[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6613-6640]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




MAKING EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING 
                     SEPTEMBER 30, 2006--Continued


                    Amendment No. 3626, as Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up and 
pass amendment 3626, as modified. This amendment is noncontroversial 
but very much needed and has been cleared by both the majority and 
minority side and all leaders of the relevant committees.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Reserving the right to object, No. 3626 is listed on one 
list of amendments I have as having been passed.
  It is pending. It is a community disaster loan limits amendment.
  Mr. VITTER. Precisely.

[[Page 6614]]


  Mr. COCHRAN. Because of some question as to whether this is cleared 
on the Democratic side, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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for the quorum call be rescinded.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. VITTER. Mr. President, I renew my request that amendment No. 
3626, as modified, by Senator Landrieu and myself, be called up and 
passed by unanimous consent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3626), as modified, was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 3641, Division IV

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and amendment 3641, division IV, be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. We are considering a very large supplemental spending 
bill that now stands about $10 billion larger than what the President 
has said he will sign. I thought it would be interesting to spend a 
minute to think about what $1 billion is because we throw that number 
around so often. We need to consider that $1 billion is a difficult 
number to comprehend.
  A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. A billion minutes, ago Jesus was 
alive. A billion hours ago, some would say our ancestors were living in 
the stone age. A billion days ago, no one walked on Earth on two feet. 
A billion dollars was only 8 hours 20 minutes ago at the rate we are 
spending money in the Federal Government.
  A billion is a hard number to get your arms around. It is an 
interesting number and $10 billion more than what the President thinks 
we need. More than what we actually need is a tremendous amount of 
money.
  The second point I make in talking about this amendment is that the 
money we are going to spend on this emergency supplemental bill we will 
not ever see anywhere when we come to talk about the deficit because it 
will not get included in the deficit reported by the Federal 
Government. What it will get included in is the payments your children 
and grandchildren will have to pay back 30 years from now, amortized at 
6 percent, and that $10 billion is going to come to about $50 billion 
when they pay it back. We are reaching forward and stealing opportunity 
from our kids.
  This particular amendment deals with an item in the supplemental that 
is meant to help a very significant contractor in our defense industry. 
They do a lot of great things for this country in terms of supplying 
jobs, giving us great equipment, great ships, great tools for our men 
and women to fight with and defend this country. I understand the 
damage that has occurred in both Pascagoula and all the shipyards along 
the coast. We are making plans to do what is right. In the 
supplemental, we put greater than $1.5 billion toward that.
  There is a significant amount of loss that was incurred by Northrop 
Grumman as the hurricane came on shore and damaged both their 
facilities and their equipment. They had significant operating losses 
from that. My problem with the amendment is they have insurance with 
which to cover this loss. No one knows exactly how much it is going to 
be. Northrop Grumman says by their own public statements that $500 
million was their business interruption cost insurance, so it could be 
upward of $500 million. It is probably somewhere between $100 and $200 
million.
  If we allow this amendment to go through, we set significant 
precedence that we will be hard pressed to ever break.
  First of all, this is a private contractor with insurance who is now 
suing their insurance company for the claims they have made that will 
not be adjudicated until 2007.
  One of the messages we will send if we pass this supplemental with 
this in it is we will tell the rest of the defense contractors: You do 
not have to have business interruption insurance. Why would you have to 
if the Federal Government is going to come in and pick up the tab?
  There is an answer that whatever is collected will come back and be 
paid to the Navy if, in fact, we intercede in the midst of this 
contract dispute for Northrop Grumman. I hear what the contracting 
office says, and it is a fairly important point because the contracting 
officers and the contracting office know the right of legal loss 
doctrine. Most of our insurance, whether it is homeowners, auto 
insurance, or business interruption insurance, runs on the doctrine of 
legal loss. Legal loss in insurance contracting says that if you get 
paid by someone else, we do not have to pay you.
  This amendment is not so much about being against helping Northrop 
Grumman; it is about not helping their insurance firm which actually 
owes this money, which will be adjudicated in the future, and not 
limiting their responsibility and not transferring that responsibility 
from them to our children and our grandchildren.
  September 28, 2005--this is the Contract Management Agency for the 
Defense Department:

       This office believes it would be inappropriate to allow 
     Northrop Grumman to bill for costs potentially recoverable by 
     insurance because payment by the Government may otherwise 
     relieve the carrier from their policy obligation.
       If the Government pays the costs, or agrees that the costs 
     are even tentatively or conditionally allowable, there is a 
     risk that insurers will deny coverage on the basis that there 
     has been no loss suffered by Northrop Grumman.

  In fact, that is exactly right. If we pay the loss, Northrop Grumman 
does not have a loss, and therefore the legal loss doctrine will apply 
to this contract, so there will not be a lawsuit. This is in 
litigation.
  I also make the point that Northrop Grumman, by their CEO's own 
statements this year, said that it continues to expect sales of $31 
billion; earnings per share between 4.25 and 4.40; and cash from 
operations, free cashflow, between $2.3 and $2.6 billion. If this is 
$100 million or $200 million, they have all the capability in the world 
to borrow that money, pay the interest, and collect the interest 
charges against the insurance company. We are setting a terrible 
precedent by doing this.
  The other thing we are going to do is send a message to every other 
defense contractor: Don't get business interruption insurance because 
we will come in and pick up the tab.
  I want them to be fully remunerated. I want the shipyards to be up 
and running. I want every aspect we can deploy that will make things 
happen, that will resecure the jobs, resecure our production of ships. 
But I don't want to do that when Factory Mutual Insurance Company 
really should be on the hook for this, not our children and our 
grandchildren.
  The other point I make is should companies that contract as defense 
suppliers and make billions each year be put ahead of the others 
waiting in line for help? Is it going to be our policy by this bill to 
further subsidize the business interruption insurance of all the rest 
of the contractors?
  Their own litigation filed in California says:

       There is no reason to allow Factory to avoid accountability 
     for its wrongful actions.

  I agree. And by keeping this in the bill, we will allow Factory 
Mutual to avoid accountability for its obligations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the Defense Contract Management Agency letter, dated September 28, 
2005. There has also been the filing of Northrop Grumman Corporation 
against Factory Mutual Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for 
the Central District of California.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page 6615]]


                                                  Defense Contract


                                            Management Agency,

                              Los Angeles, CA, September 28, 2005.
     Memorandum for all Sector Administrative Contracting Officers 
         (ACOs).
     Subject: Hurricane Guidance.
       Until all avenues for recovery from insurance carriers are 
     exhausted by the contractor it is recommended that 
     Contracting Officers not approve payments for costs 
     associated with or related to the hurricane disaster(s) if 
     such costs are potentially recoverable through insurance by 
     the contractor.
       This office believes that it would be inappropriate to 
     allow Northrop Grumman to bill for costs potentially 
     recoverable by insurance because payment by the Government 
     may otherwise relieve the carrier from their policy 
     obligation.
       If the Government pays the costs, or agrees that the costs 
     are even tentatively or conditionally allowable, there is a 
     risk that insurers will deny coverage on the basis that there 
     has been no loss suffered by Northrop Grumman. It is my 
     recommendation that insurance policy(s) be reviewed. 
     Additionally it would be prudent to reach an agreement with 
     Northrop and the insurer before making payments for any 
     otherwise allowable costs.
       This matter is under continuing review and additional 
     information will be forwarded as appropriate.
       Please forward this correspondence to subordinate sector 
     ACOs. Questions should be addressed to me.
                                               Donald P. Springer,
                                      Defense Corporate Executive.

  Mr. COBURN. I also note that Northrop Grumman is the fourth largest 
defense contractor we have in the country. I also note that Northrop is 
already the recipient of billions of dollars in Government contracts, 
including some contracts that otherwise could be considered largess. I 
will not go into that.
  I would make a final note that the House Appropriations Committee, 
when they passed their bill, put this into the Record:

       The Committee believes strongly that funds in this Act and 
     under this heading in prior Acts should not be used to 
     substitute for private insurance benefits. The Committee is 
     aware that some shipyards have business interruption 
     insurance coverage that could potentially overlap with the 
     Navy's budget for increased delay and disruption costs.

  I understand the Navy. We have an obligation for delay and disruption 
costs. There is no question about that.

       On March 1, 2006, the Committee received the Navy's 
     certification that there is no overlap between shipyard 
     insurance claims and the Navy's funding plan, and that costs 
     covered by private insurers were not included in supplemental 
     request estimates. Once again in this bill, the Committee 
     directs the Navy not to obligate funds under this heading 
     until the Secretary of the Navy certifies that no such funds 
     will be used for activities or costs that are subject to 
     reimbursement by any third party, including a private 
     insurer.

  The final point I would make is the President's message to Congress 
on why he would be against us funding this. He made some significant 
points, and I will summarize them. One is they do not think this is 
necessary. No. 2, it violates clear contracting guidelines. And, No. 3, 
it sets a terrible precedent for the future, not just on our coast but 
for any other defense contractor that might have a loss based on a 
natural catastrophe, that we would now have a precedent that we would 
supply that.
  The American people want to help solve the problems on the gulf 
coast. We want to create a vigorous business environment. We want to 
create a vigorous defense industry. This is a step too far. I believe 
we need to back up and let the private sector take care of its 
obligations, as it should, to help us meet our obligations and then 
move forward.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am sympathetic to the Senator's 
concerns, that he expressed. As I understand the point he makes, it is 
that we should not create a situation where a shipbuilder can both get 
disaster funds from the Federal Government and insurance benefits from 
hurricane coverage and, thereby, be unjustly enriched by getting money 
from two different sources for one disaster.
  The language of the general provision, which the Senator purports to 
amend with this amendment, prevents a shipbuilder from getting double 
payment, in effect. The Senator's amendment strikes the provision and 
the language in the provision which guarantees that.
  I think there is no disagreement between us as to what the outcome 
ought to be. What we are trying to do is reduce costs to the U.S. Navy 
and, thereby, to the U.S. taxpayers for future shipbuilding activity by 
reimbursing the shipbuilder for damages caused by the hurricane, purely 
and simply. There is no effort to prevent the shipbuilder from 
recovering what it is entitled to recover from the insurance companies 
that had coverage in this situation.
  But the fact is, you could not get insurance coverage for all of the 
damages done by the hurricane, only some. The policy defines the 
obligation. The contract, in effect, between the shipbuilder and the 
insurance company defines what benefits the shipbuilders are entitled 
to receive. And these contracts are being honored, some maybe not as 
generously as the shipbuilder would like. But that is something to be 
reserved between the shipbuilder and the insurance carrier. And if 
litigation develops and is resorted to as a way to resolve that, so be 
it; that happens.
  But what we are seeking to do is to acknowledge that the shipbuilder 
was impeded by the hurricane from proceeding under contracts that it 
had with the Navy to hire and make available workers on a reliable, 
predictable schedule that would ensure the ships' future construction 
on time under the contract.
  Some of those costs cannot get reimbursed from the insurance company. 
There are provisions in the insurance agreements that prohibit the 
collection of benefits for some of those costs that were caused 
directly by the hurricane.
  So what we have attempted to do is to work with the Navy, consult 
with the shipbuilder, and try to provide authority in this supplemental 
bill to help control costs of ships, now and in the future, with a 
possibility of insurance proceeds offsetting Government costs. Or we 
can exclude this provision, as the Senator is trying to do, and pay the 
resulting higher costs through higher taxes, more appropriations to 
help pay the costs to the Navy to pay for the ships.
  To me, I think this amendment reflects a difference in understanding 
of what the language of the supplemental seeks to accomplish. We do not 
disagree with the motivation of the Senator from Oklahoma. We applaud 
his effort to review carefully and make sure we are not ``wasting'' 
money in this supplemental, that the taxpayer is benefiting, not a 
shipbuilder being unjustly or inappropriately enriched. I guarantee you 
that is not the purpose of the assistance that is provided in this 
section of the bill, this general provision of the bill.
  Here is what it seeks to do. And we think it does do this: The 
general provision adjusts ship contract target costs for the effects of 
Hurricane Katrina. It provides the U.S. Navy with reimbursement of 
future shipbuilder insurance receipts. And it makes clear that payments 
made by the Government to the shipbuilder could not be treated as 
collateral insurance coverage and could not be used as a reason for 
insurers not to honor their policy obligations.
  That is the purpose of the general provision. I challenge anybody to 
disagree with that purpose as laudable, as important, and as fair to 
the taxpayers, to the shipbuilder, and to the insurance companies that 
have coverage.
  This provision was included because it is clear that the impact for 
delaying the recapitalization of the shipyards will have long-term 
negative impacts to the Navy's shipbuilding program by making ships 
more expensive and taking longer to build.
  We can provide this authority now to help control the costs of ships, 
and with the possibility of insurance proceeds offsetting Government 
costs, or we can exclude this provision and pay for the resulting 
higher costs of ships.
  And note this. The estimated cost of this provision is $140 million, 
to be paid from within the $2.7 billion the President requested in the 
shipbuilding account. Hear that? The President requested $2.7 billion 
in his submission in

[[Page 6616]]

this request. And a 3- to 6-month shipyard recapitalization delay is 
estimated to cost $300 to $600 million in increased ship costs.
  This is serious business. You can pay me now or pay me later. I guess 
that is the way to say it. But the whole point is, we can appropriate 
this money in this supplemental that the President requested. We have 
identified the part that is going to be used to pay the costs of this 
amendment.
  So in response to Hurricane Katrina and the disaster that resulted to 
the region, the President requested over $2\1/2\ billion--$1 billion in 
this supplemental and $1.7 billion in the last supplemental--in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion Navy account to address these ordinary 
costs to replace destroyed or damaged equipment, prepare and recover 
naval vessels under contract, and, most relevant to this debate, 
provide for cost adjustments for naval vessels for which funds have 
been previously appropriated.
  So what happened is the President's request did not address or take 
into account all costs associated with Katrina. So a general provision 
was added to adjust an existing Navy ship contract's target costs for 
the effects of Hurricane Katrina. It ensures the industry does not 
receive redundant funding from the Government and insurance companies. 
But--guess what--the amendment offered by the Senator, my friend, 
deletes this provision. That should not be done.
  The focus of this supplemental is to provide disaster relief and 
recovery for hurricanes, including Katrina. Katrina caused the costs of 
ships that were already under contract with the Navy to increase. 
Increased costs were occurring because of the disaster.
  The provision included in the bill does not impose additional costs. 
Instead, it directs that all costs be paid from within the $2.7 billion 
shipbuilding account requested by the President to address the 
hurricane recovery costs.
  In my view, the Senate needs to reject the amendment of the Senator. 
Let's carry forward in this bill this general provision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me address a question to the 
distinguished chairman of the committee because I thought his remarks 
were very well done and answered a number of questions that have been 
put out in the discussion of this language in the media. But I think it 
is important to clarify a few of those points.
  The first point you are making is that this is not an additional or 
added expenditure. This will come out of the $2.7 billion that has 
already been requested to go into this shipbuilding recovery effort; is 
that correct?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, he is 
absolutely correct. There is, in this general provision, a reference to 
the $2.7 billion that is contained in the President's request submitted 
to the Congress, a request that we appropriate that amount. He is 
right. We are not creating new funding in this provision but trying to 
spell out what that funding should be used for.
  Mr. LOTT. Well, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that 
clarification and for making that point. I might also ask this 
question: The Senator was a very capable young lawyer in our State 
years ago, president of the young lawyer's section, and I think he 
understands this sort of issue. Are you satisfied that this language is 
such that when and if there is an insurance recovery, those funds will 
come back to the Federal Government?
  Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator is correct. It will not result in a double 
payment, in effect, to the shipbuilder, of course. And any insurance 
proceeds that offset the Government's costs are excluded specifically 
from this provision.
  Mr. LOTT. One final point that the Senator made that I think is a 
very important one. If we do not allow this provision to remain in this 
legislation, the net cost is going to be twice as much or more.
  I believe the questions that have been posed have been answered 
correctly and appropriately by the chairman of the committee. This 
provision does not require additional funds. Payments will come out of 
funds that have already been earmarked for shipbuilding recovery. It is 
not going be a process where the shipbuilder will be relieved of trying 
to recover from the insurance company and, if they recover, they get to 
keep it. It is important to emphasize those points.
  Let me confess to my colleagues, this is personal with me. I admit 
it. This is my hometown. I grew up in the shadow of this shipyard where 
13,000 men and women make their livelihood, the biggest single employer 
in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana and at one point of 
Alabamians, a critical component of our national security. They build 
some of the most sophisticated ships in the world--destroyers, 
cruisers, LHAs, LHDs, LHARs. And that shipyard got hammered by 
hurricane Katrina. My dad was a pipefitter in that shipyard and was in 
the pipe department when he was killed in an automobile accident. I 
don't just see statistics and numbers; I see neighbors, classmates, men 
and women who believe in what they do and build quality product. They 
have been hit a grievous blow.
  I understand the effort of the Senator from Oklahoma. On many similar 
occasions, if I didn't know all the facts or if I weren't as intimately 
involved, maybe I would be doing something similar to what he is. I 
understand. But I don't think he has all the facts. Maybe the 
clarification that my colleague from Mississippi made will help him.
  The magnitude of what we were hit with is the most devastating thing 
we have ever seen. I won't bring out a lot of charts, but so you will 
get some idea of the destruction, here is a picture of the shipyard 
right after the hurricane. This whole shipyard had a direct hit. It is 
right on the mouth of the river. It got hammered. Five hundred men and 
women put their lives at risk that night trying to keep ships that were 
moored there from sinking. This is what we were dealt. Everything in 
that shipyard was under water. And by the way, just so you will get 
some idea, there in the background of this picture, those cranes are 
actually on the water. This photo was actually taken a distance inland, 
and you see the kind of destruction that was brought on us.
  One of the things we did in the aftermath of the hurricane was to 
say: OK, let's rescue people. Let's get them the basics. Then we sat 
down and said: What is the order of what we ought to do? No. 1, we need 
to get our people back to work first. Because if we can get them back 
in their jobs, even if they don't have a home or a truck, that will 
begin the return to normalcy. They will have income. Then let's get our 
schools open. Then let's remove the debris. So we had an order. We have 
not done this haphazardly.
  This provision was not stuck in the bill as an afterthought. It was 
carefully done. It was done after looking to see what the actual impact 
was going to be.
  Several shipyards in my area--three of them, as a matter of fact--
owned by VT Halter had ``only'' 20 or 30 feet of water. But this 
shipyard was completely shut down. They made a valiant effort to feed 
people, get people back to work. Now the shipyard is back up to 
probably 11,000 people working there.
  Talk about getting insurance. Let me put the shipyard in my place. My 
wife and I lost our home. It is totally gone. I had flood insurance. I 
also had a household policy. My insurance company said: You had no wind 
damage. We will pay you nothing. After that house sat there for 4 to 6 
hours being hammered by winds of 140 miles an hour with gusts at 160 
and 170, they came back and said: No, you didn't have any wind damage. 
It is not credible. So what am I going to do? I guess I could hock 
everything and rebuild on that site before I get any insurance, but the 
``no payment'' or the ``slow payment'' of insurance companies is 
retarding the entire gulf coast. They are like me; I can't rebuild 
until I get some insurance proceeds.
  They have the problem of how much can they put into this situation 
without getting the plant back up to operation. They have spent $550 
million to clean up this shipyard, repair the facilities, repair the 
ships, and cover the

[[Page 6617]]

cost of business interruption not caused by them. They have done their 
part. In fact, of that $550 million, less than one-third, about $175 
million, has been recouped so far from the shipyard's insurance 
companies. They are going to continue to pursue these insurance claims. 
I hope they are going to get a good settlement and they will be able to 
go forward with business.
  But this shipyard had a billion dollars of damage. This matter is 
about national security. It is about the Navy. It is about the world's 
best ships. It is about men and women who have busted it to get that 
shipyard back on line.
  The same thing has happened in Louisiana, where a lot of work is done 
on the LPDs and where they went back to work before they had a bed to 
sleep in. So this provision is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast 
recovery and to help the Navy maintain the cost and schedules for its 
ships.
  Let me give you a couple of examples of quotes after the hurricane. 
After the hurricane, Assistant Secretary of the Navy John Young 
recognized the significant impact of that storm on Navy shipyard 
building and national defense. In a letter to Navy and Defense 
Department leadership, Secretary Young wrote that:

       The Navy [should] take an aggressive and proactive approach 
     in helping restore shipyards and returning workers to 
     shipbuilding tasks. Importantly, this approach has the short-
     term benefit of contributing in a significant way to the 
     restoration of jobs and the economy in the Gulf Coast.
       Yard restoration delays, loss of the skilled workforce, and 
     ship delivery delays will translate directly into creation in 
     future years of significant new prior year completion bills 
     on Navy shipbuilding programs.

  That was very thoughtful. He was looking at it realistically in the 
immediate aftermath of this terrible storm. He recommended an action 
that was appropriate.
  Some people say it wasn't in the President's budget. Presidents' 
budgets don't come down from heaven. They sometimes don't include 
everything that should be included or maybe it will include something 
that should not be included. We are a coequal branch of government. We 
do have a say in these issues. Sometimes we can help. When it came to 
getting Medicaid for the States affected, we had to take the lead. When 
it came to getting tax incentives for businesses and industry to create 
new jobs, we took the lead. When it came to finding a solution for the 
people who had a home that was not in a flood plain--after the 
hurricane all they had left was a slab, no insurance, no way to 
rebuild, and nobody had a solution--Senator Cochran came up with a 
solution and the administration signed it. They didn't do it; we did it 
in the Congress. We are from there. We are of this situation. We 
understand the problems.
  We are trying to be reasonable. We told our colleagues months ago 
about what we would need to recover. We have not exceeded that 
estimate. We are way under that estimate. In some categories we are not 
even going back and saying we need more, even though we were somewhat 
shortchanged. We are trying hard to help the people who have been dealt 
a grievous blow. If we don't do this, the people in that shipyard will 
be hurt, the Navy will be hurt, and it will cost us more. I want to 
make sure we get the insurance recovery.
  I am a plaintiff for the first time in my life. I didn't want to do 
that. When I met with shipyard officials immediately after the 
hurricane, I went out there, and they were feeding the people on a ship 
that was moored. There was no electricity. I said: What about 
insurance? They said: We are fortunate. We had insurance. We even had a 
clause in there so we feel we are going to get a good recovery.
  Well, it hasn't happened. So we can deal with this realistically and 
in a sensible and thoughtful way, the way Senator Cochran has outlined, 
and I think we will get through it. We will keep the jobs, build the 
ships, help the Navy, help the workers. And we won't lose money in the 
end. The disruption cost, if we don't do this, will be much greater 
than by going ahead and doing this right now.
  I beg my colleagues, bear with us. I know you are beginning to say: 
How much is enough? I don't know in every instance, because we are 
still dealing with the magnitude of this disaster. But we are going to 
try to be honest with you. We are going to try to be thoughtful. I 
believe this language is crafted well. I am proud to be a part of the 
effort to defend the language that is in this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to raise a few points. First, I 
have great respect for the Senators from Mississippi and Louisiana. If 
they will note, my votes have reflected that, when we have sent money 
for both. The President did request $2.5 billion, $2.7 billion for 
this. But he also requested that we not do this specific thing, that we 
not do this. The Senator from Mississippi makes a point they have 
already collected $125 million--actually they told us $125 million, 
maybe it is more--from insurance. They did have a big loss.
  We had a hurricane down there and everybody will agree, because of 
the hurricane, the ships are going to cost more, no matter what we do. 
They are going to cost more because they were delayed. We know that in 
defense contracting. Is it in Northrop Grumman's interest to 
recapitalize this shipyard? Yes. There is no question about it. Do they 
have a positive cashflow of $2.6 billion this year? Yes. The reason we 
should not do this is because there will be no money coming from the 
insurance industry. Under the legal loss doctrine, we will obviate all 
those policies. So by doing this, it is true, any money that comes 
comes back to the Navy. I agree, that is in here. But the fact is, 
there will be no money coming back because they will have and utilize 
in their insurance contracts the legal loss doctrine. That doctrine 
will obviate any obligation, any liability these insurance companies 
have to do it. So the question is, should our kids pay for it, our 
grandkids pay for it, or is it in Northrop Grumman's best interest to 
put the business interruption insurance, which is in litigation, to 
borrow that money or take it out of earnings from cashflow from 
operations right now and then collect the interest on it? Instead, we 
are going to send it on down the pike 30 years to be paid back, and 
$125 or $200 million will become $800 million or $1 billion after 30 
years.
  I would also read into the record part (a), section 2303, ``Amounts 
appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act.'' Going on down, 
``under the heading `Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy' may be 
obligated and expended to pay the costs of any business disruption 
incurred by a ship construction contractor with respect to facilities 
or businesses located in the Hurricane Katrina Disaster area by reason 
of Hurricane Katrina.''
  We do get all four of them, all four segments intentionally, because 
if we don't, then we pay. The insurance industry won't pay. Anything 
that isn't settled at the time this goes through will not be paid for 
by the insurance industry. So if you want to go out and make some money 
today, go buy Factory Mutual insurance. Because if this goes through 
and is a part of it, they made $150 million today with this thing going 
through. They are not going to pay, and they are going to be upheld in 
a court of law.
  This is an established doctrine of law. And if it is already paid for 
by the U.S. taxpayers' grandchildren, then Factory Mutual is not going 
to have to pay for it.
  I understand the intent. I believe the Senators from Mississippi are 
doing what they think is right. I think this is just a step too far 
that doesn't have to be done to truly get going. There are 11,062 
employees in Mississippi right now working for Northrop Grumman. They 
have employees in 38 States. They are a great company and a vital 
contractor. But I would make the case that the cost of ships has gone 
up because we had the hurricane. And it is noble to try to limit that 
increase. This won't limit the increase; this will just increase the 
cost to our grandchildren.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 6618]]


  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise to support the chairman's mark on 
this very important issue relative to the rebuilding of the gulf coast. 
Chairman Cochran has taken great responsibility to shape a supplemental 
bill that asks for what is absolutely crucial to the development of the 
gulf coast. I know that a few of our colleagues may take issue with one 
or more things that are in this bill. But overall, it is a genuine 
attempt to try to give direct and targeted help to the standing up of 
this very important area of the United States that has been hit, as we 
said, not by one hurricane but two hurricanes, two of the worst that 
have ever hit the continental United States since 1837, since 
hurricanes have been recorded, and by the extraordinary flooding that 
took place in a large metropolitan area, not just Orleans Parish, but 
Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard Parish, the heart of America's 
energy coast and the heart of the economic region about which we are 
speaking.
  Inside this region that has been devastated there are over 16,000 
people employed in shipbuilding. We are proud of those shipyards at 
Ingalls, Gulfport, and Avondale. Fortunately, the Avondale shipyard, 
which is in New Orleans, did not sustain tremendous flooding because it 
was on the west bank of the city and, of course, the east bank is the 
part that flooded. We are very fortunate in that regard. There was 
still a tremendous amount of damage at Avondale.
  As my friends from Mississippi said, their shipyard was just 
hammered. We are so grateful that Avondale stood up because we have 
been able to help keep the ships on schedule and get our people 
employed.
  The Senator who is objecting, Mr. Coburn, has been so helpful in 
other ways. I know he wants to make sure we are not double-dipping. He 
keeps referring to the first paragraph of this amendment, but if you 
read the second paragraph of the chairman's mark, it is clear. It says: 
This may not be treated as collateral insurance coverage, so they 
cannot collect twice.
  It is not the chairman's intention or my intention or Senator Lott's 
intention for the company to collect twice. But advancing these 
payments to them in the way this has been drafted will help them get 
these yards back up and running, to get their construction done, and to 
get people hired again. It is very difficult.
  We keep saying--and I know people are tired of hearing this--this was 
not a regular hurricane. It has destroyed so much that not only do 
employers, large and small, have to get their businesses back going, 
they have to go out and literally find their customers. Then they have 
to provide housing for their workers. Then they have to get electricity 
turned on for their workers, then they have to get running water turned 
on for their workers. It is more than our employers can bear, even the 
big ones such as Northrop Grumman.
  We are not asking for a taxpayer bailout. We are not asking for 
double-dipping. The Navy knows what we are doing, and they are 
supportive. The Department of Defense is supportive.
  I came to the floor to ask my colleagues to please support the 
chairman's marks on this to help our shipbuilding. We are not asking 
for double-dipping. When the insurance moneys come in, which I am sure 
they are entitled to do, this language allows the taxpayers to be 
repaid. So we get the benefit of getting our shipyards up and running, 
getting potentially 17,000-plus people between Avondale and Ingalls 
back at work as quickly as we can. Even with this, it is going to be 
very difficult. Without it, it will be almost impossible.
  So I ask my colleagues to please reject the Coburn amendment. I know 
the Senator means well, and he has been extremely helpful and sincere 
in many ways as he has attempted to help us, and we don't want to waste 
any money. But this language makes it clear, not just paragraph A that 
has been read, but by paragraph B, that it is not double-dipping.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Is there further debate?
  Mr. COBURN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to division IV of amendment No. 3641. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Alexander
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Reed
     Santorum
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Thune
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--51

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Dayton
     Dole
     Domenici
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Talent
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  Division IV of amendment No. 3641 was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  Mr. BUNNING. On rollcall vote No. 105, I voted ``nay.'' It was my 
intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent I be 
permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to review 
for a moment that this is an anniversary date of some significance 
which I believe ought to be recognized. It is 3 years ago this week 
that President Bush stood on the deck of the USS Lincoln in front of a 
banner that declared that our mission in Iraq had been accomplished. He 
told our troops and all Americans that major combat operations in Iraq 
have ended 3 years ago this week. At the time, we had lost 139 people, 
139 troops in Iraq. Today, we have lost more than 2,400 American troops 
there, and 2,258 have died since ``Mission Accomplished'' was 
pronounced. In other words, 95 percent of the United States fatalities 
in Iraq occurred after President Bush said major combat was over, and 
tens of thousands of young Americans have suffered injuries, including 
severe head injuries and lost limbs, that will change their lives and 
the lives of their families forever.
  One need only visit Walter Reed Hospital and see what the ravages of 
war have done to so many. The only thing that was accomplished that day 
was a photo opportunity for the President's reelection campaign. When 
we look back at that publicity stunt on that aircraft carrier, we 
realize how wrong the President was. But that was hardly the only major 
conduct error in the judgment of this war.
  Recently, a number of retired generals have come forward to say what 
many in the military have been thinking for years. These officers know 
that

[[Page 6619]]

our men and women in uniform have been let down by the miscalculations 
and the incompetence of the Bush administration. The troops on the 
battlefield pay with their lives, but nobody in the administration has 
been held accountable.
  The generals say we can't move forward without accountability. They 
say that the Secretary of Defense must go. The generals are right. 
Secretary Rumsfeld has made too many mistakes to stay in that job. As 
the old expression says, when you are in a hole, stop digging.
  Let's recount the miscalculations of the Secretary of Defense. Before 
the war, he said, ``We know where the weapons of mass destruction are. 
They are in the area around Tikrit and Bagdhad, and east, west, south 
and north, somewhat.''
  But now we know there was no solid evidence before the war that Iraq 
had any WMDs. None were found when the United States invaded the 
country in March, and none have been found since. That was over 3 years 
ago.
  Secretary Rumsfeld also said that the Iraqis would welcome U.S. 
troops and that the Iraqi resistance would be limited. Obviously way 
off. Not only did Secretary Rumsfeld fail to build coalitions with our 
allies, he flippantly, arrogantly dismissed them as ``old Europe,'' 
alienating these allies when he should have been reaching out to them. 
The result of a failure to build a real coalition is that our troops 
are bearing the risks and suffering the casualties.
  There were other serious miscalculations. Secretary Rumsfeld said the 
war would be short. On February 7, 2003, he said:

       The war could last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt 6 months.

  Secretary Rumsfeld also rejected calls for a larger number of troops. 
He even pushed out GEN Eric Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff, when 
General Shinseki, a distinguished leader, a military leader, suggested 
that postwar Iraq would require many more forces than the 100,000 
troops we had on the ground. As I remember, he said over 300,000.
  Secretary Rumsfeld was also way off on the cost of the war. He said 
it would cost at least $10 billion but no more than $100 billion. We 
now see the actual costs coming close to $500 billion.
  Despite all of the funds devoted to the war, Secretary Rumsfeld has 
failed to equip our troops properly. After more than 3 years, thousands 
of Army and Marine Corps personnel still do not have adequate body 
armor or sufficient armor for their humvees. When I was there over 3 
years ago, I heard the plea then from soldiers from New Jersey: Give us 
the flak vest, Senator, that you are wearing, the latest technology. 
They will protect us. Please let us have that.
  We know what happened with the humvees and the resulting serious 
injuries because of inadequate armor for the humvees.
  In December 2004, in a meeting with U.S. troops in Kuwait, some 
soldiers raised these concerns with Secretary Rumsfeld. His response 
was offensive; humiliating for our troops who are serving there. He 
said, ``As you know, you go to war with the Army you have, not the Army 
you might want or wish to have at a later time.''
  I don't know what was meant by that statement but it certainly is a 
slur in many ways.
  I must say that what I find incredibly offensive is this 
administration still will not allow photographs of flag-draped coffins 
when they return to our shore and come into Dover, DE, which is the 
repository for the remains. It is such an honor to recognize the 
sacrifice made by having a flag draped over the coffin. Yet that honor 
of our fallen troops is shielded from the American people by the order 
of the President of the United States.
  It doesn't make sense to me, and I know it doesn't make sense to 
those families.
  It isn't just civilians upset by these events. We have now heard 
eight retired generals call for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation, 
citing gross mismanagement and profound errors in judgment.
  Retired Army MG Paul Eaton, in charge of training the Iraqi military 
from 2003 to 2004, recently wrote in the New York Times that Rumsfeld 
``has shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and 
tactically . . . Mr. Rumsfeld must step down.''
  Retired Marine GEN Anthony Zinni, an outstanding leader, former head 
of the U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle East, last month 
called for Mr. Rumsfeld to resign.
  Other military leaders who have called for Secretary Rumsfeld to go 
include retired Marine LTG Gregory Newbold; retired Army MG John Riggs; 
retired Marine GEN Paul Van Riper; retired Army MG John Batiste; 
retired Army MG Charles Swannack, former Commander of the 82nd Airborne 
in Iraq; and retired U.S. Army GEN Wesley Clark.
  In addition, we are now seeing people of lower ranks who are upset 
with the way that campaign has gone and are expressing their 
dissatisfaction.
  We see also a phenomenon we haven't seen before; that is, people 
filling out their obligatory term at the Academy and a third of whom do 
not stay on. They finish their obligatory terms of 5 years and they are 
gone. It is a serious problem in many ways. Morally, I think it is a 
serious problem, but also functionally we don't have the personnel 
supporting the war in the way we had hoped. Whole branches of services 
over there are as courageous as can be. It is very dangerous territory, 
and they serve bravely. We owe them a debt of gratitude.
  The fact is the Bush administration has made serious mistakes in 
prosecuting the war in Iraq, and our soldiers have paid the price. Our 
troops deserve better.
  On the third anniversary of President Bush's ``Mission Accomplished'' 
fiasco, I hope that the President finds the strength to make real 
changes. And those changes need to start at the top.
  I urge the President to be more specific about what our assignment 
is. He has already said it will be up to another President to take care 
of what continues there. Unfortunately, we have to believe that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if 
in morning business for 5 to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              War in Iraq

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, war is difficult. War is not pretty. 
Sometimes war, unfortunately, leads to death and injury.
  Our country has been blessed over our history. There have been men 
and women who believe enough in our system, who believe enough in the 
system of democracy that we are so fortunate and blessed to have, who 
are willing to give their lives so this system may endure, so this 
system may continue, so that our country can continue to be free.
  I believe, as we look at a difficult situation in Iraq, the last 
thing we need is a policy of defeatism, is a policy that looks to ways 
in which we can criticize and critique without offering an alternative 
path and without offering an alternative solution.
  The fact is there was a worldwide failure of intelligence in the days 
leading up to the war in Iraq, but the fact also is that we are there 
today and that thousands of Americans--the best and the brightest, 
those we are the proudest of--are there serving this Nation with 
distinction, with valor, and I daresay with great success. Our hope for 
them must be that they complete their mission and come home; that they 
can come home with their heads held high for a job well done.
  I also believe that the civilian concept of leadership of our 
military is well ingrained in our system. I had the high and distinct 
honor and privilege of serving in the Cabinet of this President with 
Secretary Rumsfeld. Secretary Rumsfeld is a man of great distinction. 
He is also someone who has tackled the very difficult job of 
transforming our Armed Forces. He has taken on the very difficult job 
of moving forward into a post-cold war sort of world with an Armed 
Forces that is very different

[[Page 6620]]

than the one we have had. Any time a large bureaucracy undergoes 
change, there is difficulty with that change. And sometimes there are 
different opinions about how that change takes place. And there is no 
doubt that there are people who have had different ideas about how to 
approach, whether it is a war effort, whether it is a reorganization of 
our Armed Forces from those of Secretary Rumsfeld, but to those who 
have had those kind of difficult ideas I would say that we elect only 
one President at a time, and that President has only one Secretary of 
Defense at a time. That is why we have a chain of command because 
someone has to lead and someone has to make decisions.
  I believe our country, at a time when we were unfairly and unwantonly 
attacked by terrorists, has been fortunate to have a President at hand 
who has had the good fortune to have dedicated people such as Secretary 
Rumsfeld at the helm to serve at his side.
  This is a President who did not seek a war with terrorists but who 
had a war brought to us in the streets of New York, with over 3,000 
American casualties on a given day. And the fact is that this President 
was also confronted with the need to act on this global war on terror.
  I can remember when in the mountains of Afghanistan there seemed to 
be a stalemate after about a month or 2 of our initial conflict there, 
and the naysayers were saying we had not sent enough troops. All of a 
sudden, a tremendous breakthrough in modern warfare took place as we 
saw our special forces operating on the backs of horses with laptop 
computers directing fire, and a whole new era of warfare evolved. But 
we liberated the people of Afghanistan, who since then have had 
elections, where women and children of all sexes can now go to school, 
where women can now walk the streets without fear, where children can 
go to school, whether they be little boys or little girls. They have 
had that unique opportunity in the world which we take for granted in 
our country.
  But for those of us who were born in other places, we understand the 
uniqueness of voting and have had the right and opportunity to elect 
leaders.
  More recently, 11 million Iraqis voted in the third election in 1 
year, followed by the formation after some politicking and some good, 
old-fashioned Democratic horse trading, have formed a government.
  The moment today ought to be to highlight the hope of a new Iraq, the 
hope of a democracy in the Middle East, which is so unique to that 
region of the world, the fact that a new government has been formed--
not to try to recount all of the potential for different moves at any 
given point.
  All warfare is riddled with difficulties and second-guessing. But 
here we have a moment of hope and opportunity. Defeatism is not a 
policy. It is only a prescription for failure.
  I am hopeful that as we go forward, we recognize the successes of the 
Iraqi people and the difficult task of forming a democracy; that we 
relish in the accomplishments; that we understand it is an incomplete 
project in democracy but one moving in the right direction.
  I, for one, thank all of those who are serving in these difficult 
circumstances over there and their families for the sacrifices they are 
making so that we might be successful, so that we might find a way 
forward that is better than defeat and is better than negativism and 
that is better than second-guessing.


                           Amendment No. 3727

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3727.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott], for himself and 
     Mr. Dodd, proposes an amendment numbered 3727.

  Mr. LOTT. 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 provide funding for the Election Assistance Commission to 
make discretionary payments to States affected by Hurricane Katrina and 
                other hurricanes during the 2005 season)

       On page 203, strike line 8 and insert the following:

                          INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

                     Election Assistance Commission


                          Election Assistance

       For purposes of making discretionary payments to States 
     affected by Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes during the 
     2005 season to restore and replace supplies, materials, 
     records, equipment, and technology used in the administration 
     of Federal elections and to ensure the full participation of 
     individuals displaced by such hurricanes, $30,000,000: 
     Provided, That any such funds shall be used in a manner that 
     is consistent with title III of the Help America Vote Act of 
     2002: Provided further, That the amount provided under this 
     heading is designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to 
     section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th Congress), the 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been 
cleared on both sides. I am pleased to join Senator Dodd, who is a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  Speaking of elections in Iraq, we also hope to have effective and 
fair and open elections in America.
  In the Katrina area, we had significant damage to polling places and 
to voting machines. We lost all of them in many areas--in New Orleans, 
South Louisiana, and Mississippi.
  This amendment would provide $30 million, through the Federal 
Elections Commission, for replacement of those losses.
  I have checked on both sides of the aisle. I find no objection. I 
know that our managers have cleared it.
  I, therefore, urge my colleagues to accept it. The amendment is 
certainly very worthwhile. It is needed, and it is needed right away in 
order to prepare for elections this fall.
  I yield the floor so my colleague, Senator Dodd, can further 
elucidate.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I thank the 
chairman and ranking member for their acceptance of this amendment.
  I point out to my colleagues that I was looking over some of the data 
involving the need for this appropriation.
  In Louisiana, four of the most heavily impacted parishes, not 
counting New Orleans, a total of 60 polling places the hurricane simply 
swept away. These parishes lack basic services, such as electricity, 
generators, rest rooms, lights, and the like, creating some serious 
problems. We were told that FEMA would not allow for an allocation of 
funds in this kind of a situation--even Federal elections. It does not 
meet the test of assistance under the Stafford Act.
  We point out to our colleagues that New York City officials were in 
the process of holding a primary election on September 11 when they 
were interrupted by the terrorist attack. FEMA in that case allowed $8 
million for the city of New York to allow for the election process to 
go forward.
  There are other precedents, indeed, which fall under the emergency 
category.
  Elections are a number of weeks away, and certainly providing 
assistance for the most basic of all of our functioning as citizens, to 
make sure that every person in these Gulf State areas is able to cast a 
vote and have their vote count is something we all embrace.
  We appreciate the managers of this amendment allowing this kind of 
additional appropriation on this bill.
  Over 8 months ago, the lives of many Americans living in the Gulf 
Coast region of the United States were subject to the devastating 
natural disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  Today, those impacted by the hurricanes face many of the same 
problems faced immediately after the storms--no homes, no jobs, no 
community infrastructure, and no guarantee that their lives will return 
to normal any time soon.
  And in this election year, many of these same individuals now also 
face the potential that their communities will be unable to guarantee 
that they will be able to cast a vote and have that vote counted in the 
mid-term federal elections. This is simply unacceptable in America.

[[Page 6621]]

  There are still areas of the Gulf Coast that are without basic 
services, such as electricity, and many areas that are still mucking 
out homes and demolishing buildings.
  The hope and desire to rebuild their communities and restore some 
sense of normalcy is alive and well in the Gulf Coast. But these 
communities need help. And that is clearly the case when it comes to 
federal elections.
  In Louisiana, four of the most heavily impacted parishes--not 
counting New Orleans--must recreate a total of 60 polling places. The 
hurricanes simply swept them away or destroyed them beyond use.
  These parishes lack basic services such as electricity, generators, 
restrooms, or lights which are necessary to hold an election.
  But FEMA is taking the position that the conduct of elections--even 
federal elections--does not meet the test for assistance under the 
Stafford Act.
  That is a curious position for FEMA to take since that agency did 
provide election assistance to both New York City, following 9-11, and 
to Miami-Dade County, Florida, following Hurricane Andrew in 1992.
  In the case of Miami-Dade--which faced a very similar situation to 
what the Gulf Coast faces today--FEMA provided temporary polling 
places, water, generators, lights, fans and portable restroom 
facilities on election day. FEMA also provided trailers for absentee 
voting in the September primary.
  More importantly, FEMA even reimbursed Miami-Dade for the costs of 
holding the election that were over and above the normal costs of the 
election.
  In New York City, officials were in the process of holding primary 
elections on September 11 when they were interrupted by the terrorist 
attack. Elections were rescheduled two weeks later, and FEMA reimbursed 
the state roughly $8 million for the costs involved in cancelling and 
rescheduling the primary election.
  The Katrina impacted States are not asking for anything that has not 
been provided by FEMA before for the conduct of elections following a 
natural disaster.
  And yet, when these States have requested assistance to conduct 
elections--including federal elections--following what has been 
described as the most devastating hurricane season to ever hit the 
region, FEMA has balked.
  The federal Election Assistance Commission, established in 2002 under 
the Help America Vote Act, has attempted to work with impacted states 
in order to help identify both the requirements for ensuring accurate 
and accessible federal elections and potential sources of assistance 
for these communities.
  To date, FEMA has come up largely emptyhanded. So far, FEMA has been 
willing to only reimburse states for the uninsured loss of certain 
polling equipment, machines, supplies and storage facilities. In the 
case of Louisiana, that has amounted to just over $1 million.
  But Louisiana officials estimate that the state will face costs of up 
to $18 million this year to hold elections--well in excess of what FEMA 
has been willing to certify to date. Similarly, Mississippi officials 
anticipate un-reimbursed expenses for holding elections to total $7.8 
million while Alabama faces nearly $3 million in un-reimbursed costs.
  And there is little reason to expect FEMA to offer more assistance. 
In a letter addressed to Paul DeGregorio, Chairman of the Election 
Assistance Commission, dated March 9 of this year, FEMA advises the EAC 
that--and I quote from the letter:

       FEMA does not have the authority to pay for operating costs 
     related to the conduct of elections.

  Well if FEMA does not, then who does?
  I would suggest to my colleagues that the Election Assistance 
Commission not only has the expertise to accurately access the 
requirements and costs of holding federal elections, but they are in a 
better position to do so.
  Consequently, the amendment my distinguished colleague, Senator Lott, 
the Chairman of the Rules Committee, and I are offering today.
  It is a very modest and targeted amendment. It provides $30 million 
to the Election Assistance Commission to provide grants to eligible 
states impacted by these natural disasters to restore and replace 
supplies, materials, records, equipment and technology used in the 
administration of federal elections and to ensure the full 
participation of individuals displaced by the 2005 hurricanes.
  This amendment is supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of voting 
rights activists and election officials, headed by the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights and the National Association of Secretaries 
of States. Joining in support of the amendment is the National 
Association of Counties, the National Association of Election 
Officials, the National Association of State Election Directors, and 
the National Conference of State Legislatures.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be included in the Record 
following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit I.)
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, these funds will enable the states to 
establish temporary polling places, secure generators for running the 
electronic voting machines, provide basic sanitation services for poll 
workers and voters, such as water and portable restroom facilities.
  Congress has taken great efforts to address the immediate needs of 
those affected by the hurricanes. Now Congress must take additional 
steps to assist the long-term needs of these communities as they 
rebuild and move forward.
  Ensuring the integrity of federal elections in these states by 
guaranteeing that the people of the Gulf Coast have access to a polling 
place is the very least this Congress can do.
  Senator Lott and I first brought these anticipated needs to the 
attention of the Senate last October. At that time we noted the loss of 
polling places, election equipment, and election records in the 
impacted states. While we did not have reliable cost estimates at that 
time, we served notice that as the committee of jurisdiction over 
federal elections, we would come back to the Senate as the full extent 
of the damage and its potential impact on the 2006 federal elections 
became clear.
  Well, by last December it had become clear that the states could not 
reconstruct the infrastructure to conduct federal elections without 
assistance.
  And so in December Chairman Lott and I introduced the ``Hurricane 
Election Relief Act of 2005.'' This bill authorizes the necessary 
funding to aid impacted states in the conduct of federal elections this 
year, consistent with the Help America Vote Act--HAVA.
  Specifically, it provides federal funding to impacted states to 
restore and replace supplies, materials, records, equipment and 
technology that were damaged, destroyed, or dislocated as result of the 
storms. The bill directs the Election Assistance Commission to 
determine need and disburse grants to eligible states.
  The Senate passed this measure by unanimous consent on February 9. A 
House companion bill, H.R. 4140, ``Ensuring Ballot Access for 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Victims Act of 2005,'' was introduced by 
Representative Millender-McDonald.
  It is imperative that Congress ensure that affected states have the 
resources necessary to conduct federal elections this year in a fair 
and accurate manner. It is equally imperative that all eligible voters 
affected by these natural disasters have an opportunity to participate 
in their democracy.
  Being displaced by a hurricane should not result in being 
disenfranchised from a federal election.
  Each affected state will have its own challenges. For example, 
according to the Secretary of State in Louisiana, over 400,000 
registered voters are dispersed in 49 states.
  While fewer voters were displaced in Mississippi, the election 
infrastructure was completely destroyed or severely damaged by winds 
and surges, according to the Secretary of State of Mississippi.
  In Alabama, the Secretary of State has indicated that their allocated 
election costs were spent not on conducting elections, but removing 
debris

[[Page 6622]]

and repairing election infrastructure following the hurricanes.
  Other states have been impacted, to a lesser extent, by the influx of 
temporary residents displaced by the hurricanes. In many of those 
states, displaced citizens may have decided not to return home but to 
become residents of the host state, thereby adding to the election 
administration responsibilities of those jurisdictions.
  The amendment we are offering today will ensure that these unforseen 
needs are met and that the federal elections required this year are 
accessible, accurate, and transparent.
  Regardless of the funding needs of the impacted states, one thing is 
clear. They are similarly situated with all other states conducting 
2006 federal elections. They have a solemn duty to protect and preserve 
the constitutionally guaranteed right of each eligible voter to cast a 
vote and have that vote counted.
  The impacted states are prepared to work hard to secure the rights of 
our nation's voters and they will conduct these elections with whatever 
resources are available to them. But the access to the ballot box 
should not depend upon whether or not a state has recovered from an 
unprecedented series of natural disasters.
  And voters are ready to work hard and participate in the governance 
and rebuilding of their communities, no matter what the damage 
inflicted on them by nature. But their ability to participate in our 
democracy through the ballot box should not depend upon whether their 
community has been successfully rebuilt.
  It is essential that we join together to ensure that all states 
impacted by these natural disasters have the resources to conduct 
timely federal elections that fully enfranchise all eligible voters.
  This is literally our last opportunity to provide these funds in time 
to make a difference. It would be irresponsible not to ensure that 
these states have sufficient resources to conduct federal elections 
this year. The health of our democracy depends upon it.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

                               Exhibit I

                     Make Election Reform A Reality


support gulf coast states in their extraordinary efforts to administer 
                        elections after katrina

                                                   April 24, 2006.
       Dear Senators: We, the undersigned organizations, urge you 
     assist Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama in their efforts to 
     hold meaningful elections in the aftermath of Hurricane 
     Katrina. We are asking for $50 million in the upcoming 
     Emergency Supplemental Appropriations legislation for those 
     states in their efforts to administer transparent and 
     accountable elections.
       It is imperative that the citizens of the Gulf Coast region 
     are provided with the opportunity to participate in the 
     critical and difficult decision making that each of these 
     states face in the foreseeable future. Every election 
     presents states with challenges, but never before has there 
     been such great potential for disenfranchisement than in the 
     elections the Gulf Coast states are facing this year.
       Voters have been displaced, voting equipment has been 
     destroyed or severely damaged and polling places have been 
     leveled. The outcome of the devastation is that county 
     budgets which were strained before the hurricane have now 
     been depleted dealing with issues like debris removal and 
     infrastructure rebuilding. Many of the businesses have shut 
     down, thereby reducing or eliminating a tax base for those 
     counties. The funding is just not available at the state and 
     local level to rebuild the elections infrastructure.
       Time is of the essence. Starting this month and running 
     through the summer, all of these states have primary 
     elections for local and federal offices.
       The officials and residents of the Gulf Coast states are 
     extremely grateful for the support from all levels of 
     government and from the many Americans who have been devoted 
     to helping them rebuild and move forward. We look forward to 
     working with you on this critical issue. Should you have any 
     questions, please contact Leslie Reynolds of the National 
     Association of Secretaries of State at (202) 624-3525 or Val 
     Frias of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights at (202) 
     263-2852, or any of the individual organizations listed 
     below.
           Sincerely,
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
       National Association of Counties,
       National Association of Election Officials,
       National Association of Secretaries of State,
       National Association of State Election Directors,
       National Conference of State Legislatures.

  Mr. DODD. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3727) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. 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 Oklahoma.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division V, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so I may call up Coburn amendment No. 3641, 
Division V, and I ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, 
Division V is withdrawn.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division VI, withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Division VI 
of amendment No. 3641 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I have every intention of withdrawing this 
amendment. But I wish to mention for a moment that this is an amendment 
that would have removed $20 million from the National Marine Fisheries 
Service to study catch, bycatch, shrimp and relief and fishery 
profitability in the Gulf--the study of profitability. We are going to 
spend $20 million to study profitability.
  The Louisiana Seafood and Marketing Board considers this to be 
unnecessary spending and a low priority.
  That is what the people who market the seafood from Louisiana said 
about this amendment.
  I am not going to put us through a vote on it, but I think we ought 
to pay attention to the people down there who are now saying they don't 
need $20 million for marketing and studying. They believe it is a waste 
of money. When the people of Louisiana are telling us it is wasted 
money, it is certainly wasted money.
  I ask unanimous consent it be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division VII, withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3641, Division 
VII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The division is pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I don't intend to ask for a vote on this 
amendment and may, in fact, withdraw it, but I think it is something 
that the American people should know. This is about AmericaCorps, the 
National Civilian Community Corps.
  There are three things we ought to know. The idea behind this is 
fine. They have done a great deal of work on the gulf coast. However, 
there are some real problems with this program. The House also has 
significant problems with this program.
  Here is the key point: It has never had a comprehensive evaluation in 
13 years to see if it accomplishes anything of importance. Compared to 
all the other AmeriCorps service programs, this one is about 50 percent 
more costly per person. This one costs $28,000 per volunteer for 10 
months. That annualized out to $34,000 per person per year.
  No. 3, no one is measuring any performance. There are no set goals. 
No one is saying what they are intended to accomplish? How do we 
measure that? Could we do it cheaper? Can we do it a better way? None 
of that has been evaluated on this program.
  People will oppose this. I have no lack of reality in knowing we do 
not have an opportunity to eliminate this money. However, contrast what 
actually happened on the gulf coast with this AmeriCorps. We had people 
from all over this country go down and help. We didn't pay them a 
penny. We did not pay them a $35,000 annualized salary. We had college 
students from all

[[Page 6623]]

across this country spend their spring breaks, their Christmas breaks, 
their Thanksgiving breaks on the gulf coast volunteering. We had 
churches, civic organizations, local charities, we did not pay them a 
penny. They all came because there was a need.
  There is something very wrong behind the idea that we have to pay 
people to be volunteers. As a matter of fact, it is an oxymoron. You 
cannot have a paid volunteer because they are not volunteering if they 
are getting paid. The motivation and commitment shown by true 
volunteers is unmatched by any congressional appropriation. The Nation 
is answering the call to be Good Samaritans and treat others the way 
they want to be treated.
  This program was started in 1993 with good goals, and the purpose was 
to create leadership. We may have done that, but the fact that we do 
not know if we have done that, the fact that we keep throwing this 
money--which does not go to the individual volunteers; $4,000 does, but 
it costs too much to operate.
  I will ask unanimous consent for withdrawing of this division, but we 
certainly ought to have some oversight. I intend to have an oversight 
hearing in the Committee on Federal Financial Oversight.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the division.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Amendment No. 3627, as Modified

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to ask unanimous consent amendment 
No. 3627 be called up. Also, I request unanimous consent it be modified 
according to the modification I am sending to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment will be so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3627), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:


    SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF FROM HURRICANE KATRINA AND HURRICANE RITA

       Sec. 7032. (a) Section 3(p)(1) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 632(p)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) an area in which the President has declared a major 
     disaster (as that term is defined in section 102 of the 
     Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)) as a result of Hurricane Katrina of 
     August 2005 or Hurricane Rita of September 2005.''.
       (b) Section 711(d) of the Small Business Competitive 
     Demonstration Program Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 644 note) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Program'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Program''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Exception.--The Program shall not apply to any 
     contract related to relief or reconstruction from Hurricane 
     Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.''.
       (c) The amendments made by subsections (a) and (b) shall be 
     effective for the period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of the Act and ending on October 1, 2008.

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, this amendment is a very important hub 
zone small business amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the 
aisle and with all the relevant committee chairs and ranking members. I 
ask unanimous consent the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3627), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. VITTER. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3704

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are pending amendments.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment numbered 3704.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Reserving the right to object, I don't believe we have 
seen this amendment. If the Senator would share the amendment with us 
quickly, we can take a quick look at it.
  Mr. President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3704.

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

(Purpose: To provide, with an offset, $20,000,000 for the Department of 
                Veterans Affairs for Medical Facilities)

       On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:


           MEDICAL FACILITIES, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

       Sec. 7032. (a) Availability of Amount.--There is 
     appropriated for the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     Veterans Health Administration for Medical Facilities, 
     $20,000,000, with the entire amount designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res 
     95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2006.
       (b) Offset.--The amount appropriated by chapter 7 of title 
     II of this Act under the heading ``National and Community 
     Service Programs, Operating Expenses'' is hereby reduced by 
     $20,000,000.

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield myself 5 
minutes to speak to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THUNE. I rise to offer an amendment on behalf of America's 
veterans. My amendment provides an additional $20 million for veterans 
health care, offset by striking $20 million appropriated under this 
supplemental for the AmeriCorps Program.
  Among other things, my amendment provides more funding for the 
implementation of the provisions of the 2004 CARES Act, or capital 
asset realignment for enhanced services decision, submitted by the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for enhanced VA service, as well as other 
actions designed to help the VA provide better and more accessible care 
to our Nation's veterans.
  As we seek to restrain spending, we must carefully scrutinize our 
priorities. Our veterans must take priority over programs and some of 
the other priorities we are trying to address in the budget. My 
amendment does this with AmeriCorps. We must do everything we can in a 
fiscally responsible way to ensure our veterans receive the health care 
they require.
  While we provide a generous funding of over $30 billion for VA health 
care for the current fiscal year, there is still room for improvement, 
if we can do so in a way that does not force us to spend beyond our 
means.
  This is particularly true as we take care of those veterans who have 
returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, this amendment is 
particularly important for veterans living in rural and geographically 
isolated areas. For example, the VA's Midwest health care network, 
which serves South Dakota, is the most rural and covers the largest 
geographic region of any veterans integrated service network in the 
Nation. It is therefore one of my highest priorities to ensure that 
veterans living in rural areas continue to see growth in the VA's 
ability to reach out to our rural veterans and provide adequate care 
for them.
  For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I simply say, as a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, one 
of the debates we often have at the committee level is how, on a 
consistent basis, we have to borrow from the medical facilities account 
to fund ongoing operations, to fund veterans health care.
  What this amendment simply does is, in an offset way, in a paid-for 
way, force us to make choices. Obviously, the budget process is always 
about choices, about where we are going to invest, where we are going 
to put our limited resources. In this era of budgetary constraint, it 
is important we make choices that are consistent with the priorities I 
believe we ought to be addressing in this country, one of which is the 
importance of our veterans, in making sure we are putting the 
appropriate funding levels in place not only to provide health care for 
our

[[Page 6624]]

veterans but to make sure those facilities out there that are in need 
of improvement, that are in need of additional dollars for construction 
or rehabilitation or whatever the case may be, that there are dollars 
in place that would enable us to meet that very important need.
  Again, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe it 
does reflect a priority that is important to Members of the Senate, 
certainly a priority that is important to members of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, and done in a way that is offset, that is paid for, 
and more accurately reflects on what we ought to be spending tax 
dollars.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent my amendment be laid aside, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish I would have thought of that 
amendment. It is a great amendment.
  The Senator from South Dakota makes the point, we have to make 
decisions about priorities. When we have an unproven volunteer program 
that is more expensive than any other volunteer program, and we are 
putting an extra $20 million on the basis of emergency versus 
fulfilling the obligations to those people who have made the ultimate 
sacrifice and paid the price and served this country and put their 
lives in danger doing so, it is a no-brainer that we ought to be 
spending the money on the veterans rather than a program that has not 
proven to be effective, not proven to match a performance goal, and not 
proven even to be measuring itself in the 13 years of its existence.
  I support the Senator's amendment.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division VIII, Withdrawn

  With that, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside and amendment 
No. 3641, division VIII, be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I do not intend on asking for a vote on 
this amendment, but I highlight this amendment because of the problems 
implicit in this request.
  In this supplemental is a request for $230 million, an earmark, for 
three additional Osprey V-22 airplanes. The Pentagon, in 2005, formally 
approved full rate production of the V-22: 360 for the Marine Corps, 48 
for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force. The Pentagon has ordered 90 as 
of today.
  This plane is not yet proven, one, and I will not go into the debate 
on that. It cannot even have full testing and cannot be used in the 
battlefield.
  The point is, there is no emergency need to order these planes. This 
plane is manufactured in Texas and Pennsylvania. The Pentagon did not 
request this. The President did not request it. What we have is people 
requesting it.
  We have a plane that has not met performance tests yet, has not been 
battle proven, and we are adding three airplanes for which some would 
raise a good question as to whether it ought to be done in this way. It 
ought to be done through an authorization and through the regular 
process.
  I know this is in the mark. I am not sure the chairman is supportive 
of it, and I will not ask for the vote, but I don't think this is the 
way we ought to buy airplanes, especially when it is not an emergency.
  There are numerous problems. Most of them have been corrected, but 
there still have been numerous problems. This is the problem with 
earmarks. We are adding something that is not authorized, a plane that 
has had tremendous developmental difficulties, that the Pentagon does 
not want, the President does not want, yet we want. Why do we want it? 
Because, for some reason, we end up either employing more people on 
something that may not eventually work to the military's satisfaction 
or we get benefits from it in terms of political expediency.
  I believe it is the wrong way to go. I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division IX, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that we proceed to the consideration of 
amendment No. 3641, division IX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the division is pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this division 
be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division X, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that division X be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3641, Division XI

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
division XI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I find myself bringing an amendment again 
against two of my friends who have a significant stake. They are both 
from Mississippi. They have looked at this issue a great deal.
  What I want to do is raise the issues with a debate on the amendment, 
and then possibly talk about solutions.
  During Katrina, the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS, was 
damaged. The first floor was damaged significantly. It required and 
necessitated us moving those veterans to other retirement homes.
  We need to remedy that. There are lots of options on the table. I 
talked with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and there are 
a lot of good ideas coming out on how to solve that problem.
  The problem I have is, we allocated $45 million for this in the last 
year, and $44 million of it remains in the bank and has not been spent. 
This bill has $176 million, but it does not tell us what we are going 
to do with it. It just has $176 million.
  So that brings us to a quarter of a billion dollars on this 
retirement home that houses 600 of our best, who have proven they have 
been our best through their service to our country.
  Now, if you divide this out, you come to almost $400,000 per room, if 
we created a new style. And the plans, the proposals are all in the 
$480 million and $490 million range that have been offered up on the 
different options.
  Congressman Gene Taylor from Mississippi, in the debate on this 
issue, says we can fully restore this facility to what it was 
beforehand for $80 to $90 million. That is what the estimates are. 
Private industry estimates for a brand-new naval home facility are that 
it could be built to the desired standards--that means up to date for 
Americans with disabilities; up to date on size, doors; up to date on 
the ability to handle people with advanced aging and disease and long-
term consequences--for $125 million to $150 million.
  So the question I raise with this amendment is not whether we should 
do it. It is: We have $221 million, after this bill goes through, that 
is going to be for that, and we are not through, and there is nothing 
in the report language that would direct us on how we are going to make 
a decision on spending this money and what it is going to go for.
  I will agree with the goal of the chairman that we ought to replace 
this facility, and those people involved in that area ought to have a 
lot to say about it. My concern is the cost. If you really take the 
$589.54 million, which is option No. 1 that is coming out for this, and 
the estimate that it will take 13 years to get us back to where we 
were, that is $1 million a room.
  I want to contrast that with what we can do for $1 million. If you 
look at the average price of a new home in Mississippi for a single 
person to live in, it is less than $80,000 a year. We could buy every 
veteran who lives in that home a brand-new home and provide nursing 
care for 10 years--for 10 years--for what is being proposed in 
replacing this.
  So my real question is, what is the plan? Where is the commonsense 
oversight? How much are we going to spend? And before we send more 
money in an emergency appropriations, we ought to know what that is, 
and that ought to be decided before we spend

[[Page 6625]]

more money, especially since $44 million that has been appropriated has 
not been spent.
  All I am saying is that we should consider that. I would hope we 
would wait to send additional supplemental money for this until we know 
exactly where it is going to go or specify exactly where it is going to 
go.
  We do know that to be considered an emergency we need to meet the 
requirements. I believe we need to meet the requirements for our 
veterans, especially in this home because we have some of them in 
Washington, DC, and we have them living all across the country. But the 
fact is, we don't know where the money is going to go. We don't know 
how much money we are going to spend. We don't have a plan. Nothing is 
agreed to. Why not go through the regular process with this? Why not go 
through the authorization and appropriation process on this since we 
have not spent the money already and we don't know how this money is 
going to be spent?
  So it is a simple, straightforward question: Wouldn't it make more 
sense to do it under the regular order since this is definitely not an 
emergency now? Under their five different plans they have offered up, 
this would not be an emergency.
  I would ask the consideration of the chairman if we could do it in a 
better, more efficient way that is better for the taxpayer; if, in 
fact, we could withdraw this money at this time and bring it back 
through the regular order to accomplish that?
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, 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. BURR. 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. 3713

  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendment aside and call up amendment No. 3713.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is pending.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I will be brief because I know we are in 
debate on another amendment.
  Avian flu is the concern of not just this Congress but of this 
country and the rest of the world. As it has spread by migratory 
birds--and in some instances around the world--it has infected humans. 
It is the responsible thing on the part of this country to prepare for 
that.
  Part of preparation is not only being prepared for the human side, it 
is being prepared to track its entry and possible migration through the 
United States. Today we have devoted, with the leadership of the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, moneys to the Fish and 
Wildlife Service to successfully do that, and we do it between Russia 
and Alaska. Unfortunately, there is a lot of geography in North America 
that goes uncovered and has routes for migratory birds.
  My amendment is simple. We would like to reprogram $5 million of 
surveillance money that is in this emergency spending bill to the 
Smithsonian, directed to work with all of their nonprofit affiliates to 
set up a migratory bird surveillance program. This Congress has 
committed a tremendous amount of dollars to be prepared and to respond 
if bird flu becomes a human-to-human transmission. If we look around 
the world at successes, one would look at Taiwan and Japan 
specifically, where their migratory birds surveillance program 
detected, contained, and eliminated on their islands the infection. 
That is not to say that they are home free, but they certainly have a 
track record of eliminating the threat, even before it hit in total 
their domestic population of poultry.
  We are concerned about the human-to-human transmission. With that 
concern has come a tremendous amount of resources from the Federal 
Government. It deserves us spending as much time focused on the 
economic impact before human-to-human transmission. I think it is safe 
to say that a majority of this country can be affected with our poultry 
flocks, and we have an opportunity, with a successful surveillance 
program, to make sure that we do what Japan and Taiwan did, and that is 
detect its entry, try to contain it, try to eliminate it when it first 
enters.
  I am not sure that we have an entity that has a track record of doing 
what we are asking the Smithsonian. In the past, the Appropriations 
Committee has devoted some funds to some entities that suggested they 
could do it. The reality is they are not doing it today. This effort is 
to take an agency, a Federal arm, and to try to extend to them the 
resources to do what they say they can do and that is a successful 
migratory bird surveillance program.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment. Without it, we have no 
hope of a surveillance program for migratory birds, with the exception 
of what we currently do in Alaska with Fish and Wildlife. We have a 
commitment to make sure that the efforts of the Smithsonian and their 
successes are integrated into the database of Fish and Wildlife. This 
is not to duplicate. It is not to create something that might be a 
threat to the existing program we have under way. It is to complement 
it. It is to say that we understand this is a large continent and that 
we have to tap the pool of people who are in nonprofits across the 
country and across the continent, if we want to be successful with a 
surveillance program.
  I ask my colleagues to support reprogramming $5 million for this 
year. It is not new money. It is reprogrammed money. It is money that 
we had devoted to surveillance. It is shifted from human surveillance 
to migratory bird surveillance.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I was going to ask the Senator if he 
knows of any objection. I was advised that there is one Senator who has 
indicated opposition to the amendment. I am a member of the Board of 
Regents of the Smithsonian. I have a high regard for the work that is 
done there. Listening to the description of the Senator from North 
Carolina, I am inclined to support the amendment. But in view of the 
fact that there is at least one Senator with a contrary view, I think 
we ought not go forward without giving him an opportunity to come and 
express his concerns, if he would like to have an opportunity to do so. 
My hope would be that we could put in a quorum and see if there is a 
need to discuss it further; otherwise, I suggest that we accept it on a 
voice vote.
  Mr. BURR. I thank the chairman and recognize there might be an 
individual who wants to speak in opposition.
  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. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division XI, Withdrawn

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, is the amendment pending now and open for 
debate by Senator Coburn with regard to the Armed Forces Retirement 
Home?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That division is available for debate.
  Mr. LOTT. If I may speak on this subject, I would plead with my 
colleague from Oklahoma to bear with me and work with us on this. I 
have a feeling this is something he would like to see done. I think he 
wants to make sure it is done in the right way. That is my goal, too. I 
would ask him to hear me out a minute. Let's see if we can work this 
out and perhaps not force this to a vote, take up the Senate's time, 
see if we can accommodate everybody's concerns.
  Again, this is a place that I have direct personal familiarity with. 
I was there when it was a high ground on the Mississippi gulf coast 
beach area with 200-year-old oaks, a beautiful site. In the 1970s, 
through the good offices and

[[Page 6626]]

efforts, probably of Senator Stennis, an 11-story retirement home for 
old sailors was built on that magnificent site in 1976. I was there 
when the ribbon was cut, and I was so proud of that facility. It was 
such an exciting thing to see the look in the eyes of those at that 
time sailors, but it has since become, of course, the Armed Forces 
Retirement Home. So it is a place of last resort for retirees from all 
the military branches. That is how far back my history goes with this 
facility.
  In preparation for the storm, to the credit of the leaders there, 300 
of the residents were temporarily evacuated to the Armed Forces home in 
Washington. The rest moved in with friends and family. The facility is 
capable of holding as many as 500, and there was always a waiting list. 
When Katrina came in, the entire first floor was flooded. The exterior 
of the building was blasted with 150-mile-an-hour winds. The entire 
electrical room located below ground level was flooded from floor to 
ceiling.
  But from that time to this, I continue to hear from the residents 
saying: We want to come back; we want to come home. Nothing against the 
Washington, DC, area, but their family, quite often, what little family 
they have, lives in that area and they feel so comfortable there, they 
want to go back.
  By the way, the Gulfport facility, unlike the one in Washington, 
didn't lose money. It was always a moneymaker. But the rooms they had 
were 90-square-foot rooms, and sometimes it was a retiree and his or 
her spouse in this very small room. I realized several years ago that 
whoever designed the building had made some mistakes in terms of the 
size and the options of those retirees.
  I don't know if my colleagues are familiar with black mold, but it is 
bad stuff, and it comes quickly after a hurricane. You begin to see it 
on the walls, and it will make you sick. If you don't get it out of 
there, your building will be sick. You have to go in and basically take 
everything out but the two by fours. You have to take out the walls in 
the building--just everything--and replace it with new material, or you 
are going to have this black mold.
  I have really been embarrassed by the way the Defense Department has 
handled the Gulfport facility in the aftermath of the hurricane. I 
understand we have had a lot of things on our minds, but basically they 
haven't done anything to mitigate further decay. They haven't gone in 
there and repaired that first floor. They have not gotten the 
ventilation system going to dehumidify the rest of the building. They 
have not done anything to repair the exterior facing. They have not 
removed the black mold. And to make matters worse, other then some 
volunteer work initially done by the Navy Seabees, they basically will 
not let anybody else come in to try to mitigate the decay that is 
occurring.
  Remember, this hurricane was August of last year and that 11-story 
building stands there today basically like it was the day after the 
hurricane. They are letting it just sit there. They even initially 
refused to let the electric company come through the gate to help 
restore power. This has not been one of our better moments.
  Then we started asking: What can we do? I want to do the right thing 
for our retired veterans at this site. There have been proposals: Let's 
just go in and put a Band-Aid on it, clean it minimally, move things 
off the basement and the first floor up to the second floor. There are 
questions about how feasible that is. Let's just patch it up. But the 
projection of the costs for even that is not good.
  The second alternative is to go in and do a major overhaul and make 
these 90-square-foot rooms bigger--knock a hole in the wall and have 
two-room suites, really a major overhaul. The amount of money they are 
talking about, again, is very high.
  Then, of course, the last one is to raze the building and build 
something more modern, safer in hurricanes, more pleasing to the 
retirees and everybody involved.
  My attitude has been, OK, somebody who is an expert tell me what is 
the right solution. I can go with any of these alternatives, but let's 
make sure we do it responsibly and let's not have to do it again in 3 
or 4 years. And, by the way, is there some way we can control the 
costs? A novel idea. So that is where we are.
  I met with the Pentagon officials, and I think they are trying to 
come up with an alternative solution. $64.7 million in appropriated 
funds was previously provided to study options to rehouse evacuated 
veterans. Mr. President, $64 million to study options? Do we need that?
  What I am saying and what Senator Cochran is saying is let's take the 
balance of that prior money that can be reprogrammed, and let's couple 
that with another, I believe, $176 million and go forward.
  My colleague from Oklahoma has said he wants a facility put back in 
Gulfport. He wants to know what it is, and he wants to know what it is 
going to cost. Some of the numbers I have been hearing--I don't know if 
I can put my finger on it right here--are proposals of $589 million for 
renovating it or $389 million to rebuild it. Good gravy. That is real 
money. I don't like either one of those.
  I believe we can repair it or we can come up with this modified 
proposal Senator Cochran has, about which we had some input, that would 
be a better, more aesthetically pleasing, more livable, cheaper 
facility to build.
  Look at the report. The report makes it clear what the committee is 
talking about doing: combined with prior unobligated balances, taking 
the $176 million the committee has recommended, which shall be used to 
construct a new, multi-building, campus-style facility on the site 
occupied by the former Armed Forces Retirement Home.
  I think Senator Cochran envisions more of a three-story, military-
style retirement facility, perhaps with some surrounding dormitories.
  I don't want to say how this is going to be done, but the hurricane 
was 8\1/2\ months ago, and we are still waiting. The costs are going 
up, by the way. Try to get a contractor down there now and see what it 
costs.
  So we are trying to get this done. We are making recommendations 
because we haven't gotten one from anybody else. But keep in mind, this 
modified plan makes more sense. I think it would please everybody, and 
it is a heck of a lot cheaper.
  If my colleague from Oklahoma has something he would like to suggest 
we include--I am not chairman of the committee, I am not on the 
committee, but I am saying, this was not designed in perfection, but I 
think it is a positive move that deals with the realities of a pitiful 
situation.
  I talked with the mayor of Gulfport, MS, recently, Mayor Brent Warr, 
and he told me a story that breaks your heart. He picked up on the 
streets of Gulfport, MS, one of the former residents who was walking 
along the side of the road after he had made his way from Washington, 
DC, to Gulfport. He got tired of waiting. He went home--this is his 
home--to a mold-infested, mildewed, improperly air-conditioned 
facility.
  I don't think we should do this to these retirees and these veterans. 
I think we need to move ahead and do the right thing to get our 
veterans home to Gulfport. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from 
Oklahoma if he has some additional suggestions. I know this is an area 
about which he cares.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to see this facility replaced, too, 
but I have some serious questions. The Senator was not here for the 
debate. I want him to hear those questions because what he is proposing 
is cheaper than several of what the retirement board suggested. I 
agree. Call me cheap. What he is proposing is $370,000 per resident. 
That is twice what I can build a brand-new hospital for with the latest 
everything.
  I guess my point is, for $221 million, what are our grandchildren 
going to get because we are doing this under an emergency, and we know 
we can build a brand-new facility up to code, nice as can be, with the 
rooms the size the Senator wants, for $150 million total. We know that 
is possible. So why

[[Page 6627]]

should we spend $221 million doing it? If it is not a fixed plan now; 
if we send $221 million out of here, they are going to spend it.
  My problem is, I would love for the Senator and maybe the chairman to 
work with me to get this to a more realistic idea of what the real 
costs should be so that we accomplish the goal they want, and we do it 
in a more timely manner. I agree, having a campus style is probably a 
little bit more expensive, but it isn't 50 percent more expensive than 
what it should cost.
  I made the point earlier that for a new home, for a single or couple 
living in 1,200 to 1,500 square feet in the State of Mississippi, you 
can buy one of the nicest places in the world for $81,000 right now, or 
$72,000. We got a quote yesterday from Mississippi. So that leaves 
$300,000. If we bought them all a brand-new home and then hired them a 
caretaker at $30,000 a year for the next 10 years, we would spend less 
money.
  Again, you bet, I am a tightwad when it comes to our grandchildren's 
money, and I want value for what we spend. That is the purpose of this 
amendment. I am willing to withdraw this amendment if I can have the 
assurance that we can moderate this back into a range that would look 
like something comparable to what we really need to spend.
  I wish to make a final point, if the Senator will bear with me. We 
don't have this money. We don't have it. Anything we don't get good 
value for today because our kids are paying for it means they are going 
to get an exaggerated cost when they come to pay it back. That is my 
purpose.
  I want them to have a great home. I want them to be able to come 
home. I know they have a tremendous camaraderie living there. I want to 
see that restored for them. They deserve it. Can we not do it in a much 
cheaper way and still give them what they want? Remember, they fought 
hard so we would have the money to be able to do it.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, taking my time 
back, look, I on occasion have thought of myself as a cheap hawk, too. 
When you see what I have seen--and the President of the United States 
and Senator after Senator and Congressman after Congressman looked 
these people in the eye and said: We are going to make you whole; we 
are not going to give you everything you want, but we are going to help 
you get back on your feet. And we said that to these old veterans, too.
  I don't want to build a Taj Mahal. Unfortunately, quite often that is 
what we get when the Government does it. I would like to do it for 
less. I would like to have more for less. I would prefer the Pentagon 
had developed a plan 4 months ago and said let's do this. But here we 
sit on the sideline.
  I can't speak for the chairman of the committee, but the Senator can 
see this is something I have paid attention to. It is something I care 
about. But I would be open to suggestions and working with the Senator 
to see if we can come up with a plan that the Pentagon, hopefully, 
would help us with that would do more and maybe do less. I am amenable 
to that.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, my 
colleague from Mississippi, for his contribution to this discussion. I 
think he made a very compelling argument for the fact that we need to 
provide funds in this bill with direction to proceed to work on a new 
facility for these veterans. That is the point. That is why included in 
this bill is a committee recommendation of $176 million.
  The language specifically suggests that this be used to construct a 
new, multibuilding, campus-style facility on the site occupied by the 
former Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS. I think that is 
the key, and that was brought out by my good friend and colleague from 
Mississippi. That is the point.
  It is the sense of our committee and those familiar with this 
facility that it should remain in the Gulfport, MS, area. The mayor of 
Gulfport came up to see me to talk about his concerns, his interests, 
and his ideas. I know he talked with Senator Lott and probably other 
members of our delegation. I want to help him achieve his goal for 
having the facility rebuilt, using the best measures that we can to be 
sure we get a good result for the dollars that we invest, and we don't 
waste money. We don't want to do that. We don't want to just throw a 
lot of money out there and let the home spend it without any guidance 
or restraint.
  I am very committed, though, to the notion that we ought to have a 
provision with some money and these directions in the bill. I don't 
think the House has included anything like this. We are going to have 
to negotiate with the House when we get to conference. I don't know 
what their ideas would be, but I want to be able to have at least the 
commitment of the Senate behind our effort to do what is said in this 
report.
  It could be $176 million. If the Senator wants to change it to $166 
million or $120 million--I don't know what the right number is. But it 
shows a commitment to proceed with funds available to hire some people 
to get the work done. This is what Senator Lott's point is. Nothing has 
been done. We have to get somebody moving, get an architect selected, 
come together with a plan, and then we will see whether we can fund it. 
But at least we have enough money in here to show we are serious about 
rebuilding it, that we are making this investment, and we will monitor 
the use of the money and try our best to be sure that every dollar is 
well spent. That is my goal.
  The Armed Services Committee has oversight responsibility. That is 
the legislative committee. So they can help monitor and follow the 
progress as well. But I hope we won't strike the money and just say 
this is a bad idea and we are not going to do anything else. That is 
unacceptable. That is totally unacceptable.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I concur with the Senator's desire to 
reestablish the site there. That is not what this is about. I am told 
the Senate Armed Services Committee is not for this because it only 
gets us halfway there, which bothers me greatly because instead of $221 
million, we are going to spend $442 million, which ends up being about 
$800,000 per bed.
  The point I make is this: If you throw money out there, they are 
going to build where they expend the money. How about us having a plan 
within a certain amount of money and living with it, rather than saying 
we are going over or we are not going over? How about taking the 
average of the last couple that have been built where there have been 
any facilities similar to it and using that as a guideline? My problem 
is it is not $176 million; it is $176 million plus $44 million, and 
other people are going to authorize another $200 million, so we are 
going to be talking about a half a billion dollars, and that is my 
problem with it.
  I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw this amendment. I 
appreciate the courtesies extended to me during the debate. I know the 
desire is right. I think the money that is out there is extraordinarily 
too much, especially when we have documented estimates to repair the 
present facilities between $50 million and $60 million and to build new 
ones between $120 million and $150 million. So anything above that is 
fluff at this time, which we can't afford. We can meet our obligations, 
but we can't go much beyond that and meet our other obligations. So I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the 
pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The amendment of the Senator 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. BURR. Mr. President, would the Senator from Colorado yield for a 
question? If the Senator would allow me, it is my understanding we 
would be able to voice vote my amendment that is pending right now. If 
the Senator would allow me to do that, we could dispose of this 
amendment in 30--I have been told I am incorrect.

[[Page 6628]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, through the Chair, I think it would be 
appropriate for my friend from North Carolina to have a conversation 
about how to move forward with his amendment. At this point I ask 
unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so I may offer 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3736

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3736.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Salazar] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3736.

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

   (Purpose: To provide funding for critical National Forest System 
  projects to address the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other 
 hurricanes of the 2005 season, reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, 
 and mitigate the effects of widespread insect infestations throughout 
                      the National Forest System)

       On page 172, strike lines 15 through 21 and insert the 
     following: ``System'' for necessary expenses, $50,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2006.''

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, a few days ago I came to the floor of the 
Senate to talk about a very important issue that is facing the entire 
Nation with respect to the fire emergency we are seeing across many of 
our States, including many of our western States. At that point I 
proposed an amendment that would provide an additional $30 million in 
disaster emergency aid so the Forest Service can take on the work it 
needs to take on to assure that we don't have the destruction from 
fires we have seen in prior years.
  In my own State alone, we have seen what happens when you have the 
fire situation getting out of control. In 1994, the Storm King fire 
near Glenwood Springs ended up with the deaths of over 14 firefighters. 
Back in 2002, we had another fire, the Hayman fire, which caused 
138,000 acres of national Forest Service lands to be burned across 4 
different counties. These kinds of fires are the kinds we are seeing 
across our entire country, and we need to make sure we have the 
resources in order to be able to fight the fires we are going to be 
seeing in the weeks and months ahead throughout our great Nation.
  What I am doing with this amendment is simply providing the amount of 
money that would be needed to get us up to the levels for firefighting 
that we had during the prior year. It is something that is essential to 
our country, it fits within the framework of addressing disaster 
emergencies, and I am hopeful my colleagues in the Senate will agree 
with me and support this amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  At this time there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I hope that 
the Senate could accept this on a voice vote. I don't know that we need 
to have a rollcall vote. It seems to me to be an amendment that should 
be accepted by the Senate. It calls for the use of--my piece of paper 
says $50 million, and I heard the Senator say $30 million, or did I 
hear him wrong?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, if I may respond to my friend from 
Mississippi, the amendment asks for $50 million because we attempted to 
make sure we were protecting the amount of money that had been 
requested in the bill in the Forest Service items for Katrina recovery. 
So this is $30 million in addition to that, which brings up the amount 
in the amendment to $50 million.
  Mr. COCHRAN. So the bill as reported from our committee was $20 
million, and this adds $30 million?
  Mr. SALAZAR. That is indeed correct. I am willing to withdraw my 
request for a vote at this point in time if, indeed, we can resolve 
this by a voice vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am willing to urge the Senate to accept 
the amendment. There is clearly a need for funding, and we will have an 
opportunity to monitor this carefully to be sure that money is not 
wasted. But clearly, the devastation to timberland and forestry 
resources is immense. It is indescribable. You have to see it. You can 
drive along hundreds of miles of forestlands in the region, and it is 
staggering, the amount of destruction that has occurred.
  I compliment the Senator and thank him for offering the amendment and 
assure him of my support and recommendation that we accept it.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, regarding Senate amendment No. 3637 to 
H.R. 4939, I believe it is important to clarify the intent of this 
amendment. The intent of Senate amendment No. 3637 is similar to Senate 
amendment No. 3645; however, due to technical considerations I had to 
redraft the amendment. The intent of Senate amendment No. 3637 is to 
provide $20 million to the Forest Service to address the consequences 
of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season, as the 
Senate Appropriations originally reported. My amendment retains that 
$20 million for the gulf coast and adds another $30 million to reduce 
the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of widespread 
insect infestations throughout the entire National Forest System.
  The need for this additional funding is highlighted in the State of 
Colorado. In Colorado, the Forest Service expects to conduct 35,000 
acres of hazardous fuel reduction work as well as process timber sales 
in insect infested areas. However there is a capacity for more critical 
work to be done. Colorado has approximately 35,000 additional acres 
that are approved for hazardous fuel treatments; however the Forest 
Service lacks the funds to carry out those treatments. Colorado also 
has 12,000 acres ready for timber sales that would benefit the fire and 
insect situation but for lack of funding are not being carried out in 
fiscal year 2006. I use Colorado as an example, but this problem exists 
throughout the Western United States where extended drought and insect 
infestations have created dangerous conditions ripe for catastrophic 
fires in 2006. It represents a true emergency. Waiting to address this 
issue in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations process is not a viable 
option; the 2006 fire season is already upon us in the West, and these 
funds are needed immediately.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senate for recognizing this emergency on 
the national forests throughout the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3736) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi as 
well as the floor manager from Washington, my distinguished friends, 
for their assistance on this important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Coburn amendment is the pending amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3810

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending business so I may call up my amendment No. 3810.

[[Page 6629]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Obama] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3810.

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

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds appropriated by this Act 
   may be made available for hurricane relief and recovery contracts 
    exceeding $500,000 that are awarded using procedures other than 
                        competitive procedures)

       On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:


            ACCOUNTABILITY IN HURRICANE RECOVERY CONTRACTING

       Sec. 7032. None of the funds appropriated by this Act that 
     are made available for relief and recovery efforts related to 
     Hurricane Katrina and the other hurricanes of the 2005 season 
     may be used by an executive agency to enter into any Federal 
     contract exceeding $500,000 through the use of procedures 
     other than competitive procedures as required by the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation and, as applicable, section 303(a) of 
     the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
     (41 U.S.C. 253(a)) or section 2304(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code.

  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, to begin with, I thank the floor managers 
on this bill for their help in finding the time to call up this 
amendment. I would love to get advice from the Senator from Colorado in 
terms of how to unanimously get an amendment accepted.
  After the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, millions of Americans 
opened their hearts, their homes, and their wallets to help the victims 
in the gulf coast. Even before Katrina's winds and rains died down, 
Americans across the country called national hotlines and pledged their 
hard-earned dollars, their time, and their prayers to the relief 
effort.
  But they didn't just pledge--they also delivered. They delivered to 
the tune of $3.5 billion. Many of these donations came from working-
class families who didn't have much to give, but they gave what they 
could.
  Like the American people, President Bush made a pledge after the 
disaster. He pledged he would provide the gulf coast with the Federal 
assistance it needed to get back on its feet. With the bill now before 
us, the total amount of Federal funding for hurricane recovery will 
exceed $100 billion, and it is safe to say more money will be needed in 
the months and years to come.
  But in order to make good on the President's pledge, we need to do 
more. We need to pledge to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. 
We owe this to the Americans who donated their own funds to hurricane 
relief efforts and to those who trust us each day with the tax money 
they send to Washington. Unfortunately, we haven't done a very good job 
so far of delivering on this pledge.
  Yesterday, Senator Coburn and I came to the floor to detail the 
numerous instances of waste, fraud, and abuse in the use of Katrina 
funds. We know that FEMA spent nearly $880 million in taxpayer money on 
25,000 temporary housing trailers stored around the country, including 
11,000 that are currently rusting away in a field in Arkansas.
  There are reports of prime contractors charging upward of $30 per 
cubic yard for debris removal--work that actually costs subcontractors 
as little as $6 per cubic yard.
  As the Washington Post reported, four large companies are charging 
1,500-percent markups--1,500-percent markups--to cover damaged roofs 
with plastic tarps.
  Senator Coburn and I have tried to address these problems by offering 
a sensible package of amendments to ensure fiscal accountability and 
transparency. We have proposed the appointment of a chief financial 
officer to oversee the spending of Federal funding. We have proposed 
limits on the amount of overhead expenses a contractor can charge the 
Federal Government, and we have proposed that the details of all large 
Katrina contracts be posted on the Internet.
  Unfortunately, these amendments are not germane now that cloture has 
been invoked. I think that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because 
the interests of the American taxpayer are not being well served by 
this body. Even though we will have appropriated well over $100 billion 
by the end of this week for Katrina relief and recovery, we haven't put 
in any accountability systems to ensure that the money is well spent.
  I am aware that I am new to this body, but I am troubled that Senate 
rules are getting in the way of sound policy. I understand that is how 
the Senate works, so Senator Coburn and I are here to offer one modest 
amendment to protect taxpayer dollars. Our amendment addresses no-bid 
contracting and is germane to the underlying bill.
  Immediately after the hurricane, FEMA awarded four $100 million no-
bid contracts to four large companies--400 million taxpayer dollars--
without full and open competition. Acting FEMA director David Paulison 
was asked about these contracts when he testified before the Senate 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on October 6, 
2005, and he said the following:

       I have been a public servant for a long time and I have 
     never been a fan of no-bid contracts. Sometimes you have to 
     do them because of the expediency of getting things done. And 
     I can assure you that we are going to look at all of those 
     contracts very carefully. All of those no-bid contracts, we 
     are going to go back and rebid.

  Senator Coburn and I expected Director Paulison to stick to his word 
and rebid these contracts. But a month and a half passed, and the 
contracts still had not been rebid. So last November, we introduced an 
amendment to the tax reconciliation bill expressing the sense of the 
Senate that FEMA should immediately rebid these contracts. Our 
colleagues agreed and the amendment passed by unanimous consent.
  After our amendment passed, both Senator Coburn and I met again with 
Director Paulison and again he assured us these contracts would be 
rebid. Yet, surprisingly enough, these contracts still have not been 
rebid. And to add insult to injury, FEMA said in March that the 
contracts would not be rebid after all. In fact, the contracts have 
actually been extended, despite the fact that GAO found three of these 
four firms had wasted millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.
  The abuse doesn't stop with these four contracts. We learned 2 weeks 
ago that the Army Corps of Engineers missed an opportunity to negotiate 
a lower price on a $40 million contract for portable classrooms in 
Mississippi. Instead, a no-bid and overpriced contract was awarded to 
an out-of-State firm. I have often heard it said that the definition of 
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a 
different result. Frankly, what we are doing with Katrina funding 
borders on insanity. We in Congress keep on trusting FEMA to enter into 
competitive contracts even though there is no evidence that it has any 
intention of doing so.
  The amendment we are offering today is only our effort to say enough 
is enough. Our amendment requires all Federal agencies to follow 
competitive bidding procedures for any Katrina-related contracts 
exceeding $500,000. It is a commonsense amendment. It is a good-
government amendment. Eight months after Katrina, there is no longer 
any emergency that justifies a no-bid contract that might have been 
entered into in the days after Katrina. If there is an emergency, it is 
getting control of how the money is being spent by FEMA.
  The American people deserve the benefits of competition on Government 
contracts. Competition is good for American business. It is also good 
for government. It helps ensure high quality and low cost. That is what 
the American people have the right to expect. That is what our 
amendment seeks to deliver.
  Before we spend another dollar in the gulf coast, let's make sure we 
have some transparency and accountability in place to ensure that 
Federal money

[[Page 6630]]

is helping those people who need it the most, instead of lining the 
pockets of contractors. In our rush to give money to the gulf coast 8 
months ago, we didn't do that. It was understandable. We were all 
shell-shocked by what had happened. But the American people, and more 
importantly the victims of Katrina, have paid a heavy price. I urge we 
not repeat that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support Senator Coburn 
and me in this effort.
  Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Oklahoma does not wish 
to speak on the amendment, so I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Is there further debate? If not, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rockefeller) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 98, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--98

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Enzi
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 3810) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division XII, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3641, division XII, and I 
ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division XIII, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. And I ask unanimous consent to withdraw division XIII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division XIV, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent division XIV be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


               Amendment No. 3641, Division XV, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent division XV be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3541, Division XVI, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
division XVI.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division XVII, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw 
division XVII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Amendment No. 3641, Division XVIII, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the withdrawal 
of division XVIII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I withdrew amendments for things I still 
do not agree with that are in this bill. I am not going to spend the 
time in the Senate now, but I will spend the time before we have the 
final vote on this bill to discuss what is in this bill that is not 
emergency, that is not an obligation by the Federal Government, that is 
not prudent or fiscally wise. I will not spend the time on that at this 
time.


                    Amendment No. 3641, Division XIX

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent division XIX be brought up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The measure is pending.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that removes $11.3 
million from our Corps of Engineers, Sacramento River Bank Protection 
Project in California.
  I have no lack of understanding of the potential flooding problems 
occurring in San Francisco and south of there in California and the way 
the rain patterns have changed. I am not wishing to defeat anything 
that will make a real difference on that.
  This amendment is about a program that is 46 years old that, 
according to the Corps' own statement, is 95 percent complete, that we 
have already spent $131 million on, that $10.6 million is being spent 
this year, as we speak, on this program.
  In this supplemental, they are asking for another $11 million for 
this program. I don't doubt that the $11 million will be needed. But it 
won't even get there under this emergency supplemental, through the 
Corps' own admission, until after September when the new year starts.
  First of all, it does not meet the definition of ``emergency,'' that 
it should meet in coming through this bill.
  What does this program do? This program solves and prevents levee 
erosion problems while providing fish and wildlife mitigation. That is 
what the program does. It has been going since 1960.
  We had $6.3 million included in the energy and water appropriations 
bill last year and an additional $10.96 million. The Corps also stated 
that $57 million more is needed for the final completion of this 
project.
  This says a lot about the Corps of Engineers and their ability to get 
things done. Although I might agree we need to eventually spend the 
money for this project, it certainly ought to be paid for and come out 
of the energy and water appropriations because the money will not get 
there to be utilized. They have not even spent the money appropriated 
on the spend-out this year.
  I am not, in substance, against completing this project. It comes 
back to the same things we have been talking about. Is it an emergency 
that we do it now? And if, in fact, it is an emergency, will the money 
get there and make a difference? It won't.
  I am asking this go through the regular process, through the energy 
and water appropriations, that it be authorized to the extent that the 
Senators from California would like to have it, and that we do it in 
regular order.
  It would be different if we thought this money was really going to 
make a difference with the problems in California, but it is not. It 
will not change one thing in terms of how the Corps operates this 
program this year. By the time the money would get there, it would have 
to be reprogrammed anyhow.
  I have some other problems with this program. Ask yourself: If we 
have spent $131 million plus $6.3 million, $137 million already, and 
the Corps says it is 95 percent complete, and then they say they need 
another $51 million to complete it, how can it be 95 percent complete?
  This is not about the need. This is about the inefficiencies within 
the Corps. This is about whether we can get the money to solve a 
problem that is deemed an emergency at this time, but I seriously doubt 
whether that has been the fact.

[[Page 6631]]

  The Corps has been cited on numerous occasions by the GAO for its 
inability to predict costs, stay within the forecasted budget. In fact, 
some of GAO's strong criticisms have come in regard to this very work 
in the Sacramento area.
  I made the point in an earlier amendment with Senator Obama that the 
Corps made $5 a cubic yard on everything we removed in Katrina. That is 
over 30 million cubic yards. That is $150 million the Corps took out of 
the Homeland Security and the emergency appropriations. Why don't we 
spend that money on this? Why do we borrow more money against our 
children and grandchildren to accomplish this worthy goal?
  When I ask those questions, we do not get any answers. No one answers 
the question, can we efficiently be good stewards of our children and 
our grandchildren's money? When is enough enough? If this project is, 
indeed, an emergency, as we are being told, we need to be asking the 
tough questions. How long does it take to shore up levees near 
Sacramento--46 years for the Corps to do this job? I have a real 
sneaking suspicion 10 years from now the Corps will continue to ask us 
for money to shore up levees in Sacramento. And if that is the case and 
they have not completed it, it means they will not have done a good job 
on the very job we ask them to do, which is something I contend anyway.
  These funds may, in fact, be needed. If that is the case, the Corps 
of Engineers has failed miserably.
  I intend, in my oversight committee, to ask for an explanation of 
every penny the Corps has spent on the river bank protection near 
Sacramento. Representatives of this city and taxpayers all across the 
country should be outraged regarding the irresponsibility of the Corps 
in carrying out this project. Forty years and over $130 million later, 
we are asked to give the Corps an additional $11 million in emergency 
appropriations, money we will have to borrow, all because the Corps 
cannot do its job correctly the first, third, fourth, fifth, up to the 
46th time.
  Enough is enough. No venture would ever continue to receive such high 
funding with this track record.
  Two other questions I think should be asked. Does the Corps lack the 
resources to fund the emergency needs? According to the Office of 
Management and Budget, the Corps of Engineers had $4.5 billion in 
unobligated balances last year and has an estimate of $5.8 billion in 
unobligated balances this year. According to the Corps itself, as of 
March 30, their unobligated scheduled carryover was $1.49 billion. They 
have the money to do this right now.
  The Sacramento Corps office will have unobligated balances by the end 
of 2006 in excess of $13.5 million.
  I ask again: Why are we going to borrow money when we have the money? 
If, in fact, it is an emergency, the Corps has the money in unobligated 
balances to accomplish it. All we need is an authorization to do that.
  How do we prioritize Federal funds in California? In fiscal year 
2006, California has 549 earmarks costing $733 million. In addition, it 
received $10 million in earmarks for museums alone. That expenditure 
alone would have been enough to pay for nearly all of this requested 
work.
  Are the following museum earmarks more important than protecting the 
city of Sacramento: $200,000 for the California State Mining and 
Mineral Museum; $550,000 for development and construction of Noah's 
Park at the Skirball Cultural Center; $4.35 million for repairs of Sala 
Burton Maritime Museum, in San Francisco; $300,000 to the city of San 
Jacinto for improvements to the museum/Extudillo property; $175,000 for 
the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum; $500,000 for the construction of a 
museum also at the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum.
  Just the museum earmarks alone would take care of this. So instead, 
what we are going to do, we are going to borrow money because we do not 
have the money to pay for this.
  Attempting to attach more funds for the project, the project in its 
46th year, outside of the regular budget process, is an abuse of 
taxpayer resources, takes advantage of the emergency appropriations 
process intended to deal only with the most urgent and immediate needs 
of the devastated gulf region, and to provide for our soldiers in 
battle.
  Senator Boxer said on May 1, 2005, the war should be paid for in the 
budget, not in an emergency supplemental. The war is known. The cost of 
the war was anticipated by some people that this administration fired. 
The cost of this war is spinning out of control.
  The same can be said for this project. This project was authorized in 
1960. It has received over $100 million and its future costs are known. 
This should be addressed in the regular appropriations process, not in 
an emergency supplemental.
  With that, I yield the floor, and I offer time to the opponents of my 
amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am joined in the Senate by my friend 
and colleague, Senator Boxer. We are joined at the hip in opposition to 
this. If there ever was a disaster waiting to happen, it is the levee 
situation in the State of California. I will take a few minutes to 
explain why.
  Let me begin with this fact. We have a comparison of flood protection 
levels for major river cities. Sacramento is the only city in the 
Nation with 85-year protection. All comparable cities--New Orleans, 
250-year flood protection; Omaha, 250 years; Dallas, 500 years; Kansas 
City, St. Louis, Tacoma, 500 years.
  The problem is, much of this area is 20 feet or more below the river, 
below the flood basins.
  I stood in a home in Sacramento on Saturday. It was 20 feet below the 
level of the river. That is the problem. The sedimentary base of soils 
there is peat, and it is easily crumbled.
  What you have are 2,600 miles of levees--some owned by the Federal 
Government, some by the State, some by private owners. These levees 
become eroded. And because of the heavy rain--the heaviest rainfall, I 
believe, that I can remember in California--there is deep concern about 
these levees.
  Let me show you the specific area we are talking about. Shown in this 
picture is the Sacramento Pocket Area. The Governor, Mr. Pombo of the 
House, and a number of other public officials were right in this area--
standing right here--a short time ago. We flew over the area. These are 
homes, all 20 feet below the river area. There are several places in 
this area that are priority needs for restoration immediately.
  The Governor has declared a state of emergency. The Governor has 
advanced State moneys. The Governor has said this is of urgent 
priority. The fact of the matter is, at any time, places along this 
levee could go. You would flood 100,000 people in 20 feet of water. 
Many would be unable to evacuate. You would have real catastrophe.
  The Army Corps of Engineers, through Colonel Light, the commander of 
the Sacramento District, came back. We sat down with Senator Cochran, 
the chairman of the committee, Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici, and 
Senator Reid. It was all explained that there is an emergency. 
Earthquake probabilities, for a major earthquake equal to 1906 in San 
Francisco or higher, are 62 percent by 2030. If there is an earthquake 
equal to what took place in California, the likelihood is that this 
entire area would be flooded and hundreds of thousands of people could 
be involved.
  Now, this bill provides $23 million in contingent emergency funding. 
This particular division is $11.3 million. Funding would become 
available only if the President requests the money and certifies that 
it is an emergency.
  As I say, on February 24, the Governor proclaimed this state of 
emergency. He cited 24 critical erosion sites. That has been changed to 
29 because of ongoing erosions due to the current high water level.
  Today, there are 400 people from Sacramento who were worried enough 
about it that they have come to the Capitol to lobby for these funds. 
The money can become available as soon as the President signs the bill 
and certifies the contingent emergency.
  The Sacramento River Bank Protection Project is the Federal project 
that repairs these critical erosion sites.

[[Page 6632]]

This additional funding will ensure that these sites are repaired in 
this construction season. Both the State, Senator Boxer, and I have 
looked very carefully: Is this money that could be used this fiscal 
year, before the end of September, on these sites? The answer is 
clearly, yes.
  Today, President Bush announced he is expediting environmental review 
to allow construction work on the sites to proceed as quickly as 
possible.
  So President Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger, and the Senate 
Appropriations Committee all recognize how important it is to repair 
the weakened levees along the Sacramento River.
  Mr. President, 174 actively eroding sites on levee banks have been 
identified. The highest priority is 29 of these sites. That is what we 
are trying to repair as soon as possible to prevent subdivisions, such 
as this one shown in this picture, from being inundated with 20 feet of 
water.
  I stood there. I saw it. I saw the difference in height. And that is 
a phenomenon on the levee. Some might say housing should have never 
been built there, but the fact is it was.
  The critical sites we are asking money for stretch along 137 miles of 
the Sacramento River. They include areas of the river in the city of 
Sacramento, and that is this pocket area.
  Now, these homes sit virtually in the shadow of the levee system, and 
modeling by Sacramento show that a breached levee would result in the 
area flooding to depths of 17 to 20 feet.
  This area is called the ``Pocket'' because the homes sit in a pocket 
by a broad curve in the river.
  Mr. President, 33,000 homes are here; 100,000 people live right here. 
Colonel Light, the commander of the Sacramento District of the Corps, 
has indicated to me, to Senator Cochran, to Senator Byrd, to Senator 
Domenici, to Senator Reid, that this money can be utilized by the Corps 
now. The reason they cannot transfer funds is because prior legislation 
of this body and the other body prohibits the transfer of funds above a 
certain amount in a timely and effective manner.
  The repairs consist largely of armoring the levees with rock. Of the 
29 sites, repairs for 5 have been designed already, and the remainder 
will be designed in the next few months.
  I do not need to tell you what a major flood would do. I do not need 
to tell you that these rivers are at historic highs right now. And it 
is as the river begins to decline that they worry most because the fear 
is the water subsiding will take with it portions of this levee.
  The work has to be done.
  It is kind of interesting. I often tell a story of when I was mayor, 
and the director of Public Works came to me and said: Madam Mayor, I 
think if there was an earthquake, the rim of Candlestick Park would 
come down. And I thought: What is the likelihood of that? I said: How 
much does it cost? He told me. And then I thought: I now know this. I 
have an obligation to do something about it. We found the money. We 
repaired the rim. And who would have thought that the Giants would have 
been in the second game of the World Series, at 5 o'clock, when the 
Loma Prieta earthquake hit, and the rim of Candlestick Park--had it 
come down--would have killed 20,000 people sitting directly below it.
  I am telling you that these levee banks could breach. I am telling 
you that 100,000 people and 33,000 homes--as shown right here--could 
lose their lives and their homes. And the evacuation difficulty is 
enormous.
  It seems to me that once we know this as public officials, we have an 
absolute obligation to do something about it.
  The Appropriations Committee has agreed. The money can be used this 
fiscal year. And both my colleague and I believe very strongly we 
should vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  I would like to yield the floor to my colleague. I know she is here 
somewhere.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I certainly will.
  Mr. COBURN. When you were changing Candlestick Park, you did not 
borrow money from future generations of Americans to do that? You found 
it within the budget? I believe that is correct; is it not?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, it is interesting. City and county budgets have 
to be balanced. The only budgets that do not have to be balanced are 
the State budget, at least in California, and the Federal budget. But 
we had to balance our budget, so, yes, I did have to find the money by 
taking it from other places. That is true.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for an additional question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will.
  Mr. COBURN. I have said I do not deny this work needs to be done. Can 
you foresee that the environmental impact assessments for all this will 
be completed in time for this money to be used this fiscal year?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes. Because I am told the declaration of emergency 
by the State and the contingent emergency by the President, which he 
said he would declare this morning, effectively clears that for this 
particular work on these particular high-priority sites.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes, I will.
  Mr. COBURN. Does it concern you at all that over the 46 years of this 
project the engineering by the Corps of Engineers for these levees is 
requiring them to go back now, in 29 places, and fix what they should 
have done right the first time? Does that concern you at all?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, of course it does. Of course it concerns me. 
But we learn in this business. And I think Katrina was a big learning 
lesson for all of us. And we have not done right by our infrastructure.
  One of the problems is, as we have to cut discretionary spending that 
is nondefense, not entitlements, the only thing we are cutting--we are 
cutting 18 percent of what we spend every year. These are Federal 
levees. They are owned by the Federal Government. There is a 
responsibility to protect the people behind them.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for one additional question?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Of course.
  Mr. COBURN. Would it make sense to you that we could, in a 
supplemental, change the authorization under the emergency process so 
that the Sacramento Corps could use their $13.5 million they are going 
to have in unobligated balances at the end of this year? We could do 
that just as well as borrow an additional $10.9 million against our 
children; could we not?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Well, I have not looked at this. I was at the Napa 
River, where we have a big flood project, and there is a problem there. 
The corps there told me they could not transfer funds above a certain 
amount. And I believe there was some provision in a prior supplemental 
to prevent the transferring of that money.
  Let me say this to the Senator. Do I believe this is a life 
emergency? Yes. Do I believe that any day these 100,000 people and 
33,000 homes could be flooded? Yes. Why? Because I know they are 20 
feet below the water level. I know the water level is the highest it 
has ever been. I know the levees are eroded. I know what they call 
``boils'' are popping up all over.
  I know it could happen. And when it happens, it happens so fast 
because there is so much water. So because I know it, and now you know 
it, we have an obligation to do something about it. And that is what 
the Government is here for: to save lives in the event of an emergency.
  We also know that earthquake probabilities are way up, and this could 
be devastating. So this work has to be done. We are asking for money in 
the Energy and Water bill. We will have additional money there. We are 
going through the regular channels. But this high priority work should 
be done now. And we should get the money there as fast as we possibly 
can.
  It could happen tomorrow, it could happen the next day, the next 
week. I could not live with myself if it happened, and, respectfully, 
you could not live with yourself if it happened because you now know it 
can happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

[[Page 6633]]


  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to say to Senator Feinstein how 
much I appreciate her leadership on this in the Appropriations 
Committee. I wish to say to the chairman of the committee how much I 
appreciate his understanding of what we are going through in our State 
with historic rains, historic flooding. I thank the Appropriations 
Committee for listening to Senator Feinstein when she transmitted a 
request from the two of us and also from our Governor. This is a 
bipartisan request.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
written to Senator Coburn from Governor Schwarzenegger. I also ask 
unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information regarding 
the Sacramento region.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              State of California,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                      Sacramento, CA, May 2, 2006.
     Hon. Tom Coburn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Coburn: I am writing regarding your proposed 
     amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill that seeks 
     to block additional funds needed to repair California's 
     Central Valley levee system.
       As you may know, I am working very closely with Senator 
     Feinstein and members of the California Congressional 
     Delegation to secure additional federal funds to share in the 
     costs of repairing California's Central Valley levee system. 
     The need for funding and quick action could not be more 
     urgent and that is why I have made it my top priority to work 
     with our State Legislature to enact a major infrastructure 
     bond initiative that would dedicate $2.5 billion in state 
     funds for urgently needed levee repairs along this federally 
     authorized flood control system.
       Our work to restore structural integrity to our levee 
     system began over a year ago. We cannot wait for a disaster 
     to strike and must use the lessons of Katrina and act now. 
     Prior to Katrina, New Orleans had a 250-year level of flood 
     protection. Sacramento has a 100-year level of flood 
     protection. This is the lowest of any major city in the 
     United States. It is only a matter of time before there is a 
     significant levee breach or system failure. Such an event 
     would flood valuable farmland that produces food for the 
     entire nation. All of Sacramento and other Central Valley 
     towns would be flooded. According to modeling done by the 
     City and County of Sacramento, a single levee breach would 
     cause flooding in many areas of the City with depths over 15 
     feet. A flood event of this magnitude would cut off Southern 
     California's water supply. Such an event would also cause a 
     major economic disruption in California and across the 
     nation. Most troubling is without action, the lives of 
     thousands of Californians are at risk.
       As you know, Senators Feinstein and Boxer have worked very 
     closely with Chairmen Cochran and Domenici to include funds 
     in the pending supplemental appropriations bill for certain 
     levee and flood control improvements in the Sacramento 
     region. These funds are for identified improvements that can 
     be completed this fiscal year in federally authorized flood 
     control projects.
       I support these funds and want to assure you that this is a 
     necessary and urgent time for Congress to act. Moreover, any 
     investment at this time decreases the chances that Congress 
     will have to respond in the future with another far more 
     expensive emergency funding bill to address a widespread 
     flood disaster in California.
       I ask that you recognize this as necessary emergency 
     funding and support this as part of the supplemental 
     appropriations bill.
           Sincerely,
     Arnold Schwarzenegger.
                                  ____


  THE SACRAMENTO REGION IS AT GREATER RISK OF FLOODING THAN ANY OTHER 
 MAJOR U.S. METROPOLITAN AREA--FULL FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP IS CRITICAL TO 
                      PROTECTING THIS VITAL REGION

                      Sacramento: A Region at Risk

       The city of Sacramento is at the confluence of two great 
     rivers, the Sacramento and the American. And while these 
     rivers help shape the Sacramento region's identity, they also 
     pose a very real, very serious risk--flooding.
       A catastrophic flood will devastate lives, property and the 
     economy. Nearly a half-million residents who make the city of 
     Sacramento their home will be impacted. That number grows to 
     over 2.2 million people within the six-county region 
     surrounding the city. Regionally, one million jobs will be 
     affected by a catastrophic flood and the direct and indirect 
     economic loss of property and economic activity could total 
     nearly $30 billion. The Sacramento region represents over 
     $73.3 billion annually in gross regional product.
       A major flood in the Sacramento region will send economic 
     shockwaves rippling throughout the region and state. These 
     include serious impacts to principal transportation arteries 
     such as interstates 5 and 80, railway thoroughfares, and 
     Sacramento International Airport. This jeopardizes over $2.6 
     billion in Central Valley agriculture and livestock 
     production--a vital national resource.
       The Sacramento region is a civic, commercial, healthcare 
     and economic hub for greater California and must be 
     protected. The Sacramento region serves as the capital of 
     California--the world's sixth largest economy. Sacramento 
     area levees protect nearly one million acres of farmland in 
     the Sacramento Valley. At least 10 major hospital facilities 
     are found within the region. In addition, the Sacramento 
     metropolitan region serves as a ``nucleus'' for state and 
     federal civic activity, providing a home to 1,300 government 
     facilities supplying over 200,000 public sector jobs.
       Given all that the city, region, state and even the nation 
     stand to lose, it is astonishing that the Sacramento region 
     has the lowest level of flood protection of any major U.S. 
     metropolitan area. The 1986 high-water event demonstrated the 
     region's population centers are extremely vulnerable. It is 
     estimated that six hours of additional rain during that time 
     would have led to catastrophic failure of the region's flood 
     protection system.
       Since 1986, federal, state and local interests have 
     invested over $400 million in levee improvements, reservoir 
     re-operations and floodplain restoration, but critical flood 
     protection deficits, including erosion, stability, levee 
     heights and underseepage, still exist. These deficits prevent 
     the Sacramento region from achieving even 100-year flood 
     protection in many places and have made flood protection the 
     Sacramento regional Congressional delegation's number one 
     public safety issue.
       Sacramento must achieve a minimum of 200-year flood 
     protection immediately.

              Full Federal Partnership: A Critical Element

       While local and state leadership are unified in making 
     flood protection a priority, it is essential that FY 2007 
     appropriations fully fund the $89,240,000 federal share of 
     Sacramento's authorized flood protection program. 
     Appropriations are critical to continuing levee improvements 
     on the Sacramento and American rivers and Folsom Dam--a 
     necessary part of protecting the region's livelihood and 
     achieving a minimum of 200-year flood protection.
       Similarly, it is essential that federal partners support 
     and reward state and local efforts to enhance flood 
     protection. These efforts, which are sustained by state and 
     local funding initiatives, should be incorporated into the 
     traditional federal/local flood protection partnership using 
     appropriate crediting and reimbursement arrangements. This is 
     necessary in order to expedite project permitting, 
     contracting, and construction activities.

  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to read part of this letter. He says:

       Our work to restore structural integrity to our levee 
     system began over a year ago. We cannot wait for a disaster 
     to strike and must use the lessons of Katrina and act now. 
     Prior to Katrina, New Orleans had a 250-year level of flood 
     protection.

  And then the Governor says:

       Sacramento has 100-year level of flood protection.

  That is optimistic. Most experts tell us that it is an 85-year level. 
And whether it is 85 years or 100 years, it is the lowest of any major 
city in the U.S.
  The Governor writes:

       It is only a matter of time before there is a significant 
     levee breach or system failure.

  This is important for the Senator from Oklahoma to hear. I know he 
has been very gracious in filling me in on this and saying: I didn't go 
after your other items but just this one. But the fact is, this one is 
as important as all the rest. The Corps has told us they need these 
funds to move forward.
  Here is what the Governor says:

       Such [a flooding] event would flood valuable farmland that 
     produces food for [our] entire nation.

  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, please, listen to us, because the 
food supply for the entire Nation is at stake, according to Governor 
Schwarzenegger, Senator Feinstein, myself, and a bipartisan delegation 
in the Congress.
  The Governor says:

       All of Sacramento and other Sacramento Valley towns would 
     be flooded. According to modeling [that has been done], a 
     single levee breach would cause flooding in many areas of the 
     City with depths over 15 feet. A flood event of this 
     magnitude would cut off Southern California's water supply.

  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, in this body we are all equal, two 
Senators from every State. We have 37 million people in my State. 
Sacramento is

[[Page 6634]]

a huge growth area. I will get into the numbers in a minute. We are not 
talking about a few people being hurt. We are talking about a 
catastrophe. We are talking about farmland. We are talking about the 
State's water supply. About two-thirds of the water supply in the State 
comes from that northern area.
  When my friend started, he was very nice and said he doesn't doubt 
the fact that the Sacramento levees are a problem, and that San 
Francisco has been having problems. I wrote down what he said. He said: 
San Francisco and the area south of there. This is the area north of 
San Francisco. This is Sacramento. I don't think my friend really, with 
all due respect, gets the intricacies of what we are dealing with here. 
There is a difference between north of San Francisco and south because 
north of San Francisco is where we have delta--again, two-thirds of the 
water supply of our State--the farmland and all the rest. South of San 
Francisco, we have Silicon Valley. That has other issues. But right 
now, we are talking about the Sacramento area, which is north.
  The Governor goes on to talk about the economic disruption. Because 
we are such a large State, people say when California sneezes, the 
country gets a cold. It is an expression that speaks to the power of 
our State in terms of economic productivity. And in terms of the goods 
coming across into the ports of California and going all across into 
your State and everybody else's--this region is the bread basket. So we 
ask you to back off this amendment.
  This is so not a partisan issue. The Governor writes:

       As you know, Senators Feinstein and Boxer have worked 
     closely with Chairmen Cochran and Domenici to include funds 
     in the pending supplemental . . . for certain levee and flood 
     control improvements . . .
       I support these funds and want to assure you that this is a 
     necessary and urgent time for Congress to act.

  The Governor came here. He met with Senator Domenici and many 
Senators. He said:

     . . . any investment at this time decreases the chances that 
     Congress will have to respond in the future with another far 
     more expensive emergency funding bill to address a widespread 
     flood disaster in California.

  I ask that you recognize this as a necessary emergency funding bill. 
Support this.
  I want to show a picture. Senator Feinstein showed us a version of 
this. They all tell a story better than I could. Here you have the 
Sacramento River. Here you have thousands and thousands of people. Here 
you have the levees, and here you have the riverbed. And what has 
happened, if my friend would like to take a look at this--I know he 
doesn't question that we need a project; he questions whether it 
belongs in this bill. I understand.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes.
  Mr. COBURN. I question how we are paying for it. We are borrowing the 
money from future generations to do it rather than make the hard 
decisions of trimming something else. That is important.
  Mrs. BOXER. That is what I just said. I said the Senator doesn't 
oppose us doing this. He doesn't want it in this bill. That is my 
understanding of his position. I couldn't disagree with you more. When 
my friend quoted me and I said Iraq should have been in the budget, 
that is exactly how I feel, because we knew about it. Frankly, we 
didn't know about this, that we were going to have the kind of events 
we have had, the rain and the rain and the rain. I will go into the 
details of how much rain we have had compared to other years and the 
fact that anything can happen now.
  The weather patterns are changing. When I lived in the bay area in 
California so many years ago, it is too long to remember, when I first 
came here in the 1960s, you never had rain in March, let alone April. 
It was dry. It was dry really from mid-February on. It has been moving 
forward, and we have March as one of the rainiest months and then 
April. We had a month this year--April--where we had rain almost every 
day. It is unheard of. You can see how muddy this is. You can see the 
breaks here in the riverbank.
  I will show you another picture on the other side where there is not 
as much development but the same thing has occurred. These trees were 
on the other side of the riverbank. Look at these trees. They are now 
buried in the water. So if we don't go ahead with the Corps now, when 
the Corps tells us we need to do this now, we are going to lose this 
riverbank. We are going to lose the levees. And then it is too late.
  My friend says he wants to save money. It reminds me of the old adage 
of penny wise and pound foolish. It is a colloquialism, but the fact 
is, you have to prevent things. This is an emergency circumstance, as 
the Governor said. These levees could break. Now we have a snowmelt. 
That snowmelt occurs, that water gets deeper, the pressure in that 
river increases, and the riverbank begins to disappear, leaving those 
levees exposed.
  I wish to refer to a document put together by the Chamber of Commerce 
in Sacramento. It reads, ``Sacramento: A Region at Risk.'' Cities and 
counties don't like to say, especially chambers of commerce, we are at 
risk. They don't like to say that because they want to have investment. 
They want people to come in. They don't go about saying: We are in 
danger. And when a chamber of commerce goes out and says: We are in 
danger--and these are Republicans mostly, and these are as conservative 
as my friend from Oklahoma; they know that an investment is not 
wasteful spending if, in fact, we are going to save money at the end of 
the day. How much would we have saved if we had built stronger, better 
levees in Louisiana? Untold, probably billions. I don't think my friend 
is at all a fiscal conservative by taking away $11 million. It is 
reckless. I hope and pray that my colleagues are listening to this 
debate and are looking at these pictures and understanding what we are 
talking about.
  The Sacramento area faces a triple flood threat, and it faces it now. 
We have a confluence of two major rivers, the threat of a deteriorating 
flood control system, and the threat of near record precipitation this 
year. We are talking about 165,000 homes, nearly 500,000 residents, the 
State capital, and many businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is also 
the hub of the six-county regional economy, providing hundreds of 
thousands of jobs. A major flood along the lower Sacramento or American 
Rivers would cripple the region's economy. I will go into that tomorrow 
because Senator Feinstein and I each have 15 minutes in the morning. I 
will save some of my talk for then.
  California has the world's fifth largest economy, and we are 
quibbling over $11 million that the Corps says it needs to fix up these 
riverbanks. How outrageous, how shortsighted, how foolish. I don't 
understand why my friend is doing this. We talked. He feels deeply 
about it. I respect that. I voted with him a couple of times. I have 
been very careful, picking and choosing, sticking with the committee 
when I felt the committee was right, joining my friend. But I don't 
understand this one. This one is inexplicable.
  The average family understands that if they have a problem with their 
roof, they fix it. They don't put it off. They fix it so that their 
home is not destroyed. It is straightforward.
  Let's look at the pocket again. They call this the pocket of 
Sacramento; 112,000 people are at risk, and you can see clearly where 
this riverbank has deteriorated. On New Year's Day, Californians in the 
northern and central parts of our State awoke to flooding that cost the 
State $200 million. We are talking about $11 million so we can mitigate 
what comes next. But precipitation after January 1 has kept river 
levels very high, further stressing and eroding our critical flood 
control infrastructure.
  Precipitation, including snow pack, as the snows melt, is nearly 
twice the normal amount, 174 percent of normal, and that is just as of 
last week. And the snows are just now starting to melt.
  We have another threat to this area. My colleague, Senator Feinstein, 
said it beautifully: How would we feel if we did something on this 
Senate floor today that turned our backs on this issue and then we had 
a tragedy?

[[Page 6635]]

  We would not feel very good about it. So I am going to save the rest 
of my talk until tomorrow. But I am going to say to you, Mr. President, 
again thank you. It is very rare that we have such bipartisan 
cooperation in our State. This is not a Republican issue or a 
Democratic issue. We will have Republicans suffer if we have a problem 
and we will have Democrats suffer. We are Californians united. Our 
Governor has recognized the crisis. He declared a state of emergency 
earlier this year to expedite improvement of this system.
  Everything we did in this bill we cleared with the Army Corps and 
they say they can use this money. They need this money. They are going 
to move forward with these repairs. So my friend from Oklahoma can make 
the case every which way he wants. He can use rhetoric and say anything 
he wants. The bottom line is this, and I will quote Representative Dan 
Lungren, a Republican, who is very well respected among our Republican 
friends in this body. He said:

       Today the Sacramento region has half the flood protection 
     and twice the risk as did the city of New Orleans prior to 
     Katrina. The cost of recovering from a flood-related disaster 
     far exceeds the price of guarding against it.

  Unlike other issues where we have come to the floor and it has been 
Republican versus Democrat, I can honestly say to you that I stand here 
representing a bipartisan, strong majority in my State and, hopefully, 
in the Senate, that says this: The 2005 hurricane season taught us some 
hard lessons--that we neglect shoring up eroded and damaged flood 
control infrastructure for major metropolitan areas at our peril.
  We always say we must learn from history. We must surely learn from 
recent history. Sometimes we forget history that occurred way back, but 
we certainly should remember history from a year ago.
  I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding no on this Coburn amendment 
and to take a stand for innocent people in this valley, in this area, 
these farmlands, these farmers, and the economy, and don't take out $11 
million that could do so much good to restore these banks.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the arguments that have been made by the 
Senators from California, in terms of needing to fix things, are 
probably accurate. But I am sitting here thinking to myself, if it 
would take only $11 million to take care of this, and to know that the 
earliest this money is going to be there is 8 weeks, if I were Governor 
of California, I would find $11 million. I would get that tomorrow. If 
it is not going to get done tomorrow, we ought to be asking why not, if 
the threat is that great and it imperils that much of the economy and 
that many people.
  I still raise the same questions. I am not denying this needs to get 
done. I am denying how we pay for it. We are not making the hard 
choices to cut something else out of the bill to pay for this because 
it is a higher priority. No, what we are doing is taking the money from 
future generations because we refuse to make those hard choices.
  That is what it is all about. We could have reprogrammed money within 
the Corps to get this done. The Governor could ask the legislature for 
$11 million to get this done starting tomorrow. If there are 29 sites, 
what we do know about the Corps is it doesn't do anything fast. In this 
project, we know what they have done over the last 46 years has not 
been sufficient because they are having these problems. We will finish 
the debate tomorrow morning. The point is, I don't deny that this needs 
to get done. If it is the case that has been made by the Senators from 
California, then why hasn't it already been done? If there is this 
impending emergency, why hasn't California ponied up to put up the $11 
million that is so desperately needed right now to pay for it, rather 
than asking the rest of the country's children and grandchildren? If 
this bill had come to the floor paid for, I would not be out here. But 
it is not paid for. We are going to go write the bills and bonds to pay 
for this $11 million. Maybe that is what we should do. Maybe that is 
the priority we should have. But I would think that the rest of the 
American people ought to say, where are you getting the money?
  We are not making hard choices. We are passing it down the line. I 
agree if something were to happen, the cost would be much greater. I am 
a physician and I believe in prevention. That is what this debate is 
all about, preventing America from becoming a second-rate economy 
because we refuse to make hard decisions here on how we spend money. 
That is what this is about. I don't deny the desire to address this 
issue. That doesn't have anything to do with it. But if it is an 
emergency as described at the present time, why doesn't California fix 
it? Why hasn't California ponied up the $11 million, which is a small 
amount there. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. They can 
come up with $11 million.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. COBURN. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator not know that this is a federally 
authorized project? Is the Senator unaware of that?
  Mr. COBURN. I understand that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Cost sharing goes along with this project just as with 
every other project. So for the Senator to stand up and suggest that we 
don't pay into this project is simply false.
  Mr. COBURN. Reclaiming my time, since it is a question, this isn't 
about whether you pay your share. It is about whether it is an 
emergency. If it is an emergency, then why wasn't it done last time? 
Why are we going back--why isn't a Corps that spent 46 years doing this 
project going back to repair what they didn't do right in the first 
place?
  I am going back to the main point and then I am through. I will talk 
again in the morning. Where is the money coming from? Had the money 
been paid for, I would not be out here. But the money isn't paid for. 
It is borrowed. So when you take $10.9 million, take your calculator 
out and put it at 30 years and amortize it at 6 percent, you will come 
up to about $55 million. That is what we are actually going to pay to 
do this $10.9 million because we are borrowing the money. That is my 
point. I am not against doing it, not against getting it done, against 
prevention. What I am against is borrowing the money against the future 
of this country because we refuse to make the hard choices.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I cannot allow certain things that were 
said to go unchallenged. My friend says this is not about paying your 
share, after he said it was about that. He made a big point, why 
doesn't California do something? Of course, we are doing something. We 
abide by the law. I have to say to my friend, if something happens in 
California, a bread basket of this country in many ways, there is going 
to be suffering throughout this country. If something happens to this 
economy, let alone the 112,000 people who live in this pocket, this 
particular amendment will put them at greater risk.
  My friend says he believes in prevention. He is a doctor. I am sure 
he does and I am sure he does a wonderful job at that. But he doesn't 
believe in prevention right now, I will tell you that. Because that is 
what Senator Feinstein, Governor Schwarzenegger, and both Democratic 
candidates for Governor--everybody agrees this has to be done. This is 
a Federal project. This is not a State project. This is a Federal 
project with a State share. The Army Corps has a responsibility which 
they have stepped up to the plate to do, and they told us they need 
these funds. As far as not paying for this, we know that emergencies 
get special treatment around here because they are emergencies. My 
friend says, why is this an emergency? Take a look at this. This isn't 
the way a river is supposed to look, the way a riverbank is supposed to 
look. This isn't the way a tree that was on the land is supposed to 
look, when it was on the other side of the riverbank. When you get the 
second highest predicted snow pack melt

[[Page 6636]]

known to the history since they started taking down the record, in the 
history of California, yes, you have an emergency.
  I know my friend from Oklahoma left the floor. I hope he joins me in 
a pay-as-you-go budget because I have voted for that every year. 
Frankly, right before the Bush administration, we had surpluses. Now we 
have deficits. I will admit that. I support pay-as-you-go budgeting. I 
have voted for it. We can talk about that another day. But this is a 
true emergency, just as I believe funding the veterans home in 
Mississippi was, which I was sorry I didn't get a chance to vote on. I 
listened to the debate. I could hardly believe my ears that the Senator 
from Oklahoma was objecting to making sure that our veterans, elderly 
veterans, could go home. What is wrong? Something is wrong here with 
these debates. I don't know where the heart is, where the soul is. I 
don't know where the common sense is.
  I pray and hope that tomorrow, come morning, we are able to get the 
votes to keep this funding in the supplemental. Again, I thank Senator 
Cochran. I thank the Chair for his patience.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I want to reiterate my motion simply to 
have an opportunity to offer an amendment. I think it is an emergency, 
and it is a moral imperative to deal with the issue in Darfur, Sudan. 
So I hope the mere opportunity to have a debate on the floor of the 
Senate would be allowed.
  I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from Nevada
  Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, I support the Senator from 
New Jersey. I support the intent of his amendment and realize there is 
a severe emergency in Darfur about which many of us feel strongly, and 
we need to do something there. During consideration of this bill, we 
have been trying to hold the line on spending, to reprioritize. If 
there is something else the Senator can offer as an offset for this 
increase in spending, I would be more than happy to let the amendment 
be debated and voted on. But without an offset, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague, if 
I may, that we have talked with both the chairman's staff and with 
others who express the view that this is a moral imperative and have 
suggested offsets, none of which have been accepted. So it is very 
difficult to have a position in which we all agree there is a moral 
imperative to act and then we reject every offset that is proposed.
  Understanding the Senator's concern, but also understanding that 
genocide does not have an offset to it, I once again ask unanimous 
consent that the pending amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. COCHRAN. 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. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be 
a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. If I may ask the Presiding Officer a parliamentary 
question: If we were to proceed to the Senator's unanimous consent 
request, would that obviate the ability to offer an amendment during 
that time period?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Then I have to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. 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. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ENSIGN. Reserving the right to object, what I understand is that 
the Senator from New Jersey is going to send an amendment to the desk 
that has an offset for the funding for Darfur, and with that as a 
modification to the unanimous consent request, I will not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 3777, as Modified

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I call up my amendment that is at the 
desk with a modification and ask unanimous consent that it be 
considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report the amendment, as modified.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], for himself, 
     Mr. Leahy, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. 
     Dodd, and Mr. Obama, proposes an amendment numbered 3777, as 
     modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 89, line 9, strike ``$69,800,000, to remain 
     available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the amount 
     provided under this heading is designated as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 95 (109th 
     Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 1006.''. and insert in lieu thereof ``$129,800,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 2007: Provided, That the 
     amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     95 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2006.''.
       Sec.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the 
     amount provided for ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' 
     shall be $1,392,600,000.

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, last Sunday, thousands of Americans 
gathered here in Washington, DC, and in other cities across the country 
to focus our attention on the horrific acts being committed a world 
away in Darfur, Sudan. But it wasn't a gathering of the powerful, 
although politicians and celebrities were there. It was a gathering of 
the American community--of high school students, of members of 
synagogues and colleges, of churches, of people of all races, 
ethnicities, and religions. In fact, the movement to stop genocide in 
Darfur has been led by some of the youngest in our society.
  In New Jersey, students in middle schools have raised funds for 
refugees. Young people at colleges have led the movement to divest from 
Sudan. They are not the leaders of the future; they are the leaders of 
today.
  I know that as I stand here calling for action, I am not alone. In my 
home State of New Jersey, high school students started a nonprofit 
organization called Help Darfur Now which raises awareness and funds 
for the refugees in the Sudan.
  Newark, NJ, is the headquarters of the Darfur Rehabilitation Project, 
a national group started by the Sudanese people living in the United 
States who lobby for humanitarian aid, intervention, and conflict 
resolution in the Sudan. And across the country, Americans are signing 
petitions, participating in marches, holding townhall events and 
contacting their elected officials to demand that the dire needs of the 
Darfurian people be addressed. It

[[Page 6637]]

seems to me as representatives of the people, it is our job to act.
  Here in Congress, many of our fellow colleagues in the Senate and in 
the House of Representatives have led the fight for real action to 
address the genocide in Darfur, and I certainly salute them for their 
hard work.
  When we talk about genocide, it seems to me it is almost impossible 
for any of us to take the intellectual understanding of what that 
means: the number of people killed, over what period of time, and for 
what reason, and to comprehend the dimensions of such atrocities.
  The truth is that each of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 people 
murdered in Darfur was a father, a mother, a sister, a daughter, or son 
slaughtered by their own countrymen whose ethnic makeup and religion 
was similar to their own. Each of these people has a family who mourns 
them and a community that lost them.
  Many of us here cannot imagine what life is like for the at least 2 
million who have been displaced in this conflict. Those who have 
survived have the scars of watching their relatives and neighbors 
murdered, raped, and subjected to other horrors we cannot imagine.
  For the hundreds of thousands of people who fled to Chad, the terror 
continues as they face new attacks in this expanding conflict. Samantha 
Power, who is a Pulitzer Prize winning expert on genocide, has pointed 
out that many women face the essence of a Sophie's choice: They can 
either leave their villages and camps to gather firewood, facing the 
likelihood of rape or attack by the jingaweit, or starve inside the 
camp.
  It is in this dire context that the World Food Program announced that 
it would be forced to cut the rations to feed those who are affected by 
the conflict in Darfur. This means people already facing a humanitarian 
crisis will now only receive half of the recommended level of calories 
per day. Even worse are reports that at least 200,000 people have been 
displaced since January, and that many of those cannot be reached or 
helped by aid agencies.
  A recent article in the New York Times quoted one senior humanitarian 
aid official as saying:

       The situation for humanitarian workers and the United 
     Nations has never been as bad as it is now. The space for us 
     to work is just getting smaller and smaller.

  Not surprisingly, the Sudanese Government, which is supporting the 
groups that conduct this campaign of death and destruction, continues 
to hinder any attempts by the international community to assess the 
situation and provide aid to the millions of refugees. Just this month, 
the Sudanese Government denied entry into the country to Mr. Jan 
Egeland, a top U.N. official on humanitarian issues. Last week, Sudan 
refused to grant visas to officials who intended to conduct a U.N. 
military assessment on planning a peacekeeping operation in Darfur.
  So in a region the size of Texas, 7,000 African Union troops have 
been put in place to protect the people of Darfur. While I believe the 
African Union force is better than nothing, their troop numbers are 
clearly too small. They are underfunded, underequipped, and lack a 
mandate to protect civilians. I agree with many of the experts who have 
said that we need to at least triple the size of the African Union 
force as a bridge until we can get a U.N. force operational in Darfur. 
I also think the President and others have the right idea of using NATO 
forces to provide logistical support while letting countries with 
Muslim populations take the lead on the ground.
  Of course, we face some obstacles to getting a U.N. force into the 
Sudan and controlling the situation. First, the Chinese continuously 
stand in the way of the United Nations. Let's make it simple: The 
Chinese buy oil from the Sudanese, and they don't want to stop. In 
fact, China, because of its rule that it doesn't involve itself in any 
way in the domestic affairs of other countries, has no problem buying 
oil from a government committing genocide in the Sudan. Then there is 
the issue of Osama bin Laden, who has denounced the idea of U.N. troops 
and in his most recent audiotape broadcast called on Muslims to fight 
such a force.
  In the past, some steps have been taken on the part of the United 
States and the international community to address the crisis in Darfur, 
but the violence continues. Congress has appropriated funds for African 
Union peacekeeping, food aid, and support for refugees. The United 
Nations Security Council has passed various resolutions raising 
concerns about war crimes committed in Darfur. The Government of Sudan 
and the two rebel groups involved are now in negotiations, and I know 
that Deputy Secretary of State Zoellick is there now trying to reach a 
final agreement with the rebels. Yet, despite all of these measures, 
the sad truth remains that the people of Darfur face a bleak future of 
uncertainty, suffering, and death. It is time that we take additional 
action to stop the genocide in the Sudan.
  That is why this amendment that I have had other colleagues join me 
in would provide $60 million to support U.N. peacekeeping in Darfur. I 
certainly wish to thank the cosponsors of this amendment--Senators 
Leahy, Durbin, Sarbanes, Dodd, Obama, Lautenberg, Wyden, and Stabenow--
for their support and for their efforts.
  The African Union troops in Darfur are clearly overwhelmed by the 
challenge at hand. This amendment would provide critical funding to 
equip international troops and restore law and order to the region of 
Darfur. Although the intervention of U.N. troops has not been 
authorized, this amendment would assure that when it is accomplished, 
the money is there, and it will increase pressure on the African Union, 
the Khartoum Government, and the international community to make sure 
that a U.N. force is put in place in Darfur.
  For those who would question the amount--even though it is now 
offset--proposed in this amendment, I would like to point out that my 
amendment adds the same level of funding to the Contributions for 
International Peacekeeping account that has already been approved in 
the House supplemental appropriations bill. There is no other way to 
get these funds to protect the people of Darfur. They are not in the 
current funds appropriated for fiscal year 2006. I think we can all 
agree that genocide in Darfur constitutes an emergency--an emergency to 
which this body has a moral obligation to respond.
  Genocide is not a new phenomenon. We have witnessed this hatred and 
inhumanity many times over the past century. After the world learned 
the horrors of the Holocaust, America and the international community 
vowed: Never again. Never again. After we saw the gruesome slaughter of 
approximately 800,000 Tutsis in less than 100 days in Rwanda, we swore: 
Never again. Never again, however, is an empty promise--it is an empty 
promise--if we do not take action to stop the murder of innocent people 
when we know it is happening.
  Once again we find ourselves in a position to make that choice, and 
history is going to judge what we do--not what we say about never again 
but what we do when we have the power to do it. For even as I stand 
here today, I know the number of dead and displaced persons in Darfur 
continues to grow. Genocide is not Sudan's problem, it is not Africa's 
problem, it is the world's problem. It is our problem. And by failing 
to take part in the solution, we have become part of the problem. As 
Americans and as human beings, we have a moral obligation to help those 
who are suffering the consequences of genocide and who cannot help 
themselves. Now is not the time to forget that obligation, and history 
will judge us by the actions we take or fail to take in the next days 
as we move forward on this amendment.
  Jan Egeland, one of the top U.N. humanitarian officials, has said, 
``Africa is the biggest drama of our time; nowhere else in the world 
are so many lives at stake as in Africa.'' Now is the time to act.
  Some people might say that the fiscal 2007 budget proposal allocates 
sufficient funds to help the people of the Sudan. I would say you 
cannot put a

[[Page 6638]]

price on human lives. Genocide is not a horror of the past; it is the 
reality, unfortunately, of the present. It is an emergency we must face 
today. The $60 million this amendment offers will help put an end to 
the senseless murder and displacement of the people of Darfur. If 
American lives were at stake, I am certain we would find the money to 
act. I hope we have both the humanity and the commitment to say ``never 
again,'' to make sure that we do so in this case. Simon Wiesenthal 
said, ``For evil to flourish, it only requires good men to do 
nothing.'' Let us act now to put an end to this evil.
  I hope my colleagues will see that in the face of genocide, this is 
money well spent. I certainly hope we are permitted to respond to a 
moral imperative because history will judge each and every one of us 
for how we act in the face of the genocide going on in Darfur and in 
the Sudan. I hope that when it comes time for a vote on this amendment, 
the chairman will actually be able to accept the amendment as offset as 
it is now. I find it sometimes difficult to hear that we have a moral 
imperative, that we say ``never again,'' and yet we put up roadblocks 
for fulfilling and responding to that moral imperative, and when we 
offer solutions to it, there are those who do not like the solution of 
offsets.
  The bottom line is, if it were one of us--if it were one of us--thank 
God we live in the greatest country in the world, and it is not, but if 
it were one of us, if it were our family suffering the slaughter, would 
we be content with the councils of patience and delay? I daresay the 
answer is no. That is why I feel so passionately that we have an 
opportunity to fulfill the commitment to say ``never again.''
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Menendez, 
for his eloquent statement and for sponsoring this incredibly important 
amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor with him and a number of my 
colleagues. It is incredibly important that we act and that we act now.
  As Senator Menendez described his amendment, it would add $60 million 
to address the shortfall in the U.S. contribution to the United Nations 
for international peacekeeping and to fund a U.N. peacekeeping force in 
Darfur.
  The situation in Darfur is alarming, and it is a true emergency. In 
fact, words can't describe how much of an emergency this is. 
Approximately 3.5 million men, women, and children in the western 
Darfur region of the Sudan are in a fight for their lives against the 
Sudanese Government-sponsored campaign of violence and forced 
starvation. Since the conflict began in February of 2003, recent 
estimates are that there are as many as 400,000--400,000--Sudanese 
people who have died, and more than 2 million who have been displaced. 
By some estimates, 500 people perish every day in Darfur. Five hundred 
people perished today, if those estimates are correct, 500 more will 
die tomorrow, and 500 more will die the next day. If this is not 
genocide, I don't know what is, and we must act to stop it as soon as 
possible.
  The United States has taken the lead in the international community 
to provide humanitarian aid and to support the African Union 
peacekeeping mission in Darfur. However, we must do more. Clearly we 
have not done what we should and we have not done it fast enough if 500 
people are dying every day.
  We must ensure that our contribution to the United Nations 
Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities account is paid 
in full so that we are credible when we support a U.N. peacekeeping 
mission in Darfur. This amendment helps make that possible. We must 
also apply pressure to the Sudanese Government so that they take action 
to stop the killing or face the consequences of their actions. We must 
not sit idly by any longer as people die from a coordinated government-
sponsored campaign of violence and forced starvation.
  I am also proud to be a cosponsor of the Darfur Peace and 
Accountability Act which calls for assistance to the African Union 
peacekeepers and urges the President to press for NATO support of the 
peacekeeping mission. I am hopeful that the House and Senate will 
soon--very soon--resolve the differences between the versions of the 
bill and send it to the President for his signature as soon as 
possible. Millions of men, women, and children are waiting and praying 
for us to act and to act now.
  I am proud to join with Senator Menendez and with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle in this critical funding amendment regarding the 
U.N. peacekeeping mission to put an end to the genocide and bring peace 
to the people of Darfur. This is an opportunity for all of us together 
to do something that will address literally the lives of people who 
have no one else to turn to but those of us who understand what is 
going on and have the ability to act.
  So on behalf of the human race, I urge this amendment and other 
actions be taken as soon as possible. We must act, and we must act now.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.


                               Biometrics

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the committee report accompanying the fiscal 
year 2006 Iraq/Katrina supplemental appropriations bill includes the 
following provision: ``The Committee is aware that the Defense Science 
Board is studying the management of the Department of Defense's 
biometrics program and will make recommendations on whether or not the 
current structure is meeting the needs of the warfighters dependent on 
the system in Iraq and in the Global War on Terror. The Committee 
directs no management changes be made until the Defense Science Board 
completes its study and informs the Congress of its recommendation.''
  Would it be the understanding of the Senator from Hawaii that any new 
or ongoing organization, personnel, or management changes within the 
Army, to include the Biometrics Fusion Center, be ceased until the 
Defense Science Board report is complete and briefed to Congress?
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, that would be my understanding.
  Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator also agree that until the Defense Science 
Board, DSB, study is complete and briefed to Congress, the Biometrics 
Fusion Center should continue to execute its mission to acquire, test, 
evaluate, and integrate biometrics, as well as to develop and implement 
storage methods for biometrics templates?
  Mr. INOUYE. I do agree with the distinguished ranking member of the 
full committee. He has accurately clarified this matter.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my distinguished colleague for his comments.


                     emergency conservation program

  Mr. DOMENICI. As the Senate is aware, the Southwestem United States 
has been devastated by a severe drought which has resulted in numerous 
deleterious effects to that part of the country.
  New Mexico's neighbor to the east, Texas, has lost 5,000 head of 
cattle, 5,500 miles of fence, and 4.9 million acres have burned due to 
recent wildfires. Severe drought also exists in New Mexico, which is 
currently facing one of its worst droughts in the past 125 years. It is 
anticipated that great hardship will result in New Mexico as a result 
of this drought. These conditions require emergency measures be 
undertaken in both States.
  Although the Appropriations Committee is silent on the intent of the 
appropriation to the Emergency Conservation Program, ECP, within the 
Department of Agriculture, it is my understanding that of the $17 
million made available to the ECP in this legislation, $12 million is 
to be provided to the State of Texas and $5 million is to be provided 
to the State of New Mexico. The amendment did not originally include 
ECP funding, so I want to especially thank Senator Hutchison for her 
leadership in requesting that these funds be included for ECP.
  Mr. BENNETT. I appreciate the concerns of the distinguished senior 
Senator from New Mexico regarding the ECP provision ontained in title 
III of

[[Page 6639]]

this legislation. The Senator's understanding of the intent of the ECP 
appropriation is correct.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I, too, concur with this assumption with Mr. Bennett 
and Mr. Domenici. I appreciate their support and work on this important 
provision.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. 
Bennett, and the distinguished Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison for 
their consideration and explanation of this important matter.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, Senator Brownback and I wanted to tell 
you about our amendment 3741 and the progress we are making on one key 
aspect of the avian flu preparedness front. As we speak, the HHS and 
USAID are collaborating to administer the global avian influenza 
network for surveillance--GAINS program. GAINS is a smart and targeted 
investment in the USG's fight against avian flu since wild birds can 
carry the deadly disease and thus have the potential to spread it. HHS 
and USAID have invested $6 million from fiscal year 2006 arvian flu 
supplemental appropriations to establish GAINS. GAINS will require 
another $4 million to complete and $10 million for fiscal year 2007. 
Senator Brownback and I are pleased to see that the health 
appropriations committee, led by Senators Specter and Harkin, is 
helping to allocate $200 million in part to carry out global and 
domestic surveilliance to undertake activities of this sort. Our 
amendment doesn't add more money to the avian flu supplemental, but it 
makes clear HHS's commitment to GAINS, which we applaud.
  GAINS will systematically test and monitor wild birds, captive wild 
birds, and birds in the wildlife/pet trade to identify which viral 
strains they carry, to share the virus samples in order to continually 
update vaccine production options, and to disseminate lab results on a 
public electronic database utilizing a user-friendly mapping system. 
Major flyways will be monitored including those running north-south 
through the Americas.
  GAINS is a global surveillance program supported by an international 
network including conservation organizations, bird groups, the poultry 
industry, vaccine developers, and academic institutions representing 
more than 5 million members.
  With HHS and USAID's leadership, the Wildlife Conservation Society's, 
WCS presence in 56 countries around the world, and the presence of its 
global partners, GAINS has a presence in virtually every key country 
related to avian influenza. Data shared among these partners in the 
GAINS network will deliver real-time data on viral strains carried by 
wild birds.
  Additional funds for international Western Hemisphere work are 
welcome but must be integrated with the existing GAINS system. Parallel 
efforts waste limited resources. Like intelligence data, disease 
surveillance data must be shared to be effective in preventing the 
enemy--avian influenza in this case--from progressing. The USG should 
not fund the creation of separate international wild bird surveillance 
programs. Instead, these programs must work together.
  GAINS is a sensible approach to gather scientific data for the public 
domain in as close to real time as possible to combat a looming public 
health emergency.


                             Amendment 3775

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, more than 3 years into the Iraq war, we 
have had report after report documenting rampant corruption and 
profiteering on the part of defense contractors, as well as lax 
oversight by government officials. A major reason why this is 
continuing largely unchecked is that the Department of Justice has been 
systematically delaying whistleblower law suits brought under the False 
Claims Act. Earlier today, I filed an amendment designed to break this 
logjam by requiring the Department of Justice to allow these cases to 
go forward after a maximum 1-year review period. I am pleased that 
Senator Johnson is co-sponsoring this amendment.
  The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has risen dramatically 
in each of the last 3 years. The Congressional Research Service reports 
that we are now spending $10 billion a month in Iraq, alone. One reason 
for these runaway costs is the widespread corruption in the contracting 
process: shoddy work, nonwork, stealing, fraud, kick-backs, bribes, 
insider dealings, inflated billings, and on and on.
  The waste of billions of dollars in taxpayer money is bad enough. But 
this widespread corruption is also impeding our war effort, slowing 
reconstruction efforts, and denying our troops in the field the quality 
support and equipment that they deserve.
  The single most important tool that American taxpayers can use to 
recover funds stolen through fraud by U.S. contractors is the False 
Claims Act. Indeed, thanks to this law, more than $17 billion has been 
recovered on behalf of the American taxpayer. Under the False Claims 
Act, whistleblowers are given a powerful incentive to come forward and 
expose instances of fraud. The statute allows them to sue contractors 
suspected of defrauding the government, and then to keep a portion of 
the recovered funds as a reward.
  But there is a problem--a big problem. Scores of lawsuits have been 
brought against contractors suspected of fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
including Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. But the 
Department of Justice has allowed only one of those suits to go forward 
in the courts; that lawsuit resulted in a major recovery of 
fraudulently collected payments. For reasons that I cannot fathom, the 
Department of Justice is systematically delaying these law suits and 
preventing the recovery of perhaps billions of dollars in taxpayer 
money.
  Cases filed under the False Claims Act are automatically sealed. They 
cannot go to trial--in fact, they cannot even be publicly disclosed--
until the Department of Justice makes a decision about whether to join 
them. Under the statute, these decisions are supposed to be made within 
60 days. But, with just one exception, the Department of Justice has 
refused to take a position on any of the suits related to Iraq and 
Afghanistan, some of which were filed more than 3 years ago. Instead, 
the Department has repeatedly filed for and received indefinite 
extensions of seal.
  As a result, with one exception, every single whistleblower lawsuit 
has been effectively blocked by the Department of Justice. Fraud has 
gone unpunished. Billions of taxpayer dollars continue to be squandered 
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. And courageous whistleblowers, who 
have come forward often at great personal risk, have been left in a 
legal limbo. As one attorney put it: ``The Bush administration has made 
a conscious decision to sweep the cases under the rug for as long as 
possible. And the more bad news that comes out of Iraq, the more 
motivation they have to do so.''
  This situation is unacceptable. My amendment would prevent the 
Department of Justice from imposing undue secrecy on false claim civil 
actions related to government spending on Iraq and Afghanistan by 
simply requiring the Department of Justice to make a decision about 
joining such cases within 1 year, or 4 months in the case of cases that 
have already been filed. There will be protections against the release 
of information that could be detrimental to national security. But, 
after the 1-year period, the allegations will become public and the 
case will proceed.
  A 1-year time period will provide the Department of Justice ample 
opportunity to conduct a full investigation into the underlying 
allegations of fraud, and to decide whether to join the suit. In 
addition, my amendment allows the administration to seek additional 
extensions to keep a case sealed upon a showing of extraordinary 
circumstances. And nothing prevents the Department of Justice from 
joining a case at a later date.
  As a matter of good faith to our troops and to the American taxpayer, 
we need to move aggressively against corruption and war profiteering in 
Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
  Stuart Bowen, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, 
has issued a number of reports on waste

[[Page 6640]]

and fraud in Iraq. He reported that the Coalition Provisional Authority 
failed to account for the expenditure of nearly $9 billion in taxpayer 
funds. The money simply disappeared into a black hole. More recently, 
he reported on a case of fraud uncovered in the Iraqi city of Hillah. 
Here's how the Special Inspector General described it to the Wall 
Street Journal: ``There was no oversight anywhere near the 
[perpetrators] at any time, and they did not believe they would be 
caught. They considered it a free-fraud zone.''
  The Hillah fraud, alone, cost taxpayers nearly $100 million. And this 
is just the tip of the iceberg, as reports of fraud continue to pour 
in. The inspector general's own Hotline, which has been in operation a 
little more than 2 years, had received 449 cases of fraud, waste, 
abuse, mismanagement, and reprisal in Iraq as of January 30. Instead of 
delaying the prosecution of fraud under the False Claims Act, the 
Department of Justice should be leading the charge to criminals and war 
profiteers to justice.
  I commend our colleague, the junior Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, for chairing a Democratic Policy Committee hearing in February 
2005 on the issue of waste, fraud, and abuse in Iraq. He heard 
testimony from Alan Grayson, an attorney who represented whistleblowers 
in the one and only case allowed by the Department of Justice to go 
forward under the False Claims Act. Mr. Grayson described what happened 
to one of those whistleblowers, a former FBI agent, who refused to go 
along with the fraud. Said Mr. Grayson: ``He was held at gunpoint, 
stripped of his weapons and security identification, and then he was 
released defenseless on the streets of Baghdad.''
  Waste, fraud, and abuse are a fact of life in any war. But in past 
wars, we have had aggressive oversight by congressional investigative 
committees. During World War II, the Truman Commission worked 
relentlessly to root out corruption and war profiteering--a Democratic 
Senator investigating a Democratic administration. Senator Truman 
denounced war profiteering as ``treason''--and he was exactly right; it 
is treason and a betrayal of the troops in the field.
  Unfortunately, in the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has 
been only negligible congressional oversight and investigation of war 
profiteering. That leaves the False Claims Act as the last best hope 
for taxpayers to recover, yet the Department of Justice has 
systematically delayed lawsuits brought under the act.
  My amendment will directly address this latter problem. By all means, 
the Department of Justice should have ample time to review cases 
brought under the False Claims Act. But after a maximum of 1 year, 
those cases should be allowed to go forward in the courts so that 
justice is served.
  This is a strictly nonpartisan amendment. It is all about protecting 
taxpayer dollars and ensuring that our troops in the field are not put 
at risk because of corrupt contractors. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.

                          ____________________