we decide to protect that? Instead of pushing 
us down, that our goal would have been to pull the others up? Yet that 
has not been the case. That has not been the strategy. Our strategy is, 
if companies can find cheaper labor, then you just get rid of American 
workers.
  I wish to make this point. We have a century of history about these 
issues that many people, especially those who debate this trade issue, 
want to forget. I mentioned this morning, and I probably should not 
have, a man named James Fyler. I said James Fyler died of lead 
poisoning--he was shot 55 times. I should not make light of that at 
all. James Fyler was a hero. He died being shot 55 times because on 
April 20, 1914, he was out demonstrating with other workers in coal 
mines, demanding fairness for workers, demanding the right for workers 
to organize, demanding to lift themselves up for that. He gave his life 
for that. Think of what people have given of themselves in a century to 
build what we built in this country: an understanding that workers have 
rights, an understanding that we have obligations to each other.
  James Fyler is dead. But what he and others built is an understanding 
about the freedom to organize--something very important. I could give 
you names of people who are sitting in prison right now in China who 
decided to organize their workforce. They were prosecuted, and they are 
sitting in prison in China because you can't organize a workforce 
there. It doesn't matter what they do to you as a workforce, they have 
a right to do that to you, and if you try to organize, you go to 
prison. First you get fired, and if you are lucky that is all that 
happens. Otherwise you go to prison. All of this somehow seems 
forgotten when you pole-vault over all these issues.
  Because no one else is here to speak, I wish to make this point a 
little differently. I know it is somewhat off of this specific topic, 
but it relates to it. I was asked some while ago by a young high school 
kid: What is the best speech you have ever heard?
  You know, I heard a lot of great speeches at various venues, but one 
of the memorable speeches I told him about was a speech in the House of 
Representatives to a joint session of the Congress, a speech at which 
the House and Senate are seated and they normally receive a message 
from the President, in most cases the State of the Union. On this date, 
perhaps 15 years ago now, I was seated in the House Chamber when the 
Speaker was announced by the doorkeeper to the joint session of 
Congress. He walked to the front of the room. He was kind of a chubby 
fellow, about 5 foot 8, handlebar mustache, and the applause waved over 
him for a long period of time. And then he began to speak. His speech 
was so unbelievably powerful.
  He described something we knew from our history books at that moment. 
He described a Saturday morning in a shipyard in Gdansk, Poland. He 
said he had been an unemployed electrician and had been fired from the 
job because he was leading a strike against the Communist government 
for the right of laborers to be free to organize. On that Saturday 
morning, he was beaten severely with clubs and fists and, bleeding, he 
was taken to the edge of the shipyard, hoisted to the top of the 
barbed-wire fence, and thrown over the shipyard fence into the dirt. He 
told us he lay in the dirt facedown, bleeding, wondering what to do 
next.
  Our history books tell us what he did next. He pulled himself back 
up, and he climbed right back over the fence into that shipyard. Ten 
years later, this unemployed electrician was introduced to a joint 
session of Congress as the President of his country. His name was Lech 
Walesa.
  He said to us this. He said: The Communists in Poland had all the 
guns. We had none. The Communists had all the bullets. We had none. We 
were armed only with an idea--that people ought to be in control of 
their own destiny. Workers ought to have the right to organize. He 
said: Ideas are more powerful than guns.
  This common man with uncommon courage--no diplomat, no scholar, no 
military general, no politician, an unemployed electrician--became 
President of his country on the power of an idea, an idea that this 
country has embraced for well over a century, an idea that seems 
somehow to be diminished these days by those who believe it doesn't 
matter what workers are used. Workers are like wrenches--use them, 
discard them when you are done. Find a wrench on the other side of the 
globe that is this much less expensive and somehow it will benefit a 
consumer on this side of the globe, that somehow none of this matters 
because it is not interconnected. They are dead wrong in a manner that 
is hurting this country and will hurt this country's future. I want 
things to be better in other countries, but I want our country to take 
care of things here at home first and then aspire to help others to 
lift themselves up. But it is important that our first obligation is to 
take care of things here in this country. These trade negotiators and 
these trade agreements are trade agreements that I believe have 
undermined the economic strength of our country.
  Once again, I would love to spend 2 hours someday on the floor 
debating trade issues with my colleagues, but that likely will not 
happen. That is because while there are plenty of votes for fast track 
and plenty of votes for trade agreements, and it doesn't matter what 
they contain, there are not many people who want to debate specifics of 
bilateral trade with China or Korea or Europe or Japan. I would love to 
talk about beef and Japan. I would love to talk about trade sanctions 
we have taken against the Europeans. Oh man, are we tough. I talk about 
our trade negotiators having no backbone or spine or willingness to 
stand up. We took action against the Europeans when we got upset. We 
decided to slap duties on truffles, Roquefort cheese, and goose liver. 
That is going to make our trade partners quake in their boots. My God, 
you are going to put tariffs on truffles and goose liver.
  When will this country's trade negotiators and its politicians have 
the backbone to stand up for the economic interests of that which we 
have built--a country that produces good jobs that pay well and have 
benefits, a country that produces that without having to apologize for 
it but that decides it is good for our country to have good jobs that 
pay well with good benefits?
  Mr. President, I spoke far longer than I intended. This amendment is 
an amendment that I have offered. It is germane. It will require a 
vote. My hope is that enough of my colleagues, sufficient numbers of my 
colleagues

[[Page 20075]]

will vote to support this and we will send another very strong message 
to our trade negotiators.
  I have said earlier that this has happened through Democrat and 
Republican administrations. Nothing has changed. I would like to see it 
changed, and I would like to see it changed now. Perhaps with this 
amendment we can take a first step in making that change.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly. Later on, we are 
going to have a vote on the amendment offered by Senator Biden for a 
billion-dollar expansion of the COPS Program. That proposal is put in 
the context of Katrina and the effects of Katrina on the Gulf States.
  I have come to the Chamber a number of times in the last days, 
talking about how we put forward an orderly process in addressing the 
issue of trying to restore and rehabilitate and help the people who 
have been impacted by Katrina. The leader, much to his credit, has 
begun and initiated that process, using the strength of the authorizing 
committees that have jurisdiction.
  What I do not think we want to do is end up with a haphazard, 
rifleshot ``I have a good idea; let's come to the floor and offer an 
amendment'' approach to this because we are talking literally of tens, 
potentially hundreds of billions of dollars. We have already spent $60 
billion and aggressively stepped forward as a Congress to do that. It 
was appropriate, and the leader again needs to be congratulated for his 
initiative when he moved $10 billion when we were essentially on break 
as a Senate and then got up the additional $50 billion last week.
  But as we move down the road, we need to put coherence and 
thoughtfulness into the money we are spending so the American people 
know those dollars are going to the people who need them and that they 
are going to help a region that has been dramatically impacted in a way 
that is effective so the American people can feel their tax dollars are 
being used aggressively to support these folks who have been so 
overwhelmed by this catastrophe and that their tax dollars are not 
being wasted or misdirected or put into another program or some program 
that just happens to be a project of interest to a Member of the 
Congress but is not necessarily an immediate issue relative to Katrina.
  Regrettably, the proposal by Senator Biden falls into that second 
category. It is an idea which the Senator has come to the floor with 
many times. In fact, every time this appropriations bill comes to the 
floor, the Senator from Delaware proposes an expansion of the COPS 
Program.
  I had the good fortune to chair the subcommittee for many years. I 
dealt with the Senator on this issue for many years. For many years, he 
made the same proposal, and there was no Katrina, there was no 
disaster, but the proposal was brought forward. Once again, the 
proposal is being brought forward to continue a program, the COPS 
Program. When President Clinton set it up, he said: We are going to 
have a COPS Program. We are going to put 100,000 cops on the street, 
and then the program is going to end. That is exactly what he said when 
he set it up. I was here then, too.
  We set it up and we funded it, myself and Senator Hollings at the 
time--Senator Hollings was chairman; I was chairman. He was chairman 
and I was chairman. We funded it until we got to 100,000--in fact, 
until we got to 110,000 police officers on the street. Then we said: 
All right, we have met the goals of this program. Let's, in a unique 
act, at least a unique act for the Federal Government, agree we have 
done what we said we would do and stop the program, phase it out. We 
have come close to doing that. Now we have a program focusing on 
putting police officers in school systems that need assistance. That is 
what is left of the COPS Program to the extent it is initiated.
  But to restart this program and say we need to put another $1 billion 
into it in the name of Katrina is simply not the best way to legislate. 
It is arbitrary, probably haphazard. Who knows whether that will be a 
decision that is tied into what the final needs are of the region. Yes, 
there will be needs, obviously, for assistance to law enforcement in 
that region, but the original $60 billion put in there--plus, a lot of 
that is clearly going to flow to first responders--police, fire, 
medical--because that is what FEMA does. So to suddenly throw this 
out--this is an idea we have to throw into the Katrina mix--is not a 
good way to legislate. It is especially not a good way to legislate in 
the context of what we know is going to be a huge effort by us as a 
Congress to address Katrina and where we know under the leadership of 
Senator Frist we are developing a process where the authorizing 
committees take a look at what should be done and could be done and 
they put forward those ideas in an orderly way and prompt way, that 
should be enforced, and then we can get relief out to these people who 
have been impacted so dramatically. But it isn't just some idea of some 
Senator who happens to have a project which he has always supported and 
which he feels is a good project.
  At some point, as chairman of the Budget Committee or maybe some 
other Senator as a member of the Appropriations Committee, a point of 
order will lie against this amendment because it is outside the budget 
and it is outside the appropriations bill. It should not be brought 
forward in this manner.
  What we need to do in addressing the issue of what police needs are 
in that region and law enforcement needs are in that region is do it in 
the context of an overall solution, which is moving through this Senate 
rather rapidly--already $60 billion in the pipeline--but which is done 
in concert with the authorizing committee, in concert with the 
leadership, and in concert, obviously, with the administration.
  At the correct time, I think we will have some more discussion on 
this bill.
  I wanted to lay down at least a few guidelines here because if we 
continue on this course, we are going to be waking up 2 or 3 months 
from now and we will have probably 10, 15, 20, 30, or 40 new programs 
or programs which have been expanded with no orderly, constructive, 
thoughtful process behind them other than the fact that somebody had a 
good idea and came to the floor and said: Let's spend money on that. 
That isn't going to help people in that region. That will not make 
sense to them. What will make sense to them will be to get money to 
them through an orderly manner, with effective leadership. That is 
being done--granted, not as quickly as it should have been, but it is 
being done now.
  We should continue the process of making sure we set priorities and 
do this in a manner which allows for the money to go where it can be 
most effectively used, where the American taxpayers know their dollars 
are being used to help the people who have been impacted by this 
hurricane and not simply assist in setting up a program which some 
Senator feels is a nice idea or a good idea or wants to continue.
  I yield the floor. 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. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur 
at 4:30 today on the motion to waive with respect to the Biden 
amendment, No. 161, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; provided further that there be 15 minutes equally divided 
for debate prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. 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.

[[Page 20076]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few minutes we will begin voting. As 
most people know, we are on a very important piece of legislation, the 
Commerce-Science-Justice appropriations bill. We have been on it for 
several days.
  As I look through the amendments coming forward, indeed, the 
amendments we are considering over the course of the afternoon and 
evening, it is clear we have a challenge. The challenge is to be able 
to comprehensively address the bill with debate and amendments but at 
the same time not open up the bill to lots of legislation which in many 
ways are rifleshots that are related to Katrina or that people are 
attempting to relate to Katrina.
  I say that in part because it is important we address the underlying 
legislation which does have some Katrina-related aspects to it. Looking 
at our response to Katrina, I believe there is a right and wrong way to 
address that natural disaster. We have tried to act and I believe we 
have acted in this Senate in a very responsive way in terms of having 
an emergency session with the initial $10 billion, having another 
supplemental for $51.8 billion from two nights ago, authorizing the 
affected courts to meet appropriately outside their jurisdiction, 
announcing a joint committee we are still working on in terms of the 
composition to look at what went right and what went wrong, passing 
legislation last night on the national flood insurance program. We are 
working very aggressively to respond in an appropriate way.
  What I fear and what simply cannot happen is to have individuals 
focus on the underlying bill and bring in Katrina-related responses 
when we are doing our very best and in a bipartisan way using the 
committee structure, using the authorizing committees to address 
comprehensively, rapidly, the emergency that is playing out before us. 
Once we complete the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, we will move it 
immediately to conference with the House and get the bill to the 
President for his signature prior to the beginning of the new fiscal 
year, which is 17 days away. That is why I want to stay on the 
appropriations process and do the appropriations related to the 
underlying bills and not use Katrina to try to pull in other 
amendments.
  Pending to this bill are a whole bunch of amendments. There is a 
whole long list of amendments the manager and ranking member are 
working with, offered by my colleagues, many from both sides of the 
aisle, but from the other side of the aisle predominantly, that 
ostensibly are for Katrina but which increase funding and authorize new 
major governmental programs. This is not the place for that.
  I pledge to work with both sides of the aisle, with the leadership on 
the other side, to have that appropriate authorizing language addressed 
but through the appropriate committees and not on these appropriations 
bills. I observe that while Katrina is the reason that is given for a 
lot of these amendments, as we look through them, in many instances 
they simply increase funding for an existing program, regardless of 
whether it provides assistance or help directly or even indirectly to 
the victims of Katrina. I argue that the Biden amendment falls under 
that category by increasing the COPS Program another $1 billion with no 
specific targeting to those who are directly affected.
  I say this after having over the last 10 days directed this Senate, 
directed and signed by law over $60 billion in immediate assistance to 
those who are affected by Katrina. In conjunction with the 
administration and those directly involved in the recovery and 
rebuilding effort in the United States, we have a lot more we are going 
to have to do in the coming days, weeks, and months. But this is not 
the appropriate bill to be adding spending that has not been vetted 
through the various committees of jurisdiction.
  In our leadership office we have set up an assessment team and look 
forward to working with the Democratic leadership in doing the same 
thing so we can give focus to consider the emergency responses we need 
to consider and also the longer rebuilding and reconstruction responses 
that have arisen and which we will respond to in a comprehensive, 
expeditious way with regard to Katrina. That sort of mechanism will 
facilitate and will better coordinate, rather than having individual 
amendments come to the Senate that are in many cases authorizing or 
increasing spending for preexisting programs, without looking at it in 
a more comprehensive way.
  We owe that to the people affected by the tragedy as well as allowing 
a reasonable, efficient operation in the Senate. I will oppose 
amendments on the bill that have not gone through a vetting of the 
issues. I promise we will be moving forward on a whole range of these 
issues that are targeted and an appropriate response to Katrina.
  The manager has spoken directly to this, as well, and I believe the 
chairman of the Committee on the Budget has.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry: Do we have a vote set?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We have a vote at 4:40.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent I be able to speak--I hope to 
finish in 5 minutes, but if I don't, I ask consent I be allowed to 
complete my statement before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand the consternation of the 
distinguished majority leader. I spend a lot of time with him. It is 
hard to manage this unwieldy body. I understand that. I try to help as 
I can. Sometimes I am not as much help as he would like.
  Take, for example, this bill. We have been working on this bill and I 
am convinced the end is in sight for this bill. I don't know the exact 
number. There are probably five or six Katrina-related amendments on 
this bill. They are good amendments if they relate to spending on 
Katrina for the victims, education, housing, medical. We should vote on 
those. If there is a problem with them, work with our managers.
  For example, we tried to accept the amendment related to medical that 
came over from the House. We cannot do that. Even on Public Radio this 
morning--not actually a bastion of democratic liberality--Public Radio 
had an example of what the bill passed in the House would do or not do. 
They give an example of a woman who is from Louisiana who was sent to 
the Astrodome, 55 years old, heart condition, diabetes. Under the House 
provision we have now, she could not get help. Under our provision, she 
could. We are trying to help the people who got hurt, and there are a 
lot of people who got hurt.
  I agree we need to do more on these appropriations bills. We should 
not have a big omnibus bill. I was happy to see the distinguished 
Senator from Mississippi, the senior Senator from Mississippi, the 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, say he did not want an 
omnibus bill. I congratulate him.
  However, I say to my friend, and I have said this privately and I 
will say it publicly to the distinguished majority leader, we have to 
get conferences done on the appropriations bills. I, along with Senator 
Domenici, have done the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee 
for many years. We have never had figures like this. We cannot go to 
conference. The House refuses to sit down and talk to us. We have to 
work this out. Among other things in the Energy and Water 
appropriations bill, we fund the Corps of Engineers. We are going to go 
this year on some kind of a continuing resolution and not take care of 
the Corps of Engineers and the other matters within the confines of 
that subcommittee? We should not do that.
  We have not done anything with Homeland Security. If there was ever a 
time in the history of this country where we could have a civilized 
conference between the House and the Senate and take care of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bills, this should be the time. Let's 
get that done. That should not be an omnibus.
  Foreign operations bill, my Energy and Water Subcommittee, July, 
August--it has been there for 60 days and

[[Page 20077]]

we have not done anything. I spoke to the distinguished majority leader 
a few minutes ago and he suggested three of his top staff people and my 
top staff people see what we can do to focus on some of the things on 
Katrina. We can never get to the victims of Katrina unless we have 
floor time to do it--whether they come from committees or amendments 
offered by Members from the floor.
  So I would hope we could finish the bill before us, the Commerce 
bill. We should do that. There is an amendment dealing with COPS. We 
would have to waive the budget on that one. We know it takes 60 votes 
to do that. I understand there is one on small business they are about 
ready to work out. There is a possibility that can be worked out. So I 
would hope there wouldn't be a cloture motion filed on this bill. I 
think we are about to finish it. But I cannot control that.
  I want the Record to be spread with this: We are willing to work 
late, early--it does not matter--toward what we think needs to be done 
to help the gulf victims.
  I would also say we have lived up to our bargain on Judge Roberts. We 
made a commitment to those involved that we would do our utmost to 
finish this by the beginning of the October term in the Court. I think 
we are along the road to doing that. We have not in any way thrown up 
any roadblocks. We have tried to cooperate.
  We realize we are in the minority, but we realize we are also in the 
Senate that is a body governed by rules that give the minority the 
power to do a lot of things. We are going to continue to do a lot of 
things to see if we can move this along.
  But I say to the distinguished majority leader, we will be as helpful 
as we can. Hopefully, we can work more together than apart. I think 
that would be good for the country. I think the country is looking for 
some good bipartisanship.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, will the distinguished Democratic leader 
yield for a question?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished floor manager 
of the bill.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, is the distinguished Democratic leader 
aware we have amendments that require votes--and that would help us--
but we have seven that are not Katrina related? So while the 
negotiations are going on, on Katrina, is the distinguished Democratic 
leader aware that we do have seven votes, but we do not have a time for 
those votes? Also, we have about five votes on Katrina. So if we could 
dispose of the non-Katrina amendments, is the Democratic leader aware 
of the number of amendments?
  Mr. REID. I am aware of the non-Katrina amendments. As I indicated, 
some of those I think, with the two managers, can be worked out. The 
others will not be able to be worked out. They will go the way of 
amendments that are not able to be brought before the Senate.
  I think the point of the distinguished Senator is we can finish this 
bill fairly quickly.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. If we have votes.
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I appreciate the importance of ensuring 
that the gulf region has all of the resources necessary to fully 
recover. My home State of Alabama was directly affected by Hurricane 
Katrina, perhaps not to the extent of a lot of areas in Mississippi and 
Louisiana, but still affected. So I can safely say I have more than a 
passing interest in ensuring that all response and recovery missions 
are fully funded here in the Senate.
  In the last few weeks, I have spent considerable time viewing the 
damage in the region, in Alabama and Mississippi. I plan to go to 
Louisiana this weekend. While I believe it is critical the Congress act 
swiftly to ensure emergency funding is available for hurricane-related 
recovery efforts, I do not believe the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, 
which is before the Senate now, is the appropriate place to do that.
  I believe it will be some time before we have a true understanding of 
the actual damages and recovery needs in the region. We have already 
acted, and we will continue to act in the Senate on both sides of the 
aisle to make sure the victims have everything they need to be made 
whole, to be back on their feet, make no mistake about it.
  But I believe it is important we maintain our current track and allow 
the recovery effort to continue, step by step, which it is doing. The 
funding we approved last week will allow the effort to move forward. I 
believe we must monitor that effort closely to ensure we have the 
necessary resources we keep talking about. At the same time, I believe 
we must allow the damage assessments to move forward to truly address 
the needs of those in the gulf region, including my people in Alabama, 
the people in Mississippi, and the people in Louisiana.
  Adding emergency funding to a regular spending bill, such as this CJS 
bill, frankly, is not the way I believe we should do business. We need 
to approach the hurricane funding needs in a coordinated manner--I 
believe we have been doing a lot of this--not in an ad hoc way, 
throwing add-ons on a bill that is not even the main disaster recovery 
bill.
  I am going to be standing on the floor making sure, the best I can, 
we pass the necessary funding for these victims, including, as I said, 
the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, you can be sure of 
that, but not on this bill today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my dear friend, the senior Senator 
from Alabama, I agree that we need to make sure that money goes to the 
people who need it. That is what we are trying to do. We have not had 
the ability to bring Katrina amendments to the floor and act on them. 
That is what we need to do.
  It is not as if we were working in a vacuum. We have a model we know 
works. After 9/11, we worked in a bipartisan fashion and created 
legislation that was unique. But most important to the families of the 
3,000-plus people who got killed, plus the fact there were billions of 
dollars in damages, we did $20 billion worth within a matter of days to 
get relief to the people of New York, the people of Virginia.
  So we know how to effectively address issues of concern. We have done 
that in the past. We relied then on committees to produce legislation 
through the regular process. I believe that is what I heard the 
majority leader say. We are willing to do that. But in following 
through on that, we have to be able to have some time on the floor to 
debate and vote on those issues. That is what we need to do.
  Although there are a few exceptions to this, for the most part, the 
majority has not followed this process, and we have not been permitted 
an opportunity to address these issues on the Senate floor. We have 
been trying for 2 weeks to do that.
  So let's empower every one of our chairmen and ranking members to sit 
down together and see what the committees can produce to address the 
needs of the survivors in the communities hit by this catastrophe. And 
then let's commit to give them the floor time to deal with their 
legislation. We badly need to do that.
  Yes, we have had two emergency supplemental appropriations bills for 
more than $60 billion, but a lot of that money cannot go to the people 
who need it because it is illegal. We want to refine the law so we can 
get people the money they need.
  I apologize to everyone. I know there is a vote pending. I have said 
enough. I hope I made my point.


                           Amendment No. 1661

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time for debate has expired.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has not had a 
chance to speak on his amendment. I think we agreed he would get some 
wrap-up time. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be 
granted 2 minutes and I be granted 2 minutes in response and to make a 
point of order on his amendment.
  Is that agreeable?
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 20078]]

  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, let me begin by asking unanimous consent 
that Senator Landrieu be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, we are decimating the COPS program. 
Chairman Sensenbrenner, in the House, is no fan of the program. He 
asked for a study to be done by GAO. It concluded: Use of the COPS 
grants resulted in less crime, use of COPS grants resulted in more 
community policing, use of COPS grants resulted in more officers on the 
streets. This is a time when we need more officers on the streets, not 
fewer officers on the streets.
  The idea we are going to deal with natural disasters as well as 
terrorist attacks by using special forces soldiers and not cops on the 
street seems to me to be a little silly. We need more cops on the 
streets.
  There are 8,000 applications pending. The bill would allow for 25 of 
those applications to be filled. This is a mistake.
  One of my colleagues--it may be the chairman of the committee; I am 
not sure--said we have to prove we can end a program. Why do we end a 
program that is working, and working so well, in the interests of the 
country?
  My time is probably up. I thank my friend from New Hampshire for the 
courtesy of allowing me to take a few minutes to speak to my amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to speak on Senator Biden's 
amendment to add over $1 billion to the COPS Program. I am troubled by 
this amendment because it would declare these funds an emergency, 
siphoning away much needed funds that should go directly to the 
hurricane effort. The definition of an emergency includes situations 
that are necessary, or vital, sudden, urgent, and unforeseen. This 
amendment does not fit those characteristics.
  I must also oppose this amendment because it lacks an offset. As a 
senior member of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, I believe that we owe it to the taxpayers to be fiscally 
responsible with their tax dollars. Congress passed a budget, and we 
should stick by it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has been offered in the 
past, and it is a reflection of the support of the Senator from 
Delaware for this program. But we have to remember this program was 
created in 1994 by President Clinton, with a clear statement it would 
end after 100,000 police officers were put on the streets.
  Under this program, we have already spent over $12 billion. We put 
have put 118,000 police officers on the streets. This amendment would 
simply continue the program. Quite honestly, this is a program that 
should be phased out or just focused on police officers in schools. It 
is not a program that should be continued, and it certainly should not 
be continued in the context of the hurricane and the disaster in the 
Gulf States because it would have a marginal impact on that region.
  So, Mr. President, pursuant to section 402(b)(5) of House Concurrent 
Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I raise a point 
of order against the emergency designation provisions contained in the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 402 of House Concurrent 
Resolution 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 is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Corzine), and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Are there any other Senators 
in the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 41, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 226 Leg.]

                                YEAS--41

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Corzine
     Rockefeller
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the yeas are 41, the nays are 56. 
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The point of order is 
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the spending in this amendment would cause 
the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b) 
allocation. Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment 
pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is well taken and 
sustained. The amendment falls.
  Mr. SHELBY. 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.
  Mr. TALENT. 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. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to speak in favor 
of an amendment offered by Senator Dayton, which I am pleased to 
cosponsor along with many others, that would increase funding for 
Justice assistance grants by $275,000.
  Justice assistance grants, as the Senate knows, incorporate what used 
to be called the Byrne grants and the Local Law Enforcement Program 
grants and are used to fund a number of important law enforcement 
initiatives, among which include multijurisdictional task forces.
  I wish to speak briefly about that side of this important amendment 
because as the Senate may know, I have done a lot of work on the 
subject of fighting methamphetamine. Earlier in the debate on this 
bill, the Senate adopted an amendment which consisted of legislation 
that Senator Feinstein and I have introduced, the Combat Meth Act, 
which was a comprehensive antimethamphetamine program designed to put 
the Federal Government squarely and aggressively on the side of local 
law enforcement which is fighting this terrible drug. And it is a 
terrible drug. It is the worst single drug threat that I have 
confronted in my 20 years in public life.

[[Page 20079]]

  Methamphetamine is seriously addictive, maybe more so than any other 
drug of which I am aware. It is almost instantly addictive for a lot of 
people. It changes the physical nature of the brain. Even if you get 
off methamphetamine, which is difficult, and I will speak more on that 
in a moment, that will not necessarily fix the damage because it can 
change the structure of the brain. It tends to make the people using it 
more aggressive rather than less aggressive. Some drugs tend to make 
people more passive, and as bad as they are, at least it doesn't cause 
them to go out and attack other people, but methamphetamine does.
  In addition, there is no known treatment for methamphetamine. There 
is no methadone for methamphetamine. So we sponsored, and the Senate 
adopted, a measure which had been cosponsored by more than 40 other 
Senators to help the Federal Government get aggressively into the 
business of fighting methamphetamine. It was a series of grant programs 
along with legislation that would put pseudoephedrine, the precursor 
drug for methamphetamine, behind pharmacy counters. I think that was 
very important, and I said at the time I was grateful to the bill 
managers for working with us on that issue.
  One of the worst things about methamphetamine is that the drug is not 
just used in our neighborhoods and sold in our neighborhoods, it is 
made in our neighborhoods. It is made in local labs that can operate 
out of a cabin, out of a house, in a kitchen, in a van while it is 
being driven around, on the side of a road, or in the woods in a 
country area.
  The process by which methamphetamine is made is literally toxic. The 
chemicals in it are chemicals that should not go anywhere near the 
human body, but they do.
  These labs have cropped up all over States such as Missouri. It is 
like a cancer that spread throughout our States in the Midwest and now 
in other States as well. It is a terrible problem in the South and in 
the West and the Southwest. I do not think there is a State in the 
country which is not experiencing growing problems with it.
  The National Association of Counties surveyed its members. The No. 1 
problem reported more often than any others was methamphetamine. Not 
the No. 1 law enforcement problem, the No. 1 problem because the drug 
causes terrible social service problems and health care problems, and 
it is also overwhelming local budgets, in particular law enforcement 
budgets.
  Think of the situation when you have a sheriff's department in a 
county with maybe 6 or 10 deputies, or a bigger county with 20 or 25 
deputies: With all the jobs that local law enforcement has to do--
security for the county fair, domestic violence issues, all the typical 
work they have to perform--and then you superimpose on that 10 or 15 or 
20 methamphetamine labs in the county, it is very difficult to track 
down those labs. It is difficult to break them down. These deputies 
have to get trained in environmental chemistry to break these labs 
down.
  It is an enormous burden on local budgets. One of the ways we can 
help our sheriffs, our local law enforcement officers in dealing with 
these meth labs is multijurisdictional task forces where they are able 
to get grants from the Federal Government, band together in regional 
task forces, and use that manpower efficiently to help go after labs. 
That is what the Dayton amendment is designed to support, and that is 
the big reason I am so strongly supportive of it.
  The amendment would move funding for these programs back to where 
they were in fiscal year 2003. It is a substantial increase, but I can 
assure you, Mr. President, based on my experience with this issue, it 
certainly is no more than is needed. If we don't get ahead of this 
methamphetamine problem, if we don't start winning it--I would not say 
we are winning it now. We have heroic efforts by local law enforcement, 
but they are telling us we are not gaining yet--if we don't start 
winning, we will have increasing costs in terms of effect on kids, 
neighborhoods, jobs, costs that would dwarf what this amendment would 
add to the bill.
  This amendment is offset. This drug is destroying lives all over 
States such as Missouri, all over the country. We can do something 
about it--not by the Federal Government taking this over but by the 
Government assisting local law enforcement in efforts that they are 
telling us are going to work. That is why this amendment is so 
important.
  I appreciate the managers working with Senator Dayton and the other 
cosponsors, and I hope the Senate will adopt it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
a provision in the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations act that 
will make significant headway in the fight against methamphetamine or 
meth manufacture and use.
  The Talent-Feinstein amendment incorporating the provisions of the 
Combat Meth Act into this bill is the culmination of several months of 
bipartisan collaboration. The provision takes aim at the biggest 
problem faced by law enforcement in dealing with meth choking off the 
supply of essential materials needed to manufacture the drug.
  Meth is of particular concern to me and to the entire Tennessee 
delegation because Tennessee has been plagued by a growing number of 
meth labs--ad hoc laboratories in backwoods shacks, out-of-the-way 
hotel rooms, and just about anywhere else you can cram in a supply of 
hot plates, glassware, and noxious chemicals necessary to make meth. In 
2004, Tennessee ranked second in the Nation in the number of meth lab 
seizures, according to data from the Office of National Drug Control 
Policy. The Drug Enforcement Agency calculates that Tennessee accounts 
for 75 percent of the meth lab seizures in the Southeast. My colleagues 
in Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and many other States can cite related 
alarming statistics.
  What is of particular concern about these meth labs is that they are 
appearing in places where drug production and abuse has not been a 
significant problem. In Tennessee, the largest numbers of seizures of 
meth labs have occurred in rural counties such as Monroe, Marion, 
Warren, and Coffee. These areas are often not fully prepared to cope 
with the demands of seizing such labs and cleaning up the aftermath.
  The Talent-Feinstein amendment is a critical step in dealing with the 
meth problem. Others will have already praised various aspects of this 
bill, but I would like to particularly congratulate the Judiciary 
Committee for producing a bill that does not undermine State and local 
efforts to combat this problem. Law enforcement begins at home, and by 
crafting legislation that directs a Federal response that supports 
State and local law enforcement rather than preempt it, the Senate has 
upheld the principles of federalism that are at the core of our system 
of government.
  This legislative step is only one part of a comprehensive strategy to 
combat this addictive drug. The problems presented by meth are myriad 
and many are unique. Meth production and use targets a different 
demographic of users than other drugs. Production of meth creates a 
toxic stew of chemical byproducts that can contaminate a lab site for 
years to come. Precursor chemicals used in meth production can come 
from a wide variety of sources. Hospitals and child welfare agencies 
are overwhelmed by burn victims and abuse cases from homes where meth 
is made. The court system is inundated with cases involving drug crime, 
and the inability to provide more individual attention prevents people 
from getting treatment that might discourage recidivism.
  We also need to remember that while combating meth has risen to the 
top of the agenda thanks to media and government attention, this 
country is still threatened by the illegal use of a variety of drugs. 
According to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 15.9 million 
Americans ages 12 and older reported using an illicit drug the month 
before the survey was conducted. Of those, 12.1 million reported using 
marijuana in the past month; 1.7 million reported using cocaine; and 
1.3 million

[[Page 20080]]

reported using hallucinogens such as LSD, PCP, and Ecstasy. Meth use 
has not yet risen to these levels, but if left unchecked the meth 
problem could soon rise to similar levels.
  So as we focus on meth, we must also recognize that even if we are 
successful in our efforts to curb meth use and production, millions of 
Americans are threatened by addiction to other, just as dangerous 
drugs, and the next big drug is probably simmering in a beaker or 
growing in a field right now.
  The Bush administration is confronting the drug problem head on in 
this country. In 2005, the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
reported that there has been a 17-percent reduction in youth drug use 
in the last 3 years thanks in part to Federal and State efforts to 
bolster enforcement and increase awareness of the dangers of drugs. 
Attorney General Gonzales recently visited Nashville with HHS Secretary 
Mike Leavitt and Office of National Drug Control Policy Director John 
Walters to announce new measures to support State and local governments 
in combating the meth problem.
  I commend my colleagues for their work on the Combat Meth Act, and I 
look forward to more such efforts in our mission to eliminate the 
scourge of illegal drugs from our communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


        Interoperable Communications for Public Safety Officials

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have watched the news coverage, along 
with so many Americans, during these past 2 weeks and have been shocked 
and saddened by the devastation in the gulf coast region. It continues 
to amaze me that an act of nature can bring about such destruction and 
ruin the lives of so many.
  My deepest sympathies and prayers go out to the residents of Alabama, 
Louisiana, and Mississippi, and I know that as a country we will come 
together, as we are, to assist these residents and help them rebuild 
their lives. In my home State of Arizona, I am proud to report that 
valley residents have welcomed over 1,000 residents of New Orleans.
  This was a tragedy of great proportions that caught local, State, and 
Federal officials unprepared. Like many Americans, I, too, have been 
concerned about the local, State, and Federal initial response to this 
disaster. It was unacceptable and inadequate. I know there will be an 
appropriate time for a comprehensive review of the local, State, and 
Federal response efforts to determine what went wrong and what went 
right. The oversight investigations being held by Senators Collins and 
Lieberman are a very important undertaking. I believe Congress and the 
Nation have a lot to learn from Hurricane Katrina.
  One thing already evident is that the country's local, State, and 
Federal first responders remain unable to communicate with each other 
during an emergency response. We saw the horrors brought on by the lack 
of communication on 9/11 when New York's fire, police, and port 
authority officers were unable to talk with one another when responding 
to the collapse of the Twin Towers. I have now been told that the first 
responders in Louisiana experienced similar problems because New 
Orleans and the three nearby parishes all use different radio equipment 
and frequencies. In addition, Federal officials use entirely different 
communications systems than localities, which hindered relief efforts.
  I read that New Orleans officials had purchased equipment that would 
allow some patching between local and Federal radio systems, but that 
the equipment was rendered useless by flooding. Nonetheless, short-term 
solutions to link incompatible systems are not the right approach to 
this critical problem. The better approach is for this Nation to get 
serious about public safety communications by developing and funding an 
interoperable communications system for all local, State, and Federal 
first responders.
  The Federal Government needs to, one, develop a comprehensive 
interoperable communications plan and set equipment standards; two, 
fund the purchase of interoperable communications equipment; and three, 
provide public safety with additional spectrum so first responders can 
communicate using the same radio frequencies and equipment in the event 
of an emergency.
  Congress has taken some steps toward achieving an interoperable 
communications system for local, State, and Federal first responders. 
Last year, I offered an amendment that was enacted as part of the 
intelligence reform bill that authorized the Department of Homeland 
Security's Office for Interoperability and Compatibility, otherwise 
known as SAFECOM. SAFECOM assists local, regional, State, and Federal 
agencies in developing interoperable communications plans and 
accelerating interoperable communications equipment standards. They are 
in the process of doing so, and I urge them to move forward 
expeditiously.
  Congress has also begun to fund the purchase of interoperable 
communications equipment for localities. Some 50,000 local, State, and 
Federal agencies make independent decisions about communications 
systems and use various frequencies. This is unacceptable and a waste 
of Government resources. The Department of Homeland Security has 
already spent over $280 million for the purchase of interoperable 
communications equipment. The Senate-passed Department of Homeland 
Security fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill would provide over $2.6 
billion for localities to purchase interoperable communications 
equipment. This bill is currently in conference with the House.
  Obviously, interoperability will come with a cost. Some estimate as 
much as $15 billion. But even this may be a small price to pay in order 
to save thousands of lives in the event of another disaster.
  Let's remember that Congress also provided additional spectrum for 
first responders in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. So after 
spending millions of dollars in funding in additional spectrum for our 
Nation's first responders, why are we not better off than we were on 9/
11 when it comes to interoperable communications? Because the spectrum 
Congress provided to first responders in 1996 is being held hostage by 
television broadcasters, even though broadcasters have now been given 
new spectrum.
  It was almost 20 years ago that broadcasters began their journey 
toward becoming spectrum squatters. In 1987, broadcasters first asked 
the FCC to look into the potential of digital television technology and 
whether additional spectrum would be necessary. Upon the broadcasters' 
request, Congress provided new spectrum in 1996 to the broadcasters for 
free. I have often referred to this as the great $70 billion taxpayer 
giveaway. In return, broadcasters promised to give back their current 
spectrum by December 31, 2006, and make it available to first 
responders for interoperable communications.
  But before the ink was dry on the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
broadcasters persuaded certain Members of Congress to include an 
exception to the December 31, 2006, date in the 1997 Balanced Budget 
Act. Last year, during a Commerce Committee hearing, then-FCC Chairman 
Michael Powell testified that this exception could result in the first 
responders not receiving this spectrum for ``decades or multiple 
decades.'' As evidenced by the tragedies from Hurricane Katrina, we 
cannot wait decades. Broadcasters are blocking access to spectrum for 
first responders who serve over 50 percent of the country.
  Providing first responders access to this spectrum is one of the key 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and remains a top priority for 
Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton. I introduced legislation last 
year to implement this recommendation, and it was voted out of the 
Commerce Committee. I then added the provisions, an amendment to the 
intelligence reform bill last fall, to provide this spectrum to first 
responders. Unfortunately, this language was removed in conference and 
replaced with a ``sense of Congress'' that such legislation be voted on 
during the first session of the 109th Congress.
  Senator Lieberman and I reintroduced our legislation to provide 
spectrum to first responders. Yet Congress

[[Page 20081]]

has yet to act this year as envisioned by the sense of Congress. S. 
1268, the Spectrum Availability for Emergency Response and Law 
Enforcement to Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as 
the SAVE LIVES Act, would provide first responders with the spectrum by 
January 1, 2009. Upon introduction, I suggested this date is a 
compromise between public safety organizations, equipment 
manufacturers, localities, and broadcasters. However, after watching 
citizens suffer during recovery efforts in New Orleans, I believe this 
date should be moved up to January 1, 2007, as originally contemplated 
by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
  Yet here we are 9 months into the first session with another horrible 
disaster having taken place, and Congress has yet to take up the SAVE 
LIVES Act or any other legislation providing first responders their 
promised spectrum.
  To what level of crisis must this country endure before we act? Is 
the devastation from Hurricane Katrina still not enough to bring 
action? Chairman Stevens has stated his intention to include such 
legislation in the Commerce Committee's response to budget 
reconciliation. I will be watching to see if the broadcasters find a 
way to once again delay the hand off of this spectrum to first 
responders. I will do all I can to move our legislation.
  In 1997, the President of the National Association of Broadcasters 
stated on ``The News Hour with Jim Lehrer'' that broadcasters' use of 
spectrum allocated to first responders was merely a ``loan to 
facilitate an orderly transition.'' Mr. Fritts, this ``loan'' has gone 
on long enough. Congress must now call in your ``loan.'' You got your 
spectrum, now give the first responders their spectrum.
  I will conclude by sharing 9/11 Commission Chairman Kean's comments 
as stated on CNN's Late Edition this past Sunday:

       [w]hat's frustrating is it's the same thing over again. I 
     mean, how many people have to lose their lives? It's lack of 
     communication, our first responders not being able to talk to 
     each other. . . . Basically it's many of the things that, 
     frankly, if some of our recommendations had been passed by 
     the United States Congress . . . could have been avoided. But 
     on the ground, the people that get there first can't talk to 
     each other because the radio communications don't work. They 
     haven't got enough what's called spectrum. So there is a bill 
     in Congress to provide first responders spectrum. The bill 
     has been sitting in Congress, nothing has been happening, and 
     again, people on the ground--police, fire, medical 
     personnel--couldn't talk to each other. That's outrageous and 
     it's a scandal and I think it cost lives.

  I couldn't agree more.
  I want to end by thanking all of the first responders who are 
assisting in rescue efforts in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi. They 
are heroes and make me proud to be an American. For over 2 weeks now, 
they have slept very little and eaten very little, but done so much for 
a region in need. In appreciation, we owe them better communications 
systems so that when they are called upon to assist in the next 
disaster, they have the tools necessary to protect themselves and those 
they are working to protect.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Commerce, Justice, Science and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2862, as 
reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $48.875 
billion in budget authority and $49.495 billion in outlays in fiscal 
year 2006 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and related 
agencies. Of these totals, $229 million in budget authority and $241 
million in outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006.
  The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 
2006 of $48.646 billion. This amount is $2 billion less than the 
President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the 
Senate, and $36 million more than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels.
  Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the 
Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   H.R. 2862, 2006 COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE APPROPRIATIONS--SPENDING
                    COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     Purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority.............       48,646          229       48,875
    Outlays......................       49,254          241       49,495
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............       48,646          229       48,875
    Outlays......................       49,254          241       49,495
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............       48,610          242       48,852
    Outlays......................       48,376          228       48,604
President's request:
    Budget authority.............       50,655          229       50,884
    Outlays......................       49,185          241       49,426
House-passed bill:*
    Budget authority.............       57,452          361       57,813
    Outlays......................       58,563          373       58,936
Senate-Reported Bill Compared To:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority.........            0            0            0
        Outlays..................            0            0            0
    2005 Enacted:
        Budget authority.........           36          -13           23
        Outlays..................          878           13          891
    President's request:
        Budget authority.........       -2,009            0       -2,009
        Outlays..................           69            0           69
    House-passed bill:*
        Budget authority.........       -8,806         -132       -8,938
        Outlays..................       -9,309         -132       -9,441
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*House and Senate subcommittees have differing jurisdictions.
NOTE: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

                            NOTICE OF INTENT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my 
intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of 
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriations bill, the following amendment:


                           amendment no. 1652

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

              TITLE __--TEMPORARY MEDICAID DISASTER RELIEF

     SEC. __01. SHORT TITLE OF TITLE; PURPOSE.

       (a) Short Title of Title.--This title may be cited as the 
     ``Temporary Medicaid Disaster Relief Act of 2005''.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to ensure all 
     those affected by Hurricane Katrina have access to health 
     coverage and medical care through the medicaid program and to 
     authorize temporary changes in such program to guarantee and 
     expedite that coverage and access to care.

     SEC. __02. DISASTER RELIEF PERIOD.

       (a) In General.--For purposes of this title, the term 
     ``disaster relief period'' means the period beginning on 
     August 29, 2005, and, subject to subsection (b), ending on 
     February 28, 2006.
       (b) Presidential Authority To Extend Disaster Relief 
     Period.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall extend the application 
     of section __03 and paragraphs (1) and (2) of section __04(a) 
     until September 30, 2006, unless the President determines 
     that all Katrina Survivors would have sufficient access to 
     health care without such an extension. In the case of such an 
     extension, the reference to ``February 28, 2006'' in 
     subsection (a) shall be considered to be a reference to 
     ``September 30, 2006''.
       (2) Notice to congress.--The President shall notify the 
     Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives, and the Chairs and Ranking Members 
     of the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committees 
     on Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives at least 30 days prior to--
       (A) extending the application of such sections; or
       (B) if the President determines not to extend the 
     application of such sections, February 28, 2006.

     SEC. __03. TEMPORARY MEDICAID COVERAGE FOR KATRINA SURVIVORS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this title:
       (1) Katrina survivor.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Katrina Survivor'' means an 
     individual who is described in subparagraph (B) or (C).
       (B) Residents of disaster localities.--
       (i) In general.--An individual who, on any day during the 
     week preceding the declaration of a public health emergency 
     on August 29, 2005, had a residence in--

       (I) a parish in the State of Louisiana that is among the 
     parishes that the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the 
     Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate of the 
     Department of Homeland Security declared on September 4, 
     2005, to be Federal Disaster Parishes; or
       (II) a county in the State of Alabama or Mississippi that 
     is among the counties such Agency declared Federal Disaster 
     Counties on September 4, 2005.

       (ii) Authority to rely on website posted designations.--The 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall post on the 
     Internet website for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services a list of parishes and counties

[[Page 20082]]

     identified as Federal Disaster Parishes or Counties. Any 
     State which provides medical assistance to Katrina Survivors 
     on the basis of such posting and in accordance with this 
     title shall be held harmless if it is subsequently determined 
     that the provision of such assistance was in error.
       (C) Individuals who lost employment.--An individual who, on 
     any day during the week preceding the declaration of a public 
     health emergency on August 29, 2005, had a residence in a 
     direct impact State and lost their employment since Hurricane 
     Katrina.
       (D) Construction.--A Katrina Survivor shall be treated as 
     being ``from'' the State of residence described in 
     subparagraph (B)(i) or (C), as the case may be.
       (E) Treatment of current medicaid beneficiaries.--Nothing 
     in this title shall be construed as preventing an individual 
     who is otherwise entitled to medical assistance under title 
     XIX of the Social Security Act from being treated as a 
     Katrina Survivor under this title.
       (F) Treatment of homeless persons.--For purposes of this 
     title, in the case of an individual who was homeless on any 
     day during the week described in subparagraph (B)(i), the 
     individual's ``residence'' shall be deemed to be the place of 
     residence as otherwise determined for such an individual 
     under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
       (2) Direct impact state.--The term ``direct impact State'' 
     means the State of Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi.
       (b) Rules for Providing Temporary Medical Assistance to 
     Katrina Survivors.--During the disaster relief period, any 
     State may provide medical assistance to Katrina Survivors 
     under a State medicaid plan established under title XIX of 
     the Social Security Act in accordance with the following:
       (1) Uniform eligibility rules.--
       (A) No income, resources, residency, or categorical 
     eligibility requirements.--Such assistance shall be provided 
     without application of any income or resources test, State 
     residency, or categorical eligibility requirements.
       (B) Streamlined eligibility procedures.--The State shall 
     use the following streamlined procedures in processing 
     applications and determining eligibility for medical 
     assistance for Katrina Survivors:
       (i) A common 1-page application form developed by the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with 
     the National Association of State Medicaid Directors. Such 
     form shall include notice regarding the penalties for making 
     a fraudulent application under paragraph (4) and shall 
     require the applicant to assign to the State any rights of 
     the applicant (or any other person who is a Katrina Survivor 
     and on whose behalf the applicant has the legal authority to 
     execute an assignment of such rights) under any group health 
     plan or other third-party coverage for health care.
       (ii) Self-attestation by the applicant that the applicant 
     is a Katrina Survivor.
       (iii) No requirement for documentation evidencing the basis 
     on which the applicant qualifies to be a Katrina Survivor.
       (iv) Issuance of a Medicaid eligibility card to an 
     applicant who completes such application, including the self-
     attestation required under clause (ii). Such card shall be 
     valid during the disaster relief period.
       (v) If an applicant completes the application and presents 
     it to a provider or facility participating in the State 
     medicaid plan that is qualified to make presumptive 
     eligibility determinations under such plan (which at a 
     minimum shall consist of facilities identified in section 
     1902(a)(55) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(55)) and it appears to the provider that the 
     applicant is a Katrina Survivor based on the information in 
     the application, the applicant will be deemed to be a Katrina 
     Survivor eligible for medical assistance in accordance with 
     this section, subject to paragraph (3).
       (vi) Continuous eligibility, without the need for any 
     redetermination of eligibility, for the duration of the 
     disaster relief period.
       (C) Determination of eligibility for coverage after the 
     termination of the disaster relief period.--In the case of a 
     Katrina Survivor who is receiving medical assistance from a 
     State, prior to the termination of the disaster relief 
     period, the State providing such assistance shall determine 
     whether the Katrina Survivor is eligible for continued 
     medical assistance under the State's eligibility rules 
     otherwise applicable under the State medicaid plan. If a 
     State determines that the individual is so eligible, the 
     State shall provide the individual with written notice of the 
     determination and provide the individual with continued 
     coverage for such medical assistance for so long as the 
     individual remains eligible under such otherwise applicable 
     eligibility rules. If a State determines that the individual 
     is not so eligible, the State shall provide the individual 
     with written notice of the determination, including the 
     reasons for such determination.
       (2) Scope of coverage same as categorically needy.--The 
     State shall treat Katrina Survivors as individuals eligible 
     for medical assistance under the State plan under title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act on the basis of section 
     1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)), with coverage for such assistance 
     retroactive to August 29, 2005.
       (3) Verification of status as a katrina survivor.--
       (A) In general.--The State shall make a good faith effort 
     to verify the status of a Katrina Survivor enrolled in the 
     State Medicaid plan under the provisions of this section 
     after the determination of the eligibility of the Survivor 
     for medical assistance under such plan.
       (B) Evidence of verification.--A State may satisfy the 
     verification requirement under subparagraph (A) with respect 
     to a Katrina Survivor by showing that the State providing 
     medical assistance obtained information from the Social 
     Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, or the 
     State Medicaid Agency for the direct impact State.
       (C) Disallowance of payments for failure to make good faith 
     effort.--If, with respect to the status of a Katrina Survivor 
     enrolled in a State Medicaid plan, the State fails to make 
     the good faith effort required under subparagraph (A), and 
     the Secretary determines that the individual so enrolled is 
     not a Katrina Survivor, the Secretary shall disallow all 
     Federal payments made to the State that are directly 
     attributable to medical assistance provided or administrative 
     costs incurred with respect to the individual during the 
     disaster relief period.
       (4) Penalty for fraudulent applications.--
       (A) Individual liable for costs.--If a State, as the result 
     of verification activities conducted under paragraph (3), 
     determines after a fair hearing that an individual has 
     knowingly made a false self-attestation described in 
     paragraph (1)(B)(ii), the State may, subject to subparagraph 
     (B), seek recovery from the individual for the full amount of 
     the cost of medical assistance provided to the individual 
     under this section.
       (B) Exception.--The Secretary shall exempt a State from 
     seeking recovery under subparagraph (A) if the Secretary 
     determines that it would not be cost-effective for the State 
     to do so.
       (C) Reimbursement to the federal government.--Any amounts 
     recovered by a State in accordance with this paragraph shall 
     be returned to the Federal government, except that a State's 
     administrative costs attributable to obtaining such recovery 
     shall be reimbursed by the Federal government in accordance 
     with section __04(a)(2).
       (5) Exemption from error rate penalties.--All payments 
     attributable to providing medical assistance to Katrina 
     Survivors in accordance with this section shall be 
     disregarded for purposes of section 1903(u) of the Social 
     Security Act.

     SEC. __04. TEMPORARY DISASTER RELIEF FOR STATES UNDER 
                   MEDICAID.

       (a) Increase in Federal Matching Rate.--
       (1) 100 percent fmap for medical assistance.--
     Notwithstanding section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)), the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage for providing medical assistance under a State 
     medicaid plan under title XIX of such Act to Katrina 
     Survivors or, in the case of a direct impact State, to any 
     individual who is provided medical assistance under the State 
     medicaid plan during the disaster relief period, shall be 100 
     percent.
       (2) 100 percent federal match for certain administrative 
     costs.--Notwithstanding paragraph (7) of section 1903(a) of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(a)), or any other paragraph of such 
     section, the Federal matching rate for costs directly 
     attributable to all administrative activities that relate to 
     the enrollment of Katrina Survivors under section __03 in a 
     State medicaid plan, verification of the status of such 
     Survivors, processing of claims for payment for medical 
     assistance provided to such Survivors under such section, and 
     recovery costs under section __03(b)(4)(C), shall be 100 
     percent. The Secretary shall issue guidance not later 30 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act on the implementation 
     of this paragraph.
       (b) Limitation on Reduction of FMAP for Fiscal Year 2006 
     for any State.--If the Federal medical assistance percentage 
     (as defined in section 1905(b) of the Social Security Act) 
     determined for a State for fiscal year 2006 is less than the 
     Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the 
     State for fiscal year 2005, the Federal medical assistance 
     percentage for the State for fiscal year 2005 shall apply to 
     the State for fiscal year 2006 only for purposes of title XIX 
     of the Social Security Act.
       (c) Temporary Suspension of Medicare ``Clawback'' and 
     Postponement of Cut-Off of Medicaid Prescription Drug Funding 
     in Affected States.--
       (1) Suspension in application of ``clawback''.--Section 
     1935(c) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-5(c)) 
     shall not apply, subject to paragraph (3), before January 
     2007 to a direct impact State or to a State that experiences 
     a significant influx of Katrina Survivors.
       (2) Continuation of medicaid drug coverage for dual 
     eligibles.--Section 1935(d)(1) of such Act shall also not 
     apply, subject to paragraph (3), before January 2007 to a 
     part D eligible individual who is a Katrina Survivor.
       (3) Termination of application of subsection.--Paragraphs 
     (1) and (2) shall no longer apply to a State or a Katrina 
     Survivor, respectively, if the Secretary determines, after 
     consultation with the State,

[[Page 20083]]

     that enrollment of all part D eligible individuals in the 
     State under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act 
     who are described in section 1935(c)(6)(A)(ii) of such Act 
     can be achieved without a discontinuation in prescription 
     drug coverage for any such individual.
       (4) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``State that experiences a significant influx of Katrina 
     Survivors'' means those States, including Arkansas, Florida, 
     Oklahoma, and Texas, that the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services identifies as having a significant in-migration of 
     Katrina Survivors.

     SEC. __05. ACCOMMODATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS OF KATRINA 
                   SURVIVORS UNDER MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Exclusion of Disaster Relief Period in Computing Part B 
     Late Enrollment Penalty.--In applying the first sentence of 
     section 1839(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(b)) in the case of a Katrina Survivor, there shall not 
     be taken into account any month any part of which is within 
     the disaster relief period or within the 2-month period 
     following the end of such disaster relief period.
       (b) Part D.--
       (1) Extension of initial enrollment period.--In the case of 
     a Katrina Survivor, the initial enrollment period under 
     section 1860D-1(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395w-101(b)(2)) shall in no case end before May 15, 2007.
       (2) Flexibility in documentation for low-income 
     subsidies.--For purposes of carrying out section 1860D-14 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-114), with respect 
     to Katrina Survivors, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish documentation rules for Katrina 
     Survivors which take into account the loss and unavailability 
     of documents due to Hurricane Katrina.


                            NOTICE OF INTENT

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in accordance with rule V of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my 
intention to move to suspend peragragh 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of 
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriations bill, the following amendment:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1662

       On page 190, after line 14, insert the following:

     SECTION 522. HURRICANE KATRINA EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE VOUCHERS.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the 
     ``Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane Katrina Act of 
     2005''.
       (b) Hurricane Katrina Emergency Assistance Vouchers.--
     Section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 
     U.S.C. 1437f(o)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(20) Hurricane katrina emergency assistance vouchers.--
       ``(A) In general.--During the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of 
     Hurricane Katrina Act of 2005, the Secretary shall provide 
     temporary rental assistance to any individual or family, if--
       ``(i) the individual or family resides, or resided on 
     August 29, 2005, in any area that is subject to a declaration 
     by the President of a major disaster or emergency under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with Hurricane 
     Katrina; and
       ``(ii) the residence of the individual or family became 
     uninhabitable or inaccessible as result of that major 
     disaster or emergency.
       ``(B) Regulations.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane 
     Katrina Act of 2005, the Secretary shall issue final rules to 
     establish the procedures applicable to the issuance of 
     assistance under subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Notice.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and such 
     other agencies as the Secretary determines appropriate, shall 
     establish procedures for providing notice of the availability 
     of assistance under this paragraph to individuals or families 
     that may be eligible for such assistance.
       ``(D) Authority to contract with pha's and others.--The 
     Secretary may contract with any State or local government 
     agency or public housing agency, or in consultation with any 
     State or local government agency, with any other entity, to 
     ensure that assistance payments under this paragraph are 
     provided in an efficient and expeditious manner.
       ``(E) Waiver of eligibility requirements.--In providing 
     assistance under this paragraph, the Secretary shall waive 
     the requirements under--
       ``(i) paragraph (2), relating to tenant contributions 
     towards rent, except that any such waiver shall expire on an 
     individual's return to work;
       ``(ii) paragraph (4), relating to the eligibility of 
     individuals to receive assistance;
       ``(iii) subsection (k) and paragraph (5) of this 
     subsection, relating to verification of income;
       ``(iv) paragraph (7)(A), relating to the requirement that 
     leases shall be for a term of 1 year;
       ``(v) paragraph (8), relating to initial inspection of 
     housing units by a public housing agency; and
       ``(vi) subsection (r)(1)(B), relating to restrictions on 
     portability.
       ``(F) Use of funds.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, funds available for assistance under this paragraph--
       ``(i) shall be made available by the Secretary to 
     individuals to cover the cost of --

       ``(I) rent;
       ``(II) security and utility deposits;
       ``(III) relocation expenses, including expenses incurred in 
     relocating back to the major disaster area when such 
     relocation is permitted; and
       ``(IV) such additional expenses as the Secretary determines 
     necessary; and

       ``(ii) shall be used by the Secretary--

       ``(I) for payments to public housing agencies, State or 
     local government agencies, or other voucher administrators 
     for vouchers used to assist individuals or families affected 
     by the major disaster or emergency described in this 
     paragraph up to their authorized level of vouchers, if any 
     such vouchers are not otherwise funded; and
       ``(II) to provide operating subsidies to public housing 
     agencies for public housing units provided to individuals or 
     families affected by the major disaster or emergency 
     described in this paragraph, if such a subsidy was not 
     previously provided for those units.

       ``(G) Payment standard.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the payment standard for each size of dwelling unit in a 
     market area may not exceed 150 percent, or higher if the 
     Secretary approves of such increase, of the fair market 
     rental established under subsection (c) for the same size 
     dwelling unit in the same market area, and shall be not less 
     than 90 percent of that fair market rental.
       ``(H) Nondiscrimination.--In selecting individuals or 
     families for tenancy, a landlord or owner may not exclude or 
     penalize an individual or family solely because any portion 
     of the rental payment of that individual or family is 
     provided under this paragraph.
       ``(I) Termination of assistance.--Assistance provided under 
     this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) terminate 6 months after the date on which such 
     assistance was received; and
       ``(ii) extend for an additional 6 months unless at that 
     time the Secretary makes a determination that assistance 
     under this paragraph is no longer needed.
       ``(21) Assistance for current voucher recipients affected 
     by hurricane katrina.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall waive any of the 
     requirements described in clauses (i) through (vi) of 
     paragraph (20)(E) for any individual or family receiving 
     assistance under this section on August 29, 2005, if--
       ``(i) the individual or family resides, or resided on 
     August 29, 2005, in any area that is subject to a declaration 
     by the President of a major disaster or emergency under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with Hurricane 
     Katrina; and
       ``(ii) the residence of the individual or family became 
     uninhabitable or inaccessible as result of that major 
     disaster or emergency.
       ``(B) Additional uses of funds.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall provide, as the 
     Secretary determines appropriate, supplemental assistance to 
     an individual or family receiving assistance under this 
     section on August 29, 2005, and meeting the requirements 
     described in subparagraph (A), to assist the individual or 
     family with the additional costs of relocating to new 
     housing, including to cover--
       ``(i) the additional cost of rent and utilities;
       ``(ii) security and utility deposits;
       ``(iii) relocation expenses, including expenses incurred in 
     relocating back to the major disaster area when such 
     relocation is permitted; and
       ``(iv) such additional expenses as the Secretary determines 
     necessary.
       ``(C) Payment standard.--For purposes of this paragraph, 
     the payment standard for each size of dwelling unit in a 
     market area may not exceed 150 percent, or higher if the 
     Secretary approves of such increase, of the fair market 
     rental established under subsection (c) for the same size 
     dwelling unit in the same market area, and shall be not less 
     than 90 percent of that fair market rental.
       ``(D) Nondiscrimination.--A landlord or owner may not 
     exclude or penalize an individual or family solely because 
     that individual or family is eligible for any waivers or 
     benefits provided under this paragraph.
       ``(E) Termination of authority.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to provide assistance under this paragraph shall--
       ``(i) apply during the 6-month period beginning on the date 
     of enactment of the Helping to House the Victims of Hurricane 
     Katrina Act of 2005; and
       ``(ii) extend for an additional 6 months after that period, 
     unless if at that time the Secretary makes a determination 
     that assistance under this paragraph is no longer needed.
       ``(22) Authority of the secretary to directly administer 
     vouchers when pha's are unable to do so.--If the Secretary 
     determines that a public housing agency is unable to 
     implement the provisions of this subsection due to the 
     effects of Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary may--

[[Page 20084]]

       ``(A) directly administer any voucher program described in 
     paragraphs (1) through (20); and
       ``(B) perform the functions assigned to a public housing 
     agency by this subsection.''.
       (c) Report on Inventory of Availability of Temporary 
     Housing.--Not later than 10 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of 
     the General Services Administration, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and such other agency heads as the Secretary 
     determines appropriate, shall compile and report to the 
     Secretary an inventory of Federal civilian and defense 
     facilities that can be used--
       (1) to provide emergency housing; or
       (2) as locations for the construction or deployment of 
     temporary housing units.
       (d) Appropriation of Funding.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     and are appropriated $3,500,000,000 to provide assistance 
     under this Act.
       (2) Emergency designation.--The amount appropriated under 
     paragraph (1) is designated as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).


                            Notice of Intent

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, In accordance with rule V of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my 
intention to move to suspend paragraph 4 of rule XVI for the purpose of 
proposing to the bill, H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce 
appropriations bill, the following amendment:


                           Amendment No. 1678

       On page 191, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:

                      TITLE VII--FINANCIAL RELIEF

                   Subtitle A--Limitation on Payments

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Hurricane Emergency 
     Limitation on Payments (HELP) Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 702. DEFINITIONS.

       In this subtitle:
       (1) Disaster.--The term ``Disaster'' means the major 
     disasters declared by the President on August 29, 2005, 
     relating to damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
       (2) Injured person.--The term ``injured person'' means any 
     individual or entity that suffers harm resulting from the 
     Disaster that makes the individual or entity eligible to 
     receive, and the individual or entity submits an application 
     in good faith to receive--
       (A) housing assistance under section 408(b) of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5174(b));
       (B) financial assistance to address other needs under 
     section 408(e) of that Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(e));
       (C) unemployment assistance under section 410 of that Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 5177) (as amended by subtitle C);
       (D) a disaster loan under section 7(b) of the Small 
     Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(b)); or
       (E) an emergency loan made under subtitle C of the 
     Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1961 et 
     seq.).

     SEC. 703. MORATORIUM ON PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subtitle, no injured person shall be subject to a penalty or 
     a requirement to pay interest for a failure of the injured 
     person, as a result of the Disaster, to make timely payment 
     of a financial obligation for any loan made, subsidized, or 
     guaranteed by the United States.
       (b) Applicability to Loans.--The moratorium under 
     subsection (a) shall not apply to any loan made to or assumed 
     by an injured person on or after August 29, 2005.
       (c) Period of Effectiveness.--The moratorium under 
     subsection (a) shall apply in accordance with section 761 to 
     the failure of an injured person to make timely payments.
       (d) Eligibility.--If a Federal agency responsible for 
     administering a benefit program referred to in section 702(2) 
     determines that an individual or entity that has applied to 
     receive a benefit under the program is not eligible to 
     receive the benefit, the individual or entity, for purposes 
     of the moratorium under subsection (a), shall cease to be 
     considered an injured person as of the date on which the 
     individual or entity receives notice of the determination of 
     the Federal agency.
       (e) Federal Responsibility.--In the case of a moratorium on 
     payments on a loan subsidized or guaranteed by the United 
     States, nothing in this section excuses the United States 
     from any liability of the United States to the lender under 
     the terms of the agreement between the United States and the 
     lender.
       (f) Effect of Other Law.--The moratorium under subsection 
     (a) shall apply to an injured person only if, and to the 
     extent that, the injured person is not excused from, or 
     eligible to be excused from, the obligation under other 
     applicable law.

            Subtitle B--Individual and Household Assistance

     SEC. 711. INDIVIDUAL AND HOUSEHOLD ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Maximum Amounts.--Notwithstanding section 408 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5174), in providing assistance to individuals 
     and households affected by Hurricane Katrina, the President 
     may waive the limitation on total assistance under subsection 
     (h) of that section.
       (b) Mortgage and Rental Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--During the 18-month period beginning on 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the President may provide 
     assistance in the form of mortgage or rental payments for 
     persons described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Eligible persons.--Assistance under paragraph (1) may 
     be provided to any individual or household that--
       (A) resided on August 29, 2005, in an area that is subject 
     to a declaration by the President of a major disaster under 
     the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
     Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) in connection with 
     Hurricane Katrina; and
       (B) as a result of financial hardship caused by a major 
     disaster described in subparagraph (A), is subject to 
     dispossession or eviction from a residence due to foreclosure 
     of a mortgage or lien or termination of a lease entered into 
     before the date on which the major disaster is declared.
       (c) Types of Housing Assistance.--No limitation relating to 
     the maximum amount of assistance under paragraph (2) or (3) 
     of section 408(c) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174(c)) shall apply 
     with respect to major disaster FEMA-1603-DR-Louisiana, FEMA-
     1604-DR-Mississippi, or FEMA-1605-DR-Alabama.
       (d) Financial Assistance to Address Other Needs.--
     Notwithstanding section 408(g)(2) of the Robert T. Stafford 
     Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
     5174(g)(2)), in the case of financial assistance provided 
     under subsection (e) of that section to any individual or 
     household in response to a major disaster referred to in 
     subsection (c), the Federal share shall be 100 percent.

                  Subtitle C--Unemployment Assistance

     SEC. 721. UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 410 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177) is amended by 
     striking the section heading and all that follows through the 
     end of subsection (a) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 410. UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

       ``(a) Provision of Unemployment Assistance.--
       ``(1) Assistance.--
       ``(A) In general.--The President shall provide to any 
     individual unemployed as a result of a major disaster such 
     benefit assistance as the President determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(B) Location of employment.--An individual that is 
     unemployed as a result of a major disaster as determined 
     under subparagraph (A) may receive assistance under this 
     subsection regardless of whether the individual was employed 
     at a location within the declared disaster area.
       ``(C) Reason for unemployment.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, an individual who is unemployed because a loss of 
     business resulting from a major disaster contributed 
     importantly to the employer's decision to reduce or terminate 
     employment shall be considered to be an individual unemployed 
     as a result of a major disaster.
       ``(D) Eligibility.--An individual shall be eligible to 
     receive assistance under this subsection regardless of 
     whether the individual is eligible to receive, or has 
     exhausted eligibility for, State unemployment compensation.
       ``(2) Availability.--Assistance provided to an unemployed 
     individual under paragraph (1) shall be available as long as 
     the unemployment of the individual caused by the major 
     disaster continues, or until the individual is reemployed in 
     at least a comparable position, but not longer than 52 weeks 
     after the date on which the unemployed individual first 
     receives assistance.
       ``(3) Maximum and minimum weekly amounts.--The amount of 
     assistance provided to an unemployed individual under this 
     subsection for each week of unemployment shall be--
       ``(A) unless the amount is less than the amount described 
     in subparagraph (B), not more than the maximum weekly amount 
     authorized under the unemployment compensation law of the 
     State in which the disaster occurred; and
       ``(B) not less than the national average weekly 
     unemployment benefit provided to an individual as of the date 
     of the major disaster for which unemployment assistance is 
     provided.
       ``(4) Period for application.--The President shall accept 
     applications for assistance under this subsection for--
       ``(A) the 90-day period beginning on the date on which the 
     applicable major disaster is declared; or
       ``(B) such longer period as may be established by the 
     President.
       ``(5) Cooperation with states.--The President shall provide 
     assistance under this subsection through agreements with 
     States that, in the judgment of the President, have an 
     adequate system for administering the assistance through 
     existing State agencies.''.

[[Page 20085]]



                         Subtitle D--Tax Relief

     SEC. 731. REQUIRED EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 7508A 
                   FOR TAX RELIEF FOR VICTIMS OF HURRICANE 
                   KATRINA.

       In the case of any taxpayer determined by the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to be affected by the Presidentially declared 
     disaster relating to Hurricane Katrina, the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall specify a period under section 7508A of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 of not less than 6 months 
     beginning on August 29, 2005, that may be disregarded with 
     respect to all of the acts described in section 7508(a)(1) of 
     such Code and amounts described in paragraph (2) of section 
     7508A(a) of such Code relating to any employment tax 
     liability of the taxpayer.

     SEC. 732. PENALTY FREE WITHDRAWALS FROM RETIREMENT PLANS FOR 
                   VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA.

       (a) Exclusion From Income of Certain Distributions Which 
     Are Repaid.--Section 72 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to individual retirement accounts) is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (x) as subsection (y) and by 
     inserting after subsection (w) the following new subsection:
       ``(x) Repayable Distributions From Qualified Retirement 
     Plans for Victims of Hurricane Katrina.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, gross income shall not include any qualified 
     distribution.
       ``(2) Repayment requirement.--
       ``(A) Addition to tax.--If the required recontributions 
     made by the taxpayer during the repayment period are less 
     than the qualified distribution, the tax imposed by this 
     chapter for the last taxable year in the repayment period 
     shall be increased by the amount determined under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Determination of amount.--The amount determined under 
     this subparagraph shall be an amount which bears the same 
     ratio to the tax benefit amount as--
       ``(i) the excess (if any) of the qualified distribution 
     over required recontributions made during the repayment 
     period, bears to
       ``(ii) the qualified distribution.
       ``(C) Repayment period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `repayment period' means, with respect to any 
     qualified distribution, the 5-taxable year period beginning 
     after the taxable year in which such distribution is 
     received.
       ``(D) Tax benefit amount.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `tax benefit amount' means, with respect to any 
     qualified distribution, the aggregate reduction in the tax 
     imposed by this chapter for the taxable year in which such 
     distribution is received by reason of the exclusion under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Qualified distribution.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `qualified distribution' means any 
     distribution to an individual who has a principal place of 
     abode within the area designated as a disaster area by the 
     President under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act in connection with Hurricane 
     Katrina--
       ``(A) if such distribution is made during the 6-month 
     period beginning on the date such declaration is made, and
       ``(B) to the extent such distribution does not exceed the 
     excess of--
       ``(i) the amount of expenses incurred as a result of such 
     disaster, over
       ``(ii) the amount of such expenses which are compensated 
     for by insurance or otherwise.
       ``(4) Recontribution of qualified distributions.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an individual received a qualified 
     distribution, such individual shall make required 
     recontributions in the manner provided in this paragraph to 
     an individual retirement plan maintained for the benefit of 
     such individual.
       ``(B) Method of making recontribution.--Any required 
     recontribution--
       ``(i) shall be made during the repayment period for the 
     qualified distribution,
       ``(ii) shall not exceed the qualified distribution reduced 
     by any prior recontribution under this paragraph with respect 
     to such distribution, and
       ``(iii) shall be made by making a payment in cash to the 
     qualified retirement plan from which the qualified 
     distribution was made.
     An individual making a required recontribution under this 
     paragraph shall designate (in the manner prescribed by the 
     Secretary) such contribution as a required recontribution 
     under this paragraph and shall specify the qualified 
     distribution with respect to which such recontribution is 
     being made.
       ``(C) Treatment of contribution.--For purposes of this 
     title, any required recontribution under this paragraph shall 
     not be taken into account for purposes of any limitation on 
     contributions to a qualified retirement plan (as so defined).
       ``(5) Other special rules.--
       ``(A) Basis rules not affected.--The tax treatment under 
     this chapter of any distribution (other than a qualified 
     distribution) shall be determined as if this subsection had 
     not been enacted.
       ``(B) Aggregation rule.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     all qualified distributions received by an individual during 
     a taxable year shall be treated as a single distribution.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to distributions received after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such 
     date.

          Subtitle D--Hurricane Katrina Food Assistance Relief

     SEC. 741. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Hurricane Katrina Food 
     Assistance Relief Act of 2005''.

     SEC. 742. DEFINITION OF SECRETARY.

       In this subtitle, the term ``Secretary'' means the 
     Secretary of Agriculture.

     SEC. 743. FOOD STAMP PROGRAM DISASTER AUTHORITY.

       (a) In General.--Section 5(h) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 
     (7 U.S.C. 2014(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Response to hurricane katrina.--
       ``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Affected area.--
       ``(I) In general.--The term `affected area' means an area 
     of a State that the Secretary determines was affected by 
     Hurricane Katrina or a related condition.
       ``(II) Inclusion.--The term `affected area' includes any 
     area that, as a result of Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition, was covered by--

       ``(aa) a natural disaster declaration under section 321(a) 
     of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 
     1961(a)); or
       ``(bb) a major disaster or emergency designation under the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

       ``(ii) Affected household.--
       ``(I) In general.--The term `affected household' means a 
     household--

       ``(aa) in an affected area;
       ``(bb) in which a member worked immediately prior to August 
     29, 2005, in an affected area; or
       ``(cc) that was displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina 
     or a related condition to other areas of the same or another 
     State.

       ``(II) Inclusion.--The term `affected household' includes a 
     household containing 1 or more individuals that were 
     displaced as a result of Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(iii) Disaster recovery period.--
       ``(I) In general.--The term `disaster recovery period' 
     means the period of 180 days beginning on the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph.
       ``(II) Extension.--The disaster recovery period shall be 
     extended for another 180 days unless the President determines 
     that the extension is not necessary to fully meet the needs 
     of affected households.
       ``(B) Disaster recovery period.--During the disaster 
     recovery period--
       ``(i) clauses (iv) and (v) of subsection (g)(2)(B), 
     subsections (d) and (o) of section 6, and section 8(c)(1) 
     shall not apply to affected households;
       ``(ii) the application of an affected household shall be 
     processed under the procedures established under section 
     11(e)(9);
       ``(iii) at the option of the State agency, the State agency 
     may increase the value to the affected household of the 
     thrifty food plan determined under section 3(o) by 6 percent 
     when calculating the value of the allotment for an affected 
     household under section 8(a), in lieu of making the 
     adjustment otherwise required by clause (iv);
       ``(iv) except in the case of a household to which clause 
     (iii) applies, the State agency shall calculate the income of 
     an affected household using a standard deduction of $323 in 
     lieu of the deduction provided under subsection (e)(1);
       ``(v) the Secretary shall pay each State agency an amount 
     equal to 100 percent of administrative costs allowable under 
     section 16(a) related to serving affected households in lieu 
     of the payments section 16(a) would otherwise require for 
     those costs;
       ``(vi) an affected household shall be considered to meet 
     the requirements of subsection (c)(2) if the income of the 
     affected household, as calculated under subsection (c)(2), 
     does not exceed the level permitted under subsection (c)(1) 
     by more than 50 percent;
       ``(vii) any funds designated for rebuilding or relocation 
     (including payments from Federal, State, or local 
     governments, charitable organizations, employers, or 
     insurance companies) shall be excluded from consideration 
     under subsection (g) in determining the eligibility of an 
     affected household; and
       ``(viii) an affected household may not be considered to 
     customarily purchase food and prepare meals together with 
     other individuals if the affected household did not 
     customarily purchase food and prepare meals for home 
     consumption with those individuals immediately prior to 
     August 29, 2005.
       ``(C) Duplicate participation.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are prudent and reasonable under the circumstances to 
     identify affected households that are participating in more 
     than 1 State and to terminate the duplicate participation of 
     those households.
       ``(ii) No action taken.--Except in the case of deliberate 
     falsehoods, no action may be taken against any affected 
     household relating to any duplicate participation during the 
     disaster recovery period that takes place prior to 
     termination under clause (i).

[[Page 20086]]

       ``(D) Claims relating to benefits.--Except in the case of 
     intentional program violations as determined under section 
     6(b), no claim may be established under section 13(b) 
     relating to benefits issued under this subsection.
       ``(E) Payment error rate.--For purposes of determining the 
     payment error rate of a State agency under section 16(c), the 
     Secretary shall disregard any errors resulting from the 
     application of this paragraph to an affected household during 
     the disaster recovery period.
       ``(F) Savings clause.--This paragraph shall not apply in 
     any area of a State to the extent that there is in effect in 
     the area an emergency food stamp plan approved by the 
     Secretary that is more generous than the assistance provided 
     under this paragraph.''.
       (b) Program Information Activities.--
       (1) In general.--From funds otherwise appropriated for the 
     food stamp program established under the Food Stamp Act of 
     1977 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.), the Secretary may use not more 
     than $5,000,000 for the period of fiscal year 2005 through 
     2006 to enter into contracts with nonprofit organizations to 
     provide affected households (as defined in section 
     5(h)(4)(A)(i) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (as added by 
     subsection (a)) with information about and assistance in 
     completing the application process for any food assistance 
     programs for which the Secretary provides funds or 
     commodities.
       (2) Expediting provisions.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary shall not be required--
       (A) to provide public notice of the availability of funds 
     described in paragraph (1); or
       (B) to accept competitive bids for contracts under this 
     subsection.

     SEC. 744. EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND SECTION 32 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Recipient.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible recipient'' means an individual or household 
     that, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security--
       (1) is a victim of Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition;
       (2) has been displaced by Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition; or
       (3) is temporarily housing 1 or more individuals displaced 
     by Hurricane Katrina or a related condition.
       (b) Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to funds already obligated to 
     carry out the emergency food assistance program established 
     under the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 
     7501 et seq.), the Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security, shall use not more than 
     $200,000,000 of funds made available under that Act to 
     provide a variety of food to eligible recipient agencies for 
     providing food assistance to eligible recipients, including--
       (A) special supplemental foods for pregnant women and 
     infants or for other individuals with special needs;
       (B) infant formula;
       (C) bottled water; and
       (D) fruit juices.
       (2) Use of funds.--Funds made available under paragraph (1) 
     may be used to provide commodities in accordance with--
       (A) section 27 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 
     2036);
       (B) section 203A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 
     1983 (7 U.S.C. 7504); and
       (C) section 204 of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 
     1983 (7 U.S.C. 7508).
       (c) Section 32 Funding.--In addition to funds obligated for 
     fiscal years 2005 and 2006 under section 32 of the Act of 
     August 24, 1935 (7 U.S.C. 612c), the Secretary shall use not 
     more than $200,000,000 of funds made available under that 
     section to provide food assistance to eligible recipients, 
     including food described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of 
     subsection (b)(1).

     SEC. 745. WIC FUNDING.

       (a) In General.--In addition to other funds made available 
     to the Secretary for fiscal year 2005 or 2006 to carry out 
     the special supplemental nutrition program for women, 
     infants, and children established by section 17 of the Child 
     Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786), there is authorized 
     to be appropriated $200,000,000, to remain available until 
     September 30, 2007.
       (b) Emergency Designation.--The amounts made available by 
     the transfer of funds in or pursuant to subsection (a) are 
     designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress).
       (c) Allocation of Funds.--Notwithstanding section 17(i) of 
     the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1786(i)), the 
     Secretary may allocate funds made available under subsection 
     (a) as the Secretary determines to be necessary to provide 
     assistance to women, infants, and children who, as determined 
     by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security--
       (1) are victims of Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition; or
       (2) have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina or a related 
     condition.

     SEC. 746. REPORT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a 
     report that--
       (1) describes whether additional funding or authority is 
     needed to continue to address the food needs of eligible 
     recipients; and
       (2) includes any determination by the President under 
     section 5(h)(4)(A)(iii)(II) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (as 
     added by section 743(a)) that an extension of the disaster 
     recovery period is not necessary to fully meet the needs of 
     affected households.

     SEC. 747. REGULATIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary to implement this subtitle.
       (b) Procedure.--The promulgation of the regulations and 
     administration of this subtitle shall be made without regard 
     to--
       (1) the notice and comment provisions of section 553 of 
     title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the Statement of Policy of the Secretary of Agriculture 
     effective July 24, 1971 (36 Fed. Reg. 13804), relating to 
     notices of proposed rulemaking and public participation in 
     rulemaking; and
       (3) chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code (commonly 
     known as the ``Paperwork Reduction Act'').
       (c) Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.--In carrying 
     out this section, the Secretary shall use the authority 
     provided under section 808 of title 5, United States Code.

                     Subtitle E--Bankruptcy Relief

     SEC. 751. BANKRUPTCY RELIEF FOR VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the provisions of title 11, United States Code, as in 
     effect on August 29, 2005, shall apply to any case described 
     in subsection (b).
       (b) Eligibility.--A case described in this subsection is a 
     case commenced during the 12-month period beginning on the 
     effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and 
     Consumer Protection Act of 2005, under title 11, United 
     States Code (other than under chapter 12 of that title 11), 
     by or on behalf of a debtor--
       (1) who resides, or who resided on August 29, 2005, in any 
     area that is subject to a declaration by the President of a 
     major disaster, as defined under section 102 of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
     U.S.C. 5122) in connection with Hurricane Katrina; and
       (2) whose financial condition is materially adversely 
     affected by the major disaster.

                   Subtitle F--Administrative Matters

     SEC. 761. PERIOD OF AVAILABILITY OF BENEFITS.

       (a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by this title 
     or an amendment made by this title, a benefit or assistance 
     provided by any provision of this title or an amendment made 
     by this title shall be available through the date that is 180 
     days after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (b) Automatic Extension.--The period during which a benefit 
     or assistance described in subsection (a) is available shall 
     be automatically extended for an additional 180 days, 
     beginning on the date that is 181 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act (or any earlier date on which such 
     period expires under a provision of this title or an 
     amendment made by this title), unless the President 
     determines that the extension of the availability of the 
     benefit or assistance is not necessary to fully meet the 
     needs of individuals and households affected by Hurricane 
     Katrina or a related condition.
       (c) Report.--If the President determines that an extension 
     is not necessary under subsection (b), the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing the determination.

     SEC. 762. NONDISCRIMINATION.

       Each recipient of Federal funds made available pursuant to 
     this title or an amendment made by this title, in carrying 
     out programs and activities with those funds, shall comply 
     with all Federal laws (including regulations) prohibiting 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 
     national origin, age, or disability, including title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.). Each 
     recipient of Federal funds made available pursuant to this 
     Act or an amendment made by this Act, in carrying out 
     programs and activities with those funds, shall comply with 
     all Federal laws (including regulations) prohibiting 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 
     national origin, age, or disability, including title VI of 
     the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.).


        Waiving Matching Requirements for Certain FEMA Programs

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to bring to the administration's 
attention an issue of vital importance to the victims of Hurricane 
Katrina.
  As you know, FEMA provides crucial financial assistance to eligible 
individuals, households and to local and State governments following a 
disaster. Many of FEMA's programs require local governments or States 
to provide a 25-percent match.
  I commend President Bush's decision to waive the matching 
requirements for certain FEMA programs for 60 days.

[[Page 20087]]

Given the unprecedented destruction resulting from Hurricane Katrina, 
however, I call on President Bush to immediately direct FEMA to 
reimburse all eligible recipients the full 100 percent of costs 
eligible under FEMA's various relief programs for as long as necessary. 
This waiver should apply to all entities that are providing assistance 
in the entire gulf coast area impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
  As seems obvious to all, 60 days will simply not provide enough time 
for local and State governments to get back on their feet. Leaders from 
the municipalities and States devastated by Katrina should not be 
concerned with finding revenue to match Federal funding during this 
time of crisis. Federal aid should flow unimpeded.
  Does the majority leader agree with me?
  Mr. FRIST. I, too, commend the President for his quick action on a 
waiver for FEMA. I as well believe the President should consider 
waiving this cost-sharing requirement for as long as necessary for 
entities and areas in Louisiana where it is necessary. I am aware that 
the Louisiana delegation has sent a letter to the President to this 
effect, and I am supportive of what we can do to ease the burden for 
those impacted by Katrina.
  Mr. REID. I thank the majority leader.
  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. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________