[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23498-23508]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3010, which the clerk will now 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3010) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and 
     Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I made an opening statement on Friday 
morning and I intend to yield in a moment or two to my distinguished 
colleague, the ranking member, Senator Harkin. I urge all Senators to 
come forward with their amendments. So far staff has contacted every 
Senator's office to find out if there are amendments which the Senator 
intends to file. We have been made aware of approximately 15 amendments 
identified so far where there is an intention to file. We have had a 
fair number of other comments from staffers of other Senators who do 
not know what their Members intend to do.
  We have a very complicated bill, in excess of $145 billion, three of 
the most important Departments of the Federal Government: Education, 
Health and Human Services, and Labor. We are in the closing days of 
this session. After the passage of this bill, we are going to have to 
go to conference and resolve many difficult matters. So it is important 
that this bill be completed as early as possible.
  We also have many Members who are involved in this bill who are 
engaged in the preparation of the confirmation hearings on Ms. Harriet 
Miers for the Supreme Court of the United States. That is weighing very 
heavily on my mind, but this is an important bill which comes first. 
Senator Harkin and I are determined, and Senator Frist, the leader, as 
well as Senator Reid, the Democratic leader, will back us up. Senator 
Reid took the initiative to remind Senators about a statement which I 
initiated last week about going to the 15-minute plus 5, 20 minutes 
total, vote tally so we do not consume a large amount of time, which 
has become the practice of the Senate.
  Speaking as the manager, and I know Senator Harkin concurs with 
this--I would ask the Senator if that is correct?
  Mr. HARKIN. Yes.
  Mr. SPECTER. We are going to move to enforce the time limits. The 
managers intend to press to file a cloture petition tomorrow which will 
require that all amendments be filed by Wednesday at noon and that we 
take up only germane amendments.
  We think these rules are the ones which should govern the 
consideration of this bill. If anybody has nongermane amendments, the 
floor is open this afternoon, and until cloture is invoked, the germane 
amendments will be open for consideration tomorrow.
  I again urge our colleagues to come forward at this time with any 
amendments which they desire to offer.
  The distinguished Senator from Iowa was not present to hear my lavish 
praise about him on Friday afternoon. He is giving me the waving-on 
signal. The choice is either to praise him again or relegate him to 
read the Congressional Record, so I choose to renew the praise.
  He has been a steadfast colleague as we have moved the work of this 
important subcommittee without partisanship. The gavel has changed 
hands from time to time between Senator Harkin and me. I know that 
while he has said some good things about my chairmanship, he prefers to 
be chairman. I do not know why, but he has maintained that position. In 
the public interest, when the chairmanship is changed, we use the 
expression ``a seamless exchange of the gavel.''
  Now I do not hand him the gavel, but I hand him the floor seamlessly.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The distinguished, seamless, and 
steadfast Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of this vital and important subcommittee on appropriations. 
Senator Specter and I have worked together--now that I think back, it 
has been 17 years that we have worked together, either as chairman or 
ranking member on this subcommittee. The chairman is absolutely right. 
No matter who has the gavel, we work together. I couldn't ask for a 
better working relationship with anyone than I have with my friend and 
my chairman, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania. It is Senator Specter who 
has led the charge in the past to do the things that enable our country 
to move ahead educationally and to be better prepared healthwise. It 
was Senator Specter who led the charge in the 1990s to get us up on the 
plateau, to double the funding for NIH. People said it could not be 
done.
  We had fallen so low in terms of the number of peer- reviewed 
projects that were being funded that people were just giving up. We 
were not getting a pipeline of researchers. Maybe they had 1 chance in 
10, maybe 1 chance in 20 of ever getting their research project funded, 
and this was after it went through the peer review and was deemed 
worthy of funding.
  We had fallen to a terrible state, so Senator Specter and I worked 
together with our staffs to get a funding schedule that would double 
the funding for NIH. If I am not mistaken, I believe

[[Page 23499]]

it was started under a Democratic President and finished under a 
Republican President. It was a bipartisan approach, but we got the job 
done. More and more people are looking at NIH now as again the premier 
institution it once was in our country and really the premier medical 
research institution anywhere in the world. It was Senator Specter who 
led that charge.
  Many years ago, you will remember, there was a movie called 
``Outbreak.'' It had Dustin Hoffman in it. It was about 15 years ago, 
something like that. I happened to be chairman of the subcommittee at 
that time. I went down to Atlanta to visit the Centers for Disease 
Control. That was its name then. We changed the name to the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention, which is its rightful name now, in 1991 
or 1992. I went down there to see these fancy things that were in the 
movie with Dustin Hoffman, these fancy laboratories and high-tech 
stuff. I wanted to see this. I went down to see this, and I found out 
that the movie producers had, indeed, visited the Centers for Disease 
Control to make this movie, but the facilities were so ramshackle, so 
rundown, so poor, they decided to build their own Hollywood set because 
no one would believe this really was the high-class, high-intensity, 
super-secure environment in which to investigate these kinds of 
infectious diseases. Indeed they were. They were working, actually, in 
buildings that had been constructed pre-World War II. In some cases, 
laboratories had been reconstructed from rest rooms that were, in those 
days, for colored men, colored women, White men, White women. They had 
done away with all that, and now they made them into laboratories.
  Senator Specter and I both looked at that and said: We have to do 
something about this. And we did. We have now embarked on a multiyear 
program. We started several years ago, building facilities at the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are now the best in 
the world. Not all of it is done, but many of the buildings have been 
built. As I said, we now have the kind of facilities that a great 
nation such as ours requires and deserves.
  That is just my way of paying my respects to Senator Specter for his 
great leadership on this subcommittee in terms of health and of 
education in our country.
  Having said that, I am pleased we have the bill on the floor. Last 
year, we never even got to the floor. As of last week, it looked as if 
we would not get to this one, so this is the last appropriations bill 
this year, and it deserves the full consideration of the Senate.
  Second to Defense, this is the largest appropriations subcommittee. 
Health, Education, Labor it provides over $600 billion in programs. I 
mentioned the National Institutes of Health; Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention; libraries--a lot of other things. It is the 
bill that paves the way for medical breakthroughs, provides job 
training to dislocated workers, vocational education, and helps our 
most disadvantaged students through title I, Individuals with 
Disabilities Education, Pell grants. It was once said of our committee 
that the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is the committee that 
defends America; the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education 
Appropriations Subcommittee defines America. I believe that is true. It 
defines who we are, what kind of people we are, and how we perceive the 
future of our country. So it is true, the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee defends America. I think this subcommittee has the 
legislation and the money that defines America.
  I again thank Senator Specter, and I especially wish to thank his 
staff. It goes without saying, our staffs have worked together very 
closely across the aisle for all these years. I could not ask for 
better relationships and openness, transparency, congeniality, working 
together.
  So we have the bill before us. Am I ecstatic over this bill? Not 
quite. I am not. But I will say this: Senator Specter and his staff and 
I and our staff have done the best with what I consider a bad hand that 
was dealt us. A lot of times when the budget comes through here, we 
have a debate on the budget, people vote on the budget, and it goes 
through as if it doesn't have much effect. The budget goes through, ho-
hum, and that is the end of it. But we have to operate with that budget 
and within that budget, and that is why we have the bill we have. Once 
the budget was adopted, our subcommittee had no hope of restoring all 
the cuts in the President's budget, much less giving increases to 
vitally important health and education programs.
  We did the best we could. Again, I compliment Senator Specter, but 
just take a look at the National Institutes of Health. Again thanks to 
the leadership of Senator Specter, we go up about $1 billion. The 
President's budget only had it up $100 million. In community health 
centers, we are basically funded at the level of last year, but the 
demand is greater. The Community Services Block Grant Program got $636 
million, the same as last year. That is less by $14 million than what 
we had in the year 2000. So we have more poor people--more people 
demanding services everywhere from Head Start to LIHEAP to childcare 
services--yet we have basically level funded, at least in our bill, the 
Community Services Block Grant Program.
  Some Senators may remember that when the Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee bill was on the floor, I offered an amendment to increase 
the community services block grants to this year's level because the 
continuing resolution we are operating under right now cut the 
community services block grants back to the level at which they were in 
1986: about $340 million or $350 million.
  This is October 24. We are now 24 days into this quarter at which the 
funding for our community action agencies is down to less than half of 
what was in last year's bill. So here we are, trying to get at least 
last year's level, even though that is inadequate. It is less than what 
we had in the year 2000, and we know poverty has increased. There is 
more demand for Head Start services, LIHEAP, and others. But again, at 
least in our bill, we keep it level funded. The continuing resolution 
knocked it back, it said, to the levels of 1986.
  I mentioned LIHEAP. We have $2.2 billion in our bill. We should have 
more. The budget resolution wouldn't allow it, so we did the best we 
could. And with oil prices up--I checked in Iowa when I was there last 
week, and heating prices are double what they were last year. Natural 
gas prices are at least a minimum of 50 percent more than they were 
last year. Yet the amount of money we have for LIHEAP is the same as 
what it was last year--the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, 
the same level as last year. I understand there will be an amendment 
offered to increase this. I assume it is going to take 60 votes, so I 
don't know how much hope we have of passing it. I hope it does pass 
because the demand is there. The need is there.
  Pell grants are $4,050, maximum. That is the same as last year. There 
is no increase whatsoever, yet we know tuition costs have gone up. Pell 
grant purchasing power now is about 40 percent of what it was just 15 
years ago when we were working together on this--40 percent less 
purchasing power in a Pell grant, and Pell grants go to the lowest 
income families in America for their kids to go to college.
  We have the Perkins Program for Vocational Education. At a time when 
we need to be training and retraining workers in vocations such as 
electronics and computers and software and when they need retraining 
for the new kinds of jobs of the future, we have a program called the 
Perkins Program for Vocational Education. We funded it a little bit 
less than last year's level, and we know the need is there for more 
vocational education.
  Title I funding goes to help local school districts that have a high 
proportion of very low-income kids. Last year, it was $12.7 billion. 
This year, it is $12.8 billion. When you take into account inflation, 
it is basically a little bit less than what we had last year in terms 
of purchasing power. We estimate that 75 percent of the school 
districts that get title I funding in America will actually get less 
next year

[[Page 23500]]

than they got last year. Yet we know from the data there are more poor 
people out there, there are more low-income families and schools that 
teach these low-income kids, yet we are not funding the title I program 
in the way it has been funded in the past. So again we are caught up in 
a budget problem, a budget situation where in this budget this Senate 
voted for we have new tax breaks of about $70 billion more in tax 
breaks. There is $35 billion more in cuts and $35 billion more in 
deficit spending under this budget. So $70 billion in tax breaks, most 
of which go to the most affluent Americans, yet we have no money for 
title I or Pell grants or Perkins loans.
  We have no more money for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, again for low-income people and the elderly. The funding for 
community health centers that are picking up the gap between those who 
have health insurance and those who do not is up $105 million, but out 
of $1.8 billion, that is basically level funding, maybe even a little 
less when you take inflation into account.
  The budget we passed this year is a budget that measures our Nation 
just the opposite of what Franklin Roosevelt said in 1936.
  President Roosevelt said the progress of America should be measured 
not in whether we can add more to the abundance of those who already 
have plenty but, rather, whether we can even meet the needs of those 
who have too little. This budget seems to be saying to us the measure 
of progress in America is how much more we can give to those who 
already have a lot and take from those who already have very little. 
That is the way we measure progress in America today under this budget. 
So that is why we have an appropriations bill that basically doesn't 
meet the needs for education in Pell grants, Perkins loans, or title I. 
It doesn't meet the needs we have for heating this winter, for 
community health centers, for community services block grants. I could 
go on and on.
  So as I said, Senator Specter and I and our staffs did the best job 
we could, but our hands were tied by the budget. If there are 
amendments to waive the Budget Act and increase some of these, with no 
disrespect to my colleague and my chairman, I will find myself on the 
side of those who want to waive the Budget Act and increase funding for 
low-income heating and energy assistance, to waive the Budget Act for 
Pell grants, to waive the Budget Act to put more money in for title I 
funding. I will be on that side because, I am sorry, I do not agree 
with this budget. I do not agree with the budget that gives $70 billion 
to the wealthy and gives less to our poorest people. We can't afford 
title I funding for schools. We can't afford to put money into low-
income heating and energy assistance for the poor and elderly. We don't 
have the money for it. We do have the money for it.
  It is just right now that money is going out in more and more tax 
breaks for the wealthy. We have two tax cuts that are going into effect 
next year. They were passed in the 2001 tax bill. They start next year. 
They are not in effect now, but they start next year, called PEP and 
Pease, P-E-P and P-E-A-S-E, named after Don Pease of Ohio, former 
Congressman. And those two, according to the Congressional Budget 
Office, those two tax cuts alone will cost the Treasury $35 billion in 
the next 5 years, and in 10 years, $146 billion--lost revenue.
  Well, who gets the money? Do low-income, hard-working, struggling 
families get PEP and Pease because they are going to get the tax break 
so they can pay the mortgage on the house, pay tuition for their kids 
to go to school? Over 50 percent--again, CBO, don't take my word for 
it--of the benefits of this tax cut that starts this next year, this 
PEP and Pease, over 50 percent goes to people making over $1 million a 
year; 97 percent of all of these tax cuts in PEP and Pease go to people 
making more than $100,000 a year. But over 50 percent--I think it is 54 
percent--goes to people making over $1 million a year.
  Now, we are going to do that, but we can't increase the Pell grants. 
We can't increase the Perkins loans for vocational education. We can't 
increase title I for the poorest school districts. So that is why I say 
if there are amendments offered to waive the Budget Act, I will find 
myself on that side, with no disrespect to my chairman. We did the best 
we could under the budget, but I repeat, I don't agree with this 
budget. I don't agree with this budget at all. Therefore, if we have to 
waive the Budget Act to fund these programs, that is the side I am 
going to be on.
  Having said that, there are many things Senator Specter took the lead 
on that I want to thank him for: restoring funding for the elimination 
of child labor, system change grants at CMS that help States move 
people from institutions back to their communities, preventive health 
block grants, even community services block grants--even though we are 
level funding in this bill, the President's budget had zero, zeroed it 
out. He zeroed the preventive health block grants, system change grants 
to move people from institutions to living in their communities, to 
abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on that. The President zeroed it 
out. At least Senator Specter put that back in.
  So given the bad hand we were dealt, Senator Specter did a great job. 
I thank him for his fairness, his cooperation, for his work on this 
bill.
  I concur in his request earlier that people come over with 
amendments. I understand there will be a cloture motion filed tomorrow. 
That is something I can support to finish this bill this week and 
hopefully get it to conference. I just wish that we did not have the 
budget under which we are operating.
  I again ask Senators who have amendments to come over and offer those 
amendments. We are open for business. We would like to finish this bill 
by Thursday night. I am sure most Senators would. There is no way to do 
that unless people come over and offer amendments.
  So with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I note the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceed to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, Senator Harkin just called my attention 
to the fact that a quorum call has been underway for a protracted 
period of time. Senator Harkin and I are very much opposed to quorum 
calls during our watch.
  I ask Senator Harkin if it is too early to call for a third reading 
or final passage.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, if the distinguished chairman will yield 
to allow me to respond to that, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania 
that I think it may be a bit early. I think there are Senators still 
coming back from their travels in their home States. We want to give 
them time to get back here.
  Mr. SPECTER. Would 4:15 be an appropriate time?
  Mr. HARKIN. Someone told me there was a vote on a couple of judges at 
5:30. I think after that we have to take a look and see how many 
amendments there are, if I am not mistaken.
  I thought the chairman was going to offer a cloture motion tomorrow. 
If we have third reading, the chairman can't file a cloture motion.
  Mr. SPECTER. If we have third reading, we will not need a cloture 
motion.
  I am persuaded by the eloquence of the Senator's argument.
  Mr. HARKIN. There may be a point in time when I would agree with the 
chairman on this. It is Monday, and I know people are working 
diligently in their States, and they are headed back. There may be a 
couple of amendments that Members want to offer. I think perhaps 4:15 
might be a little early for third reading.
  But if the chairman will yield further, I believe the chairman is 
right. It is Monday. We are in business. Senator Frist, the majority 
leader, said that we are going to be doing business

[[Page 23501]]

today. If Members have amendments, they should come over and offer 
them. I agree with the chairman. It is ridiculous to sit here in quorum 
calls when we have an important bill like this and Members have 
amendments.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his 
lenient response. I thought it worth noting that a quorum call had been 
on for a while. Even the generosity of Senator Harkin has its limits on 
how much of a quorum call he will sustain.


                           Amendment No. 2197

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2197.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: to reduce administrative costs in the Centers for Medicaid 
                         and Medicare Services)

       On page 154, line 10, strike ``$3,203,418,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,188,418,000'' in lieu thereof.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this is an amendment which reduces the 
Federal administrative costs for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services by $15 million. It is a very small reduction which will still 
leave in that account some $640 million, an increase of $57,570,000 
over last year.
  The reason for this amendment, which is more in the nature of a 
technical amendment, is it brings this bill in conformity with the 
budget resolution. We anticipate savings of $15 million from a certain 
item in the budget. We have found that the savings noted by Finance for 
fiscal year 2006 amounts to only $90 million. We are $15 million short. 
With the astute reading of the staff, this was noted, and we would be 
subject to a point of order if we were out of kilter. So we are 
offering this amendment.
  I believe this would be the basis for at least one of the 5:30 votes 
this afternoon. The majority leader talked about other judicial 
nominees being on the calendar. That is up to him as to whether he will 
put those on the agenda for votes.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is the only amendment which this 
manager has to offer at this time. It is 3:22. We have 2 hours 8 
minutes before the 5:30 vote.
  There are frequent occurrences on the floor of this Senate where 8 
minutes is valuable, and sometimes 2 minutes. Somebody asked unanimous 
consent on Thursday night for an additional minute, but it was objected 
to. Objection was withdrawn with 5 minutes to argue about whether we 
would have a minute. We have a lot of time. We could get some important 
work done if Senators who are now returning from their home States will 
come to the floor and offer amendments.
  In the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


            Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that at 5:30 today, the Senate proceed to executive session and 
immediately proceed to consecutive votes on the confirmation of 
Calendar No. 385, Brian Sandoval to be United States District Judge for 
Nevada, to be followed immediately by a vote on Calendar No. 387, Harry 
Mattice, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern 
District of Tennessee; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally 
divided for debate prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  Again, in the absence of any Senator seeking recognition, 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. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  As I told the chairman, if any Members come and want to proceed with 
amendments, I will be glad to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              The Deficit

  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, there is a subjject that is extremely 
important. It is important to all. Frankly, having been at home this 
weekend, as most Members have, I heard more about it probably than any 
other issue. That is spending, of course; the amount of spending we are 
taking on, and the Federal Government challenges to do something about 
the increase in the deficit we are bringing upon ourselves. The 
challenges make it very difficult.
  As Fred Thompson said once: It is like going to heaven; everyone 
wants to go, but nobody wants to make the changes necessary to get 
there. That is the way it is with the budget. It is an obligation to do 
more to control spending and to control the size of the Federal 
Government. We have that obligation.
  We have had some difficult times in the last couple of years which 
have brought about some necessary spending. We had September 11, the 
war on terrorism, the gulf now, and other emergencies, all of which 
require spending. I understand that.
  However, we have to treat this as a family or business would when an 
extraordinary thing happens: We take care of it, but, nevertheless, the 
costs for the family and business continue. Then we must find a way at 
some point to offset the costs. That is where we are now.
  Things have not all been bad over the past year. We have decreased 
the deficit by $100 billion. We never hear much discussion in the media 
about that. The fact is, we have made some progress. We have done some 
other good things. We passed an energy bill. We passed a highway bill. 
Through the tax reductions over the years, we have increased the 
activity in the economy, increased jobs and pay. There are good things.
  The fact is, we still have special costs and funding we have to take 
care of. As I mentioned, as in business, we have costs here, as well. 
We are going to have a reconciliation bill, hopefully, next week. We 
will look at the budget we are in now to ensure--and this is our last 
appropriations bill today in the Senate--we live within the budget in 
those appropriations. I support the idea that we will seek to reduce it 
an additional amount, whether it is the $35 billion in the bill the 
Senate has talked about or whether it is the $50 billion talked about 
in the House. That is what we necessarily need to be doing and should 
be doing.
  Now, those are short-term issues, short-term changes for this year or 
the next 3 or 4 years. We should give more attention to the long-term 
situation. In most things we do here, particularly in spending, 
particularly regarding the deficit, we ought to think of the long term. 
We ought to have 20/20 vision and ask, Where do we want to be in 15 or 
20 years? What do we want to hand off to the next generation as a 
vision of where we want to be and where we would like to be, where we 
think we should be with our families, with our communities, with our 
Nation, and make the decisions daily, as we have to make them, 
predicated on accomplishing those visions we have decided we want.
  The Washington Times said since the 1950s, around 18 to 20 percent of 
the gross national product has been the

[[Page 23502]]

deficit. Deficits are not unusual. It is debt for most everything--
businesses and families and so on. If we continue to go this route over 
the next 50 years, we will be talking more about 30 or 40 percent 
deficit as a percentage of gross national product. Deficits and 
spending go up because gross national product goes up, so as a 
percentage they go up as well.
  However, I don't think we want to find ourselves moving toward larger 
and larger government with more and more activities without paying for 
them and have this deficit continue. In order to do that, we will have 
to look at some reforms. We will have to look at changes that need to 
occur, looking broader than just the reconciliation bill, which is very 
important. We need to look beyond that. We need to look at where we are 
going in the future and make some real changes.
  One change will be in the size and scope of the Federal Government 
and the activities we are involved with in the Federal Government. We 
have created a culture where if there is anything needed anywhere, from 
the community on to the Federal Government, we get the Federal 
Government to pay for it, and we will start a new program. That has 
become a culture and a custom. Once that program is built in, it 
becomes political. As programs are started, they get a constituency and 
they continue. Those are areas we need to look at.
  We will have to look at Social Security, for example. That is where 
most of the money is spent. When we spend $2.5 trillion in a year, only 
about $800 million is discretionary spending. The rest is Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. We need to look at this. Everyone is 
committed to a well-funded, secure Social Security Program over the 
years. There are differences of views as to how to get there. We need 
to look out to the future so the young people here can look forward to 
Social Security in another 50 or 60 years.
  Clearly, we want health care available, but we have to do it in 
different ways. We need changes. I come from a rural State. The way 
health care is delivered in rural Wyoming is different from in 
Washington, DC. We need to get in a position where people have access 
to care. Maybe we ought to be doing some things where we do not need 
health care as much. We need long-term changes to get that taken care 
of. We need to restrain growth in the Federal Government.
  I have always advocated policies for reducing the size of government. 
It is apparent that the government is too big and too broad in its 
scope. Our phones practically ring off the hook with people wanting 
more money for this, more money for that. I understand that. However, 
we have to decide what is appropriate for the Federal Government to 
pay. Many of the programs should be invested in but at the local or 
State level.
  It seems over time we have created programs for most everyone. There 
are approximately 1,200 funded Federal programs. We need to look at 
these for the long term. We have to look at each program and see, in 
fact, if it is still as needed as when it was put into place, to see if 
it is as efficient, evaluate it on its merit to decide if the taxpayers 
are getting their money's worth, then take a broad look, a long-term 
future look at eliminating programs, reducing the size of government, 
maintaining programs that are essential, and making them more efficient 
long term.
  I have a bill called Government Reorganization and Program 
Performance Improvement Act that creates mechanisms to do that. We have 
an opportunity most any time to create a new program and to fund it. We 
have a process for that. We do not have a process for evaluating a 
program that started 10 years ago. Is that reason still there? Have we 
accomplished the goal? Should it be changed?
  We talk about that, I suppose, from time to time, but we do not have 
a process for doing that. That is partly what we would do.
  The bill would create a sunset commission and an individual results 
commission. The sunset commission would hold the Federal Government 
accountable for performance with Presidential proposals. The commission 
could propose to the President whether to retain the program--after it 
has been there for 10 years; taking a look at it--or to restructure the 
program, or to end the program.
  This would be acted on by assessments, a seven-member, bipartisan 
commission, appointed by the President, so we would have a process--a 
process, which we do not have now--to evaluate programs to see if they 
are, as I said, accomplishing the things they were set up to accomplish 
or to see if they should be done differently.
  The other half of it is an opportunity to evaluate performance, 
again, having a commission set up to take a look at programs to see if 
they are operating as efficiently as they might be operating. I think 
it is fair to say sometimes in the bureaucracy we get things built into 
programs where they are resistant to change. It is a little different 
generally than the private sector where the private sector has to 
change from time to time because of profits or because of a lack of 
profits, or whatever; where Government programs tend to go on forever 
pretty much as they are. And I understand that.
  So it seems to me there needs to be a way to do some of those kinds 
of evaluations and make sure that, No. 1, the size of Government can be 
controlled, and No. 2, we would maintain it as efficiently as can be 
done, trying to do away with wastefulness and unnecessary and 
duplicative activities that take place--whether it is within the 
Federal Government or within State governments or local governments.
  We are looking at a way to ensure good government. Everybody wants 
government. Everybody wants services. But we also want good government; 
we want efficient government; we want effective government. And we want 
it to be done as economically and in the least costly way it can be 
done and still get that accomplished.
  That is not an easy project. I understand that. But it seems to me--
as we look at excessive spending; as we look at trying to do something 
about the budget that is pretty short term, looking at these next 
couple of years--we ought to be looking at where we are going to be in 
making some decisions that will help us keep within the budget we would 
like to have over a longer period of time. Doing that, we would have to 
make more difficult decisions, perhaps, but they would be more long-
term decisions. Now is a good time to do that. What better time would 
there be to take a look at that than now, when we are as concerned as 
we are about spending--which we ought to be?
  I think this is a good government initiative which we ought to look 
at. It certainly urges us to bring these bills up and to take a look at 
them so that, in addition to next year's reductions in spending, we 
take a look at the overall problem we face by increasing spending 
because we have found, I think, that is an easy thing to do. I think 
under these current circumstances, it is a thing that happens pretty 
much constantly, unless we are doing something about that.
  I hope, No. 1, we recognize the importance of controlling spending, 
we recognize the importance of controlling the size and the role of the 
Federal Government. I think there should be--there should be--some 
definitions. We ought to have in our own minds some criteria as to what 
is the role of the Federal Government, what is the role of the other 
governments, what is the role of the private sector, so we do not 
continue to be in this sort of circumstance where everything that needs 
to be done becomes a role of the Federal Government. And then we wonder 
why taxes go up; we wonder why spending goes up. It is pretty easy to 
explain that if you take a look at the size of the Government.
  I guess what I am saying is, I hope we can take on the 
responsibility, as we go about our daily chores, to have some vision 
for the future, to evaluate with respect to where we are, but also 
trying to get a notion of where we want to be--how we see it for our 
families; how we see it for jobs; how we see it for education; how we 
see it for freedom of choice. That is part of the criteria for this 
country.

[[Page 23503]]

  We get in a political situation, which we are kind of in now. All we 
do is criticize this and that. The real reason for elections is to talk 
about the issues and to decide where we need to be, to talk about the 
kinds of issues and decisions that need to be made to get us where we 
want to be. I think we have gotten so involved with the media picking 
up on every little controversial issue, and talking about that, that 
people have forgotten what elections are about. Elections are about 
direction. Decisions here are about direction. Decisions here are about 
where we are going to be, and where we need to be, and where we want to 
be over time--for our families, for our communities, for our Nation.
  We have a great opportunity to do that. I urge we give some 
consideration to it in every chance we have. And particularly now, as 
concerned as we are about spending--and properly so--we should be sure 
we take a look at where we want to be, how we can get there, and what 
changes have to be made that are more than just for next year, so we 
can move forward in that direction.
  Mr. President, I thank you for the opportunity to speak. I yield the 
floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                   Reconstruction in the Gulf States

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Landrieu from 
Louisiana, will be on the floor shortly. We want to talk about 
something that has occurred in the last week. A week ago today, I 
chaired a hearing of the Policy Committee. The hearing was on the 
subject of the reconstruction in the Gulf States in the wake of 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. We have held many previous hearings on 
reconstruction in Iraq. As you know, this Congress has literally spent 
tens of billions of dollars on reconstruction projects in Iraq, and the 
waste, fraud, and abuse there is mind-boggling. There is massive money 
going out the door to contractors, in many cases with large no-bid 
contracts, and the taxpayers are getting bilked. I will not go into the 
lengthy stories about it now.
  We decided to hold a hearing with respect to contracting in the gulf 
because this Congress has already approved $60 billion for 
reconstruction, and we have heard tales and stories that are similar to 
those we hear with respect to reconstruction in Iraq.
  At last Monday's hearing, we heard from a local New Orleans company. 
The owner of the company and his job foreman originally were hired to 
provide 75 qualified electricians to work on a project they had begun 
at the Belle Chase Naval Air Station in Louisiana. The project they 
were hired for was with Kellogg, Brown & Root, a subsidiary of 
Halliburton. This company was hired to provide 75 qualified 
electricians.
  Very soon after they started, these qualified Louisiana electricians, 
many of whom were victimized by the hurricanes and who very much 
appreciated these jobs, were replaced by others. They were replaced by 
workers who were not of the same training in electrical skills. In many 
cases, Bob Knight, the general manager of the New Orleans company that 
suffered this fate, described the replacement workers as follows:

       Almost all of their workers were from out of State, and 
     most didn't speak English. Few seemed to me to be qualified 
     electricians. According to the Halliburton subcontractor, 
     they were being paid [a fraction of the] prevailing hourly 
     wage, with no benefits. At that time they were living in 
     small tents on the base.

  Here is a photograph of the circumstances of how they were living. 
This is, of course, a little rough shed with 2 by 4s to frame up some 
beds. I am guessing most of these are undocumented workers brought in 
to take the jobs that had belonged to the folks in Louisiana who 
desperately need these jobs. But because the President said there is no 
requirement to pay what Davis-Bacon wages, no requirement to pay the 
prevailing wage in this region, the result is unscrupulous contractors 
who bring in workers who will work for dirt cheap wages with no 
benefits and many hours and put them up in circumstances such as this.
  And, oh, by the way, some of them were told they could go to work on 
a crew such as this and get a fraction of what they would have to pay 
others who are skilled, and they can get free meals at the Red Cross. 
Unbelievable, isn't it? Here is what is happening to jobs that are 
supposed to belong to the folks in Louisiana and presumably also 
Mississippi. People who got hit hard by the hurricane, who lost 
everything, in many cases, expected perhaps to get an opportunity to 
get back on their feet with a good job that pays all right as skilled 
electricians. They put together 75 of them and are told by the 
contractor: This job is going to last; it is going to be an opportunity 
for you. And just like that, somebody else is brought in because the 
President said they do not have to pay prevailing wages.
  Guess what. Here is the circumstance, here are the people with the 
jobs. Most do not speak English. Most were brought, many of them 
undocumented.
  Last Thursday or Friday, following the hearing that I held, there was 
a raid at this military installation by what is normally called the 
INS. It is now I guess the ICE, as it has been subsumed into this 
behemoth organization called Homeland Security.
  At any rate, the immigration folks raided, and we are told by people 
on the ground that they found somewhere around 150 undocumented 
workers. The immigration folks now say they found 10 that they know of, 
but they play a little game with us because the more questions we ask, 
the less information we get from them.
  It is pretty clear to me, based on eyewitness accounts on the ground, 
that they went in after the hearing we did and found undocumented 
workers on that military installation who had taken the jobs, we 
believe, from the folks in Louisiana who had been victimized by these 
hurricanes, the jobs they were working at.
  Here is the Washington Post. This was last week after the hearing:

       Among the electricians who lost their jobs was Sam Smith, 
     whose house in the Ninth Ward was destroyed after Katrina 
     slammed into the Louisiana coast. Smith, 55, returned to the 
     city because of the promise of $22-an-hour wages, and 
     guaranteed work for at least a year at the naval base.

  By the way, he was a skilled electrician with all the certifications.

       He was quickly disappointed, however, and lost his job 
     within three weeks. ``You would think that the federal 
     government should be making sure that people who are trying 
     to restart their lives and are trying to put their city back 
     together again are out there working,'' Smith said. ``But 
     that's not the case.''

  The New York Times:

       The acrid smell inside trailer No. 2 is tough to take for 
     any length of time. The linoleum floor is filthy and bare, 
     aside from a few soiled blankets hammed in the corners. 
     Dishes caked with leftover food are piled high in the sink, 
     attracting flies. Two portable fans are the only things 
     stirring the air. But six men are living here. They sleep on 
     that floor. They swat away those flies and dodge the roaches 
     at night. They traveled all the way from Guatemala.
       They are promised good pay, three meals a day and place to 
     stay, and some contractors make good on this. But the 
     Mississippi Immigrants Rights Alliance, an advocacy group, 
     says many do not.

  So it is, without the prospect of paying prevailing wages, the jobs 
are going to these kinds of folks.

       They get $8 an hour and labor 11 hours a day, six days a 
     week. Subcontractors pulled them together for Belfor USA, an 
     American subsidiary of a multibillion-dollar international 
     company specializing in restoration after disasters. Before 
     New Orleans, they had separately held construction, farm or 
     factory jobs from Texas to North Carolina, they said.

  The point is, there are other stories about workers, workers from 
elsewhere willing to take substandard wages to help the reconstruction 
of Louisiana and Mississippi.
  We passed $60 billion out of this Chamber in reconstruction money 
and, guess what. What we now understand is reconstruction is going to 
others, not the folks from Louisiana, not the people who have a skilled 
certification as

[[Page 23504]]

an electrician who lost their homes and who need the job. No, this is 
about companies that decide to bring in these folks and put them in 
these conditions--squalid conditions--and pay them a fraction of what 
should be paid for those jobs.
  By the way, the foreman on the job who testified Monday--and my 
colleague from Louisiana was at that hearing--the foreman said these 
folks were not qualified. They were just not qualified. By the way, 
they were putting up 900 tents in metal frames in which our troops will 
live. And we have electricians not qualified wiring those tents for 
electricity? What on earth is going on?
  It is the same old thing. They are paying a fraction of what they 
should pay and getting rid of the Louisiana workers so they can bring 
in these workers from Guatemala and elsewhere. You saw the stories: 
Undocumented workers, INS or ICE, they call it, the immigration folks, 
make a raid on the base.
  My colleague from Louisiana will expand on that further, I am sure. 
They make a raid on the base, and we are told by people who were there 
that they found many--we heard 150 people. Now they will say there are 
only 10. At this point, they do not know, they cannot know, they will 
not tell us. It is the same old tap dance by a big Federal bureaucracy 
that does not want to get caught.
  They ought to do their job, come clean, and tell us what they found 
on that base. I think I know what they found. I think what they found 
were contractors bringing in undocumented workers, paying them pennies 
on the dollar, taking jobs away from the folks in Louisiana. That is 
what I think they found.
  I wonder if there is any Member of the Senate, just one, who wants to 
stand up and say: Yes, that is what we meant, we meant to shove $60 
billion out the door of this Chamber and hope that some contractor 
would bring in some undocumented workers--and fire some Louisiana 
folks--to do the work in Louisiana. If there is one Senator willing to 
stand up and say that, they are not thinking very much. There is not 
one person in this Chamber who will agree that is what they meant, not 
in their worst moment.
  I take no pleasure in pointing this out. In my judgment, this is a 
corruption of the process. We know what needs to be done. We know how 
to do it. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things, and what 
is happening is we are seeing the wrong way implemented in the 
reconstruction down in the gulf coast.
  My colleague from the State of Louisiana participated in those 
hearings. I know she has been in touch with the contractors and knows 
what is happening with respect to that Naval air station as well, but I 
thank her for the work she has done. I can only imagine if it were my 
State or some other State of a Senator in this Chamber facing this, we 
would demand that those for whom those jobs were intended would have 
those jobs, not that they be fired so we could bring in undocumented 
workers and pay them pennies on the dollar. That is unbelievable 
incompetence, and we need to see it stopped right now.
  So let me thank my colleague from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course. I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask the Senator if he has received the latest numbers 
from the Department of Labor about the number of Americans who have 
actually lost their jobs because of Katrina and Rita. We know it was 
upwards of 450,000 people who have lost their jobs because of the 
hurricane. Does the Senator know that his remarks are even more 
compelling based on the numbers of people who must be looking for work, 
have some skills to offer, and yet under the system the Senator has 
described they are finding it difficult to work in their own city or 
parish with their own Federal Government contracts? Did the Senator 
know that?
  Mr. DORGAN. I was not aware of the number. I know this is 
devastating, the most significant natural disaster with the greatest 
consequence in terms of human misery, loss of jobs, loss of homes. It 
is unbelievable.
  I realize that a lot of undocumented workers are just decent people 
who are trying to make a living. I don't mean to disparage them. My 
intention is to say, however, there are rules, and there is a right way 
and a wrong way to do things. We did not spend $60 billion out of this 
Chamber to give jobs to undocumented workers. We spent that amount of 
money to help the folks from Louisiana get back on their feet with good 
jobs for reconstruction, and the same for the folks from Mississippi.
  I intend to work with the Senator from Louisiana and others to put a 
stop to what is going on, to redirect that money. We want 
reconstruction to move and move quickly, but we want those jobs to go 
to the victims, those folks who have suffered through all of this as 
well. We want those workers to be paid good wages. Davis-Bacon ought to 
be restored. The President ought to stand up today and say: I made a 
mistake by repealing Davis-Bacon. This Government has a responsibility 
to pay prevailing wages so we have good wages that pay well and decent 
jobs for those folks.
  I again thank the Senator from Louisiana. I know she wants to make 
some comments about this as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his great 
advocacy on behalf of American workers, the fair trade issues, and all 
of the things we have been debating in this Chamber now for the last 
couple of years on this subject.
  People might ask, Why is the Senator from North Dakota speaking so 
enthusiastically or fervently on behalf of the citizens of Louisiana? 
He does not represent the State.
  As a Senator, we all represent all of the people of the Nation, and 
the Senator from North Dakota is this Chamber's leading expert on 
contracts and contract abuse, not only at home but abroad in Iraq. He 
has been to this floor more times than I can count and has my great 
respect and the respect of many in this body for his work in trying to 
ferret out the great abuse in contracts, whether overseas or at home, 
so that American tax dollars can be spent well and wisely. He is never 
ceasing in his advocacy, and I thank him for continuing by calling a 
hearing not on contractor abuse in Iraq, on which he has conducted 
many, but contractor abuse and the abuse of Louisiana workers relative 
to the Katrina/Rita fiasco. So I wish to thank him and add just a few 
words to what he said and to the information he has laid out and the 
testimony that has been given because I did attend, along with Senator 
Harry Reid, Senator Carl Levin, and a few other Senators, a hearing 
earlier last week on this subject that shed some unbelievable light on 
this situation and hopefully something we can correct.
  I begin by saying that the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, 
and Texas, as I have said so many times on the floor, have really been 
through an unbelievable devastation of a natural disaster that has no 
parallel, has no peer. It was not just the two hurricanes that hit 
within 10 days of each other--the east side of the State first, the 
west side of the State second, parts of Texas in Rita's path as well--
but the subsequent breaking of not 1 levee, not 2, but 17 levee breaks 
in the metropolitan area, an urban center, a highly dense center, a 
large American city, a vibrant and vital region of the Nation, as I 
have said many times, the Nation's only energy coast.
  When those levees broke after the hurricane winds died down, it left 
a region 10 to 12 feet underwater; tens of thousands of homes, large 
and small, rich and poor, businesses underwater, businesses that have 
been making profits for 70, 100 years. We are an old city in an old 
place. We are proud of the longstanding businesses we have.
  When the hurricanes left, the levees broke, and finally, when the 
flood waters went down, we looked up, and we have 400,000 people who 
have lost their

[[Page 23505]]

jobs. These are people who are hard-working Americans, taxpaying 
citizens. Many of them have never asked for any direct help from the 
Federal Government other than what everyone gets from their Government: 
good police, good fire protection, hopefully their streets paved, the 
potholes are kept to a minimum, schools for their children to go to, 
basic Government services that are required. Most of these people have 
not asked for any particular Government help, and yet they find 
themselves out of work, in a position to start building their city only 
to find that the Federal system of awarding contracts, because of 
certain rules, certain actions this administration has taken, and a 
lack of oversight, has allowed companies to come in from out of State 
and hire workers who are undocumented while literally pushing aside 
Louisiana citizens who have the skills to rebuild and the desperate 
need, the obvious need, for the job itself.
  In the case Senator Byron Dorgan has brought to our attention, as the 
hearing went on last week, about 75 electricians from the area that was 
affected--many of those electricians had lost their homes. Their homes 
had been flooded. Some of them had run businesses on the side that they 
had lost. Their families had been placed into some safe place somewhere 
in the region. These men, most of the men--some of them could have been 
female electricians--came back at the request of a former employer who 
said, Would you all come back and help us build the barracks, the Navy 
base, the Belle Chasse base, in their own backyards?
  These are residents who could look across the highway, who have 
worked at Belle Chasse before, who put up the electrical work at Belle 
Chasse, who were hired by a contractor and brought to work. After a few 
days, another contractor comes into the base, as the story is told, and 
basically hands these Louisiana workers a pink slip and says, If you do 
not mind, could you all please leave the base, and then ushers in 10, 
20, 30, 40, 100--who knows what the investigation will show--workers 
not from Louisiana--and some of the workers are not even eligible to 
work in the United States of America--to work on an American military 
base.
  Last week, I had the distinct honor of sitting in my Senate office 
and having two or three electricians, men who are obviously used to a 
hard day's work--their hands looked pretty tough--with shoulders 
stooping and almost on the verge of tears looking at me as their 
Senator saying: Senator, explain this to me. My parish has just been 
ruined by a hurricane. I have lost my house. I have worked my whole 
life as an electrician, and on a military base in the United States of 
America I am asked to leave so that an undocumented worker can take my 
job? I do not have an answer for them, but we need to find one because 
nobody in America will believe this is happening. It should not be 
happening.
  I will tell you why it happens--because when nobody is watching the 
store and there is money being thrown out of this Chamber, $62 billion, 
people grab for it. The people of Louisiana have been accused of 
looting. I think maybe the camera needs to focus somewhere else. All we 
have done as a delegation is asked for help for our ports, our 
hospitals. This is a city that has lost 75 percent of its revenue. The 
parish of Plaquemine and the parish of St. Bernard are virtually 
nonexistent. Every structure--and 100,000 people--has basically been 
destroyed, and it is uninhabitable. We still have our refineries shut 
down, our pipelines exposed, and all we get is excuse after excuse.
  Our own workers show up and ask for a decent wage. Their wage was $22 
an hour. If any Senator on this floor thinks that paying a man or a 
woman $22 an hour, with some minimum benefits, to work 12 hours a day 
because the contract said if they want to work, they have to show up 
and work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week until further notice--so do not 
tell me these people did not want to work. They had to work without a 
day off, week after week, for $22 an hour. We are told that it is too 
much, we cannot afford to hire them, they can go on back and twiddle 
their thumbs while we have the undocumented workers rebuild this 
military base. It should not be happening now. It should not be 
happening in the future.
  Today, I sent a letter to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 
head of INS and asked them to please enforce the laws that are on the 
books, please enforce the laws so that the 478,000 people who are 
unemployed throughout the gulf coast, from Mississippi, Alabama, 
Louisiana, and Texas, can have the first chance at a good job.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, October 18, 2005.
     Hon. Michael Chertoff,
     Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: I have personally received compelling 
     evidence that U.S. immigration laws are being flagrantly 
     disregarded in the contracting and subcontracting for 
     Hurricane Katrina relief. The use of undocumented, illegal 
     workers in the construction industry is a lamentable reality. 
     However, if press accounts are true, the issue is quickly 
     becoming chronic along the Gulf Coast.
       Under ordinary circumstances, the use of such workers would 
     require investigation, but perhaps no more so than other 
     violations of immigration law. Regrettably, these are not 
     ordinary circumstances. The use of undocumented workers in 
     federal contracts for hurricane relief and reconstruction 
     comes at the direct expense of hurricane victims. While my 
     state experiences unemployment rates not seen since the Great 
     Depression, it is unconscionable that illegal workers would 
     be brought into Louisiana aggravating our employment crisis 
     and depressing earnings for our workers.
       While there is a specific instance at the Belle Chasse 
     Naval Air Station that I believe warrants particular 
     scrutiny, a variety of press accounts lead me to believe the 
     problem is widespread. I am equally confident that immediate 
     and rigorous prosecution of these illegal activities would 
     quickly stem this tide.
       I respectfully request that you direct Assistant Secretary 
     Clark of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to 
     dispatch a team of additional immigration enforcement and 
     investigations officers to the Gulf Coast region. 
     Furthermore, I request that the Department institute a zero 
     tolerance policy for the use of illegal workers in government 
     contracts for reconstruction. Finally, I ask that this be 
     done expeditiously, as time is of the essence.
       Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your attention to this matter. 
     I look forward to your response and your plan to uphold U.S. 
     immigration law at this vital juncture.
       With warmest regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                                 Mary L. Landrieu,
                                            United States Senator.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I know people are going to debate about Davis-Bacon, 
but I just want to tell the American people this point: When the 
President issued the order and basically said, right after Katrina, 
waive all the labor laws that allow people to be paid a fair wage, he 
said he was doing that to save money. How does one save money on a no-
bid contract? If a contract is not being put out for bid, how does one 
save any money? All that happens is wages of the people who need them 
the most at a time when they have lost everything are driven down. They 
are not asking for charity. They are not asking for a handout. They 
stood up to get a job to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and still 
were basically under the administrative rules of waiving Davis-Bacon, 
lack of oversight and lack of focus, and have basically been asked to 
leave the military base.
  So I hope that in the few weeks ahead, we can get these electricians 
back on the job, back to their homes, back to their neighborhoods to 
rebuild, and build some support in this Chamber and around America for 
paying people a decent wage. I do not think $22 is too much. I do not 
expect people to rebuild Louisiana at a minimum wage or $8 or $9 an 
hour without benefits.
  People have to make a living. That amounts to about $45,000 a year. 
Is that too much to pay someone working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
doing hard and sometimes dangerous work? I don't think so. But 
evidently somebody in Washington thinks that is too much because, 
instead of holding wages steady--not asking for union wages, but asking 
for an average wage, between union and nonunion, which

[[Page 23506]]

seems fair to me--we are undercutting our workers. The Government 
should not mandate a union wage to be paid, but neither should we 
undercut our workers. So the prevailing wage is what we have come up 
with, to say don't pay union, don't pay nonunion, pay something in the 
middle, the average wage: $18, $20, $22 an hour for skilled labor. That 
is not too much to ask. But evidently it is.
  Even if people can get these jobs back, under the policies of this 
administration, they will be told: You can work, so be happy and smile 
that we are going to pay you $9 an hour, on which you cannot even feed 
your family, invest in your pension, or send your children to school. 
You should smile and be happy you have a job.
  People in Louisiana want more respect than that. They deserve more 
respect than that. The people along the gulf coast are, as I have said 
many times, honest, hardworking, and self-reliant. We do not come here 
asking for charity, but we do come here asking for help out of our 
National Treasury to which we have contributed so much over 300 years 
of hard work and toil to build the Nation's only energy coast. We are 
proud to do it, proud to take the risks associated with that hard 
work--building a port system, the greatest in the North American 
Continent, and building commerce that allows every State and every 
parish and every county in America to flourish. Without this port 
system, without this energy coast, our Nation would not be what it is 
today.
  Despite all the ridicule we received, despite all of the snide 
remarks we have heard about public corruption and that we can't do 
anything for ourselves and we are disorganized, we are going to still 
hold our heads up, proud, tell our story, and demand to be treated with 
respect and dignity as every American would want to be treated--Black 
and White, Asian and Hispanic, young and old, rich and poor.
  In conclusion, I thank Senator Dorgan for his focus on this. I will 
continue to come to the floor and to be at hearings with him, to help 
him, to hopefully build the kind of system and oversight that will 
allow us to give out contracts more efficiently, to make sure the work 
is going to gulf coast contractors, reputable contractors. There are 
many good contractors who treat their workers beautifully. There are 
many businesses, despite the fact they have no money coming in the 
door, that have kept their workers on the payroll, trying to hold heart 
and soul together and hold our community together while the Federal 
Government twiddles its thumbs and comes up with excuses about why it 
cannot help.
  Let me be quick to compliment the many good contractors and many good 
businesses, small and large. But when we see this kind of irresponsible 
contracting, it makes a tough situation even so much worse. So I hope 
this letter will be responded to, that actions can be taken by other 
committees that have oversight so we can make sure we are spending the 
American taxpayer dollar well, that we are giving the preference, as 
required in the current law, to those affected by the storms and the 
unfortunate disaster itself, and then paying people a decent wage when 
we ask them to do work for their community and for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I 
regularly comment on appropriations bills that are brought to this 
Senate for consideration and present the financial comparisons and 
budgetary data.
  The pending Labor, HHS, Education Appropriations bill provides $141.7 
billion in discretionary budget authority and $141.4 billion in 
discretionary outlays for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
Services, and Education, and related agencies for fiscal year 2006.
  Also included in the bill is $405.3 billion in mandatory budget 
authority and $405.2 billion in mandatory outlays for FY 2006. With 
outlays from prior-years, amounts declared as an emergency--$300 
million for LIHEAP and $19 million for Refugee Assistance--and other 
completed actions, the Senate bill totals $547.3 billion in budget 
authority and $546.6 billion in outlays for FY 2006.
  These amounts would technically represent a decrease of 0.8 percent 
in discretionary budget authority and a decrease of 0.2 percent in 
discretionary outlays from the 2005 enacted levels. However, when 
taking into account the SSI pay date shift into FY 2007 and emergency 
appropriations, the bill provides $2.5 billion or a 1.7 percent 
increase in discretionary funding over the FY 2005 enacted level.
  As originally reported, the level of budget authority was precisely 
at the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation while the outlays amount was 
$1.1 billion below the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation. However, 
because the bill assumes erectile dysfunction drug savings--$105 
million--that were recently enacted into law by HR 3971 for Katrina 
related unemployment insurance costs--and the QI and TMA extensions--
this bill is now $15 million over the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation 
and is subject to a 302(f) point of order.
  The committee-reported bill also delays $3.36 billion in SSI payments 
to elderly and disabled individuals--an amount equivalent to one 
month's worth of FY 2006 SSI obligations--from fiscal year 2006 into 
fiscal year 2007. The original purpose of this shift was to allow for 
$3.4 billion in additional non-defense discretionary spending in FY 
2006 that otherwise would put the bill over its 302(b) allocation, 
thereby exceeding the discretionary spending limit agreed to with the 
House in this year's budget resolution.
  Not only could this action result in a hardship for the elderly and 
disabled on fixed incomes by delaying their ability to make their 
monthly rent payments, this accounting gimmick constitutes an advance 
appropriation that is unauthorized as well as exceeds the total level 
of allowed advance appropriations for fiscal year 2007 as set out under 
section 401(b) of the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution. As a result, 
a point of order lies against this bill for making an unauthorized 
advanced appropriation; if raised, the point of order may be waived 
only by an affirmative vote of 60 Members of the Senate.
  Mr. President, 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. 3010, 2006 LABOR, HHS AND EDUCATION APPROPRIATIONS BILL--SPENDING
                    COMPARISONS--SENATE-REPORTED BILL
                     [Fiscal Year 2006, $ millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     General
                                     Purpose     Mandatory      Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority.............      141,668      405,311      546,979
    Outlays......................      141,365      405,171      546,536
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority.............      141,653      405,311      546,964
    Outlays......................      142,472      405,171      547,643
2005 Enacted:
    Budget authority.............      142,843      354,444      497,287
    Outlays......................      141,596      354,189      495,785
President's request:
    Budget authority.............      141,450      402,591      544,041
    Outlays......................      143,015      404,083      547,098
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority.............      142,513      402,591      545,104
    Outlays......................      143,708      404,083      547,791
Senate-Reported Bill Compared to:
    Senate 302(b) allocation:
        Budget authority.........           15            0           15
        Outlays..................       -1,107            0       -1,107
    2005 Enacted:
        Budget authority.........       -1,175       50,867       49,692
        Outlays..................         -231       50,982       50,751
    President's request:
        Budget authority.........          218        2,720        2,938
        Outlays..................       -1,650        1,088         -562
    House-passed bill:
        Budget authority.........         -845        2,720        1,875
        Outlays..................       -2,343        1,088       -1,255
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today we are considering the 
appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee to 
fund the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, 
the Department of Education, and related agencies for the next fiscal 
year, 2006. I am especially grateful to the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, 
who has guided this legislation through a process of hearings to 
examine the administration's request, the bill passed by the other body 
funding these Departments, and requests of Members of the Senate for 
programs to be funded

[[Page 23507]]

in this legislation. He and the ranking member of the committee, 
Senator Harkin, have worked very hard and diligently to bring the 
Senate a bill that is both responsible but sensitive to the needs of 
the people who are served by the programs funded in this bill.
  An example of the important appropriations provisions is those 
relating to low-income heating assistance. Over $2 billion of funding 
is provided in this bill to help those who are going to have 
difficulties meeting the payments for their heating bills during this 
winter.
  There is an account in the Department of Education to provide 
assistance to low-income people who are seeking to improve themselves 
through higher education. Over $14 billion is included in this 
legislation for education for the disadvantaged account.
  There is also money in here for medical research at the Department of 
Health and Human Services and also for the activities at the National 
Institutes of Health.
  Included in the bill is $29.41 billion for NIH. This is above the 
level requested by the President, but in my judgment and in the 
judgment of the other members of this committee, it is needed. It is an 
important investment to help find new ways of dealing with diseases, to 
prevent illnesses, to do those things that will make America a 
healthier and, from an economic standpoint, more effective country.
  There are many other provisions in this bill we could mention, but 
the Senators have already heard the bill described by the distinguished 
chairman of the subcommittee. There will be opportunity for discussion 
of individual amendments, if there are any, and I am sure there will be 
some for the Senate's consideration. But this is the final 
appropriations bill that will be considered in the regular 
appropriations process by the Senate this year. It is important that we 
notice the House has passed all of its appropriations bills and they 
did so early in the year. A lot of credit ought to be given to the 
distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, who is chairman of 
the House Appropriations Committee, in getting that work done and 
getting it done early in the year so the bills could come over to the 
Senate and give us an opportunity to review them and carefully consider 
the legislation.
  I also want to point out that our committee works on a bipartisan 
basis. That is possible because of the cooperation of the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. 
Byrd. He is a former chairman of this committee, with a tremendous 
amount of knowledge of the legislation, and he has contributed in 
helping ensure the cooperation of all members of the committee, 
Democrats working with the Republicans, to report these bills to the 
Senate. It is a bipartisan effort and I think that is important for us 
as we complete our consideration of these bills this year.
  We have had three bills passed with conference reports approved and 
they have been signed by the President. There are seven bills that have 
been passed by the Senate that are in conference with the House. The 
importance of this effort is to ensure that we can pass these bills on 
an individual basis and not have to resort to adding them all together, 
putting them all in one legislative vehicle as an omnibus 
appropriations bill, as we have seen happen in the past.
  One other point that needs to be made is that, were it not for the 
cooperation of the leadership, we would not have been able to have the 
bills considered on an individual basis. That has been very important 
to the success of this enterprise and this effort. So the distinguished 
majority leader, in cooperation with the minority leader, has ensured 
that the Appropriations Committee has had time in the Senate to 
consider these bills on an individual basis, and that has been very 
important. It is our hope we will be able to complete action on all the 
bills and get them to the President so there will not be any delay in 
the planned adjournment of the Senate at Thanksgiving, as has been 
announced by the distinguished leader. We are hopeful we will be able 
to have time to reach agreement in conference with our House colleagues 
and get all of these remaining bills to the President for his signature 
before we adjourn at Thanksgiving.
  Thank you all for the efforts you have made to cooperate with our 
committee to consider these bills in an orderly process. I think it is 
going to result in a better product, a more thoughtful approach to the 
appropriations process, and the people of this country will benefit 
from this record of achievement by the members of the committees and 
all of the Members of both bodies.
  There are 72 Senators who are not members of the Appropriations 
Committee. Any one of them has the power to offer any amendment on any 
bill at any time during the consideration of these individual bills. If 
we had to group them all as an omnibus bill, it would take away from 
the opportunity each Senator has to participate in this process. So I 
thank all 72 Senators who have taken an active role in helping assure 
the success of this operation this year.
  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 dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Nomination of Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr.

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments we will begin two rollcall 
votes. The second of those votes will be on the nomination of Harry S. 
``Sandy'' Mattice, Jr.
  I hesitated a little bit because it is Harry S. Mattice, but nobody 
calls him that. It is Sandy to those of us who are his good friends and 
admirers.
  The nomination is to serve on the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of Tennessee.
  I have known Sandy for many years and am proud to give him my 
absolute highest recommendation to serve on the Federal bench.
  He is a native of Chattanooga, TN. He has nearly 17 years of 
experience as a practicing attorney, focusing primarily on business 
investigations, including securities and tax and white-collar crimes.
  He currently serves as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 
Tennessee, and in that role he manages Federal prosecutions for 
Tennessee's largest judicial district which encompasses 41 counties and 
2.5 million Tennesseans.
  Sandy will be an outstanding Federal judge. He is smart, he has a 
rock-solid work ethic, he respects his colleagues, and in turn has 
earned their respect and widespread admiration.
  Throughout his entire career, Sandy has proved his merit as a skilled 
attorney and a talented prosecutor.
  The American Bar Association gave him its highest possible rating, 
``unanimously well-qualified,'' to serve as a Federal judge.
  In addition to his many professional qualifications, Sandy is an 
honest person of the highest integrity. He is devoted to his family and 
is active in his local community.
  I have absolutely no doubt that Sandy will serve with honor on the 
Federal bench.
  As we prepare to vote, I urge my colleagues to support the nomination 
of this truly outstanding and distinguished Tennessean.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I join the majority leader. The 
President has made a wise decision.
  I respectfully say, in choosing Sandy Mattice, by scholarship, by 
experience, by integrity, by background he should be an excellent 
judge.
  I should say, also, that he follows an excellent judge, Al Edgar. We 
are contemporaries. We grew up at the same time, same age, in towns 
close to one another.
  Sandy Mattice has big shoes to fill, but he will fill them well; he 
is well-qualified. I salute the President for his outstanding 
appointment and I join the majority leader in expressing my pride in 
the nomination and look forward to his confirmation.

[[Page 23508]]



                          ____________________