[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6768-6806]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4939, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4939) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, 
     and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3616, to strike a provision 
     that provides $74.5 million to States based on their 
     production of certain types of crops, livestock, and/or dairy 
     products, which was not included in the administration's 
     emergency supplemental request.
       McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3617, to strike a provision 
     providing $6 million to sugarcane growers in Hawaii, which 
     was not included in the administration's emergency 
     supplemental request.
       McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3618, to strike $15 million for 
     a seafood promotion strategy that was not included in the 
     administration's emergency supplemental request.
       McCain/Ensign amendment No. 3619, to strike the limitation 
     on the use of funds for the issuance or implementation of 
     certain rulemaking decisions related to the interpretation of 
     ``actual control'' of airlines.
       Warner amendment No. 3620, to repeal the requirement for 12 
     operational aircraft carriers within the Navy.
       Coburn amendment No. 3641 (divisions IV through XIX), of a 
     perfecting nature.
       Vitter amendment No. 3627, to designate the areas affected 
     by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita as HUBZones and to 
     waive the Small Business Competitive Demonstration Program 
     Act of 1988 for the areas affected by Hurricane Katrina or 
     Hurricane Rita.
       Vitter/Landrieu modified amendment No. 3626, to increase 
     the limits on community disaster loans.
       Vitter modified amendment No. 3628, to base the allocation 
     of hurricane disaster relief and recovery funds to States on 
     need and physical damages.
       Wyden amendment No. 3665, to prohibit the use of funds to 
     provide royalty relief for the production of oil and natural 
     gas.
       Santorum modified amendment No. 3640, to increase by 
     $12,500,000 the amount appropriated for the Broadcasting 
     Board of Governors, to increase by $12,500,000 the amount 
     appropriated for the Department of State for the Democracy 
     Fund, to provide that such funds shall be made available for 
     democracy programs and activities in Iran, and to provide an 
     offset.
       Salazar/Baucus amendment No. 3645, to provide funding for 
     critical hazardous fuels and forest health projects to reduce 
     the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of 
     widespread insect infestations.
       Vitter amendment No. 3668, to provide for the treatment of 
     a certain Corps of Engineers project.
       Burr amendment No. 3713, to allocate funds to the 
     Smithsonian Institution for research on avian influenza.
       Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3693, to reduce 
     wasteful spending by limiting to the reasonable industry 
     standard the spending for administrative overhead allowable 
     under Federal contracts and subcontracts.
       Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3694, to improve 
     accountability for competitive contracting in hurricane 
     recovery by requiring the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget to approve contracts awarded without 
     competitive procedures.
       Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3695, to improve 
     financial transparency in hurricane recovery by requiring the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget to make 
     information about Federal contracts publicly available.
       Coburn (for Obama/Coburn) amendment No. 3697, to improve 
     transparency and accountability by establishing a Chief 
     Financial Officer to oversee hurricane relief and recovery 
     efforts.
       Menendez amendment No. 3675, to provide additional 
     appropriations for research, development, acquisition, and 
     operations by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office for the 
     purchase of container inspection equipment for developing 
     countries, for the implementation of the Transportation 
     Worker Identification Credential Program, and for the 
     training of Customs and Border Protection officials on the 
     use of new technologies.
       Murray (for Harkin) amendment No. 3714, to increase by 
     $8,500,000 the amount appropriated for Economic Support Fund 
     assistance, to provide that such funds shall be made 
     available to the United States Institute of Peace for 
     programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to provide an offset.
       Conrad/Clinton amendment No. 3715, to offset the costs of 
     defense spending in the supplemental appropriation.
       Levin amendment No. 3710, to require reports on policy and 
     political developments in Iraq.
       Schumer/Reid amendment No. 3723, to appropriate funds to 
     address price gouging and market manipulation and to provide 
     for a report on oil industry mergers.
       Schumer amendment No. 3724, to improve maritime container 
     security.
       Murray (for Kennedy) amendment No. 3716, to provide funds 
     to promote democracy in Iraq.
       Murray (for Kennedy) modified amendment No. 3688, to 
     provide funding to compensate individuals harmed by pandemic 
     influenza vaccine.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3722, to provide for immigration 
     injunction reform.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3699, to establish a floor to ensure 
     that States that contain areas that were adversely affected 
     as a result of damage from the 2005 hurricane season receive 
     at least 3.5 percent of funds set aside for the CDBG Program.
       Cornyn amendment No. 3672, to require that the Secretary of 
     Labor give priority for

[[Page 6769]]

     national emergency grants to States that assist individuals 
     displaced by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.
       Murray (for Byrd) amendment No. 3708, to provide additional 
     amounts for emergency management performance grants.
       Domenici/Reid amendment No. 3769, to provide additional 
     construction funding for levee improvements in the New 
     Orleans metropolitan area, gulf coast restoration.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour 
for debate with 30 minutes under the control of the Senator of Oklahoma 
and 15 minutes under the control of the Senator from California and 15 
minutes under the control of the other Senator from California.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the pending business of the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is H.R. 4939.


              Amendment No. 3641, Division XIX, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. I would resume where we were last night, if I could get 
recognized on amendment No. 3641, division XIX.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, to speak to that 
issue.
  Mr. COBURN. I had planned on withdrawing that amendment, but I wish 
to make one last point. California received $753 million in earmarks 
last year. This amendment was to eliminate almost $11 million on levee 
reconstruction. Seventy times that amount went to California in 
earmarks. That is the problem.
  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 3817, Withdrawn

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside and amendment No. 3817 be called up.
  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 Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3817.

  Mr. COBURN. 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 strike a provision relating to the Office of Job Corps)

       Strike section 7017 (relating to the Office of Job Corps).

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I intend on withdrawing this amendment. I 
wish to make a few points before I do so.
  In the supplemental bill, the Job Corps receives a direction that the 
Department of Labor can't manage it, can't use the resources to manage 
it. There are documented errors and documented fraud within it. Mr. 
President, section 7017 of the Emergency Supplemental would mandate 
that Job Corps operate with less accountability. Specifically, the 
language would make Job Corps the only program out of 100s to be 
operated out of the Secretary's office with direct contracting 
authority.
  The Office of the Secretary of Labor does not have the staff or 
resources to effectively manage and conduct oversight on the Job Corps. 
The language of Section 7017 forbids the Secretary from shifting 
oversight and management personnel from any other support office in the 
Department of Labor. Secretary Chao is forbidden to utilize the same 
oversight and management that every other program normally receives 
from other support offices within the Department.
  Section 7017 ignores recommendations from the Government 
Accountability Office and the Inspector General that warn against the 
dangers of waste, fraud, and abuse that will go undetected in the Job 
Corps program when one office controls all aspects of a contract-
drafting, soliciting, bidding, and managing. The incestuous 
relationship between the contractors who operate the Job Corp program 
and the program officers operating the program will have no independent 
oversight to guard against improper payments, improper use of 
resources, fraudulent performance reporting resulting in fraudulent 
salary bonuses, and non-compliant accounting and record keeping.
  Secretary Chao is trying to clean up the Job Corps program so that it 
effectively serves low income teenagers and young adults with a 
residential job training program. The Job Corps program needs 
accountability. According to the Office of Job Corps, the program 
failed to have aggressive monitoring of performance data making 
evaluations of the program's effectiveness unreliable. The Job Corps 
contractors are reporting misinformation regarding the number of 
students that successfully graduate or receive GEDs. The contractors 
fail to report that almost 40 percent of the students who go through 
the program fail to obtain a GED or diploma. This results in fraudulent 
bonus increases to the contractor's pay. The program fails to report 
that the median stay of a student at a Job Corps location is 8 months, 
while it takes at least 12 months to successfully obtain a GED. The 
program also fails to accurately report how many students successful 
receive job placement into the skilled jobs for which the Job Corps is 
supposed to equip the students. They fail to report that only 5 percent 
of the graduating students are placed in apprenticeships for skilled 
jobs. The contractors incorrectly consider job placement in unskilled 
jobs and the military--(obtainable without a high school education)--as 
benchmarks for success. This results in fraudulent bonus increases to 
their pay.
  Examples of mismanagement illustrated in past Inspector General 
Reports include doctoring of program performance resulting in bonus 
pay, unethical use of resources, lack of cost controls and resource 
management. These examples makes the point for Secretary Chao--that the 
Job Corps program is in desperate need for accountability and 
oversight.
  The September 30, 2005 Inspector General report, San Diego Job CORPS 
Center: Student Attendance and Training Data Overstated, stated that 
the number of vocational completions was overstated by over 50 percent. 
Training records did not support that students had completed all the 
vocation's tasks with an appropriate level of proficiency.
  In the March 30, 2005 Inspector General report, Kittrell Job Corps 
Center: Manipulation of Student Attendance and Training Records, the 
Inspector General found that Kittrell managers manipulated student 
attendance and training records to improve the center's reported 
performance. Reported performance of high school diploma attainment and 
job placements was also was not reliable. This unreliable data affected 
Job Corps financially because reimbursed operating expenses and 
incentive fees paid to contracted center operators are based on 
reported performance.
  In the 2001 independent auditor's report on the schedule of Job Corps 
expenses for the Turner Job Corps Center, the Inspector General found 
inadequate controls over payroll processing, that included hiring two 
instructors without proper credentials and keeping inaccurate records 
of leave. There was also lack of accountability over inventories of 
consumable supplies, evidence that the center underreported medical and 
dental expense, and the purchase of property and equipment that 
Department of Labor did not approve prior to acquisition.
  In the January 31, 2000 report entitled OIG Questions $1.3 Million of 
Additional Costs Claimed by Contractor Report No. 18-00-003-03-370, the 
Inspector General found that the contractor Will H. Hall & Son, Inc. 
received an additional $2,365,622 due to delays at their construction 
site. The Inspector General found that this contractor failed to 
substantiate its claim that various events under the Department of 
Labor's contract constituted compensable construction delays caused by 
the Department of Labor. Certain amounts claimed were either double 
counted as both direct and indirect costs, already covered under the 
original firm fixed-price contract, or based on estimates instead of 
actual costs incurred.

[[Page 6770]]

  Section 7017 of the Emergency Supplemental will virtually guarantee 
that we will see many more examples of waste, fraud and abuse within 
the Job Corp program. Furthermore, why is the Senate being asked to 
make a program change to a 40-year-old program within an Emergency 
Supplemental bill? Why hasn't the Department of Labor been consulted in 
making this unprecedented move away from accountability? Why hasn't the 
Appropriations Committee or the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions held a single hearing about this radical change to the Job 
Corps program?
  Due to time constraints and my desire to move Senate business 
forward, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  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. 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, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?


                    Amendment No. 3777, as modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 3777, as 
modified
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Brownback as a 
cosponsor to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 know of no Senators seeking recognition 
for discussing the amendment any further. The amendment has been 
described by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. The Senate is 
well aware of its intent. These are funds that are being directed to 
the situation in Darfur in the Sudan. There is a U.N. mission there 
with responsibilities for helping to deal with the misery and 
challenges to life that exist there.
  I ask the author of the amendment if that is the purpose of the 
amendment? It is money that would go for the purpose of supporting the 
work of the U.N. mission in Darfur?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the distinguished chairman for his inquiry. The 
answer is yes, our effort is to ensure the ability of the U.N. work to 
continue and to ultimately have the wherewithal when a peacekeeping 
force is called for to be able to have that move forward so we can 
hopefully end the genocide in Darfur.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the distinguished Senator for his explanation 
and his description of the language.
  I know of no requests for yeas and nays on the amendment. I suggest 
we proceed to a voice vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on April 6, I spoke on the floor about the 
humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur where more than 200,000 people have 
perished from genocidal violence, hunger and disease. Today I rise to 
strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Menendez to help meet 
the emergency need for additional funding for peacekeeping in Darfur.
  President Bush, this Congress, and the international community have 
recognized the need for double the number of peacekeeping troops in 
Darfur to stabilize the crisis and begin to lay the groundwork for a 
resolution to this conflict. But the President has not requested the 
funds to support additional troops. Rhetoric is cheap, but when the 
issue is the survival of thousands of vulnerable people, words do not 
suffice. The $60 million proposed by the Senator from New Jersey is the 
minimum needed.
  In addition to Sudan, there are 12 other U.N. peacekeeping missions 
that face severe funding shortages in fiscal year 2006. The State 
Department will be $383 million short in the next few months and will 
have no alternative but to defer those bills into next year, which 
creates a problem for our fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. The 
President's inadequate budget request, which is supported by the 
majority in Congress, ensures that we are perpetually behind in our 
U.N. peacekeeping payments.
  This supplemental does not fund a U.N. mission to Darfur, which is 
what we all recognize is needed. Senator Menendez's amendment would at 
least provide initial funding for such a mission. Nor does this bill 
fund other U.N. peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, Liberia, and Haiti.
  The U.S. does not contribute troops to any of these missions. But by 
not paying our share of peacekeeping dues on time the countries that 
contribute the troops are less willing to do so.
  The amount we pay is a tiny fraction of what we would have to spend 
to deploy our own troops. The GAO recently found that it would ``cost 
the U.S. about twice as much as the U.N. to conduct peacekeeping'', and 
the U.S. only contributes 25 percent of the cost. That makes the 
savings 8 times less--the U.N. is half as expensive and we only pay a 
quarter of the costs. We are not prepared to put our troops into these 
countries and the costs would be far higher to the U.S. if we did.
  The fiscal year 2006 budget we passed last year under-funded the U.S. 
dues for peacekeeping by $383 million. The U.S. has voted to expand the 
troop level in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, yet our share is 
underfunded by approximately $80 million in fiscal year 2006. Ensuring 
a smooth transition after the recent presidential election in Haiti is 
a stated priority of the administration, yet the peacekeeping mission 
to Haiti is underfunded by at least $40 million. Liberia, Cote 
d'Ivoire, and Kosovo are all underfunded in the next year by about $383 
million.
  So what happens when the U.S. or other donors do not pay or defer 
their peacekeeping bills? The U.N. adjusts its bill paying to keep its 
core missions running. And like anyone who hasn't been paid on time, 
the U.N. pays those accounts which have immediate needs and defers 
paying bills where creditors will grant it leeway. In the first half of 
the year, the U.N. system is relatively flush with cash from other 
countries' dues payments. It can and does shift from general accounts 
into those with funding shortfalls. But by mid-year, if major 
contributors are behind on their bill payments, the U.N. will resort to 
other tactics like paying for equipment, travel, and short-term 
logistical expenses while deferring payments to troop contributing 
nations that tend to be more forgiving of late U.N. payments.
  Nations that contribute troops to U.N. peacekeeping bear the primary 
burden of covering for U.S. shortfalls to the U.N. peacekeeping 
account. When the U.S. repaid its arrears to the U.N. under the Helms-
Biden deal, for example, the U.N. repaid fourteen to fifteen countries 
for up to 3 years' worth of deferred troop contributing costs.
  Additionally, the United States' lack of payment for peacekeeping in 
the past has created significant resistance to U.S. efforts to change 
assessment rates and enact reform at the U.N. During the Helms-Biden 
era and before the U.S. committed to repaying its dues, the U.S. lost 
seats on key U.N. governing bodies because of its arrearages.
  Over the course of the last several years, the United States has 
increasingly seen the need for U.N. peacekeeping. This has led to an 
unprecedented demand for peacekeeping troops. If we want to continue to 
increase this burden sharing arrangement, we need to pay troop 
contributing nations--like Pakistan, India, and South Africa--for 
services rendered. After all, they are putting their troops into harm's 
way so United States troops don't have to.
  We face a situation where commitments were made, funds are needed,

[[Page 6771]]

these countries are very unstable, and the commitment of U.S. troops is 
not an option. We must pay our share so the U.N. can send peacekeepers 
to Sudan, but also to support U.N. missions in other critical areas in 
the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
3777, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3777), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  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.


                    Amendment No. 3612, as Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to bring to the attention of 
the Senate several amendments that have been cleared on both sides of 
the aisle.
  First, I call up amendment No. 3612 on behalf of Mr. McConnell 
regarding assistance for the West Bank in Gaza.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and that amendment is called up.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 3612.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 a national security interest waiver on 
   prohibitions on assistance for the Office of the President of the 
                        Palestinian Authority.)

       On page 125, line 17, strike ``Prohibition'' and insert 
     ``(a) Prohibition''.
       On page 126, line 4, strike the quotation mark and the 
     period that follows.
       On page 126, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The President may waive 
     subsection (a) with respect to the administrative and 
     personal security costs of the Office of the President of the 
     Palestinian Authority and for activities of the President of 
     the Palestinian Authority to promote democracy and the rule 
     of law if the President certifies and reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations that--
       ``(A) it is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to provide such assistance; and
       ``(B) the President of the Palestinian Authority and the 
     President's party are not affiliated with Hamas or any other 
     foreign terrorist organization.
       ``(2) Prior to exercising the authority provided in this 
     subsection, the President shall consult with, and shall 
     provide a written policy justification to, the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate.''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. There is a modification of the amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3612), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 125, line 17, strike ``Prohibition'' and insert 
     ``(a) Prohibition''.
       On page 126, line 4, strike the quotation mark and the 
     period that follows.
       On page 126, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The President may waive 
     subsection (a) with respect to the administrative and 
     personal security costs of the Office of the President of the 
     Palestinian Authority, for activities of the President of the 
     Palestinian Authority to promote democracy and the rule of 
     law, and with respect to independent agencies, if the 
     President certifies and reports to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that--
       ``(A) it is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to provide such assistance; and
       ``(B) the President of the Palestinian Authority, the 
     President's party, and independent agencies are not 
     effectively controlled by Hamas or any other foreign 
     terrorist organization.
       ``(2) Prior to exercising the authority provided in this 
     subsection, the President shall consult with, and shall 
     provide a written policy justification to, the Committees on 
     Appropriations and the Committee on International Relations 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate.
       ``(c) Report.--Whenever the waiver authority pursuant to 
     subsection (b) is exercised, the President shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations describing how the 
     funds will be spent and the accounting procedures in place to 
     ensure proper oversight and accountability.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3612), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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.


                    Amendment No. 3719, as Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3719 on behalf of 
Mr. Biden and others regarding the Sudan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Biden, 
     for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3719.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 that not less than $250,000 of the amount 
 appropriated for Diplomatic and Consular Programs assistance shall be 
  made available for the establishment and support of an office of a 
                        special envoy for Sudan)

       On page 88, line 7, insert after ``Provided,'' the 
     following: ``That of the funds available under this heading, 
     not less than $250,000 shall be made available for the 
     establishment and support of an office of a special envoy for 
     Sudan with a mandate of pursuing, in conjunction with the 
     African Union, a sustainable peace settlement to end the 
     conflict in Darfur, Sudan, assisting the parties to the 
     Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan with implementation 
     of the Agreement, pursuing efforts at conflict resolution in 
     eastern Sudan, northern Uganda, and Chad, facilitating, in 
     cooperation with the people of Darfur and the African Union, 
     a dialogue within Darfur to promote conflict resolution and 
     reconciliation at the grass roots level, and developing a 
     common policy approach among international partners to 
     address such issues: Provided further,''.

  Mr. COCHRAN. There is a modification of the amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modification is 
included in the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3719), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 88, line 7, insert after ``Provided,'' the 
     following: ``That of the funds available under this heading, 
     not less than $250,000 shall be made available for the 
     establishment and adequate support, including staffing and 
     travel, of the Office of the Presidential Special Envoy for 
     Sudan, with a mandate that shall include pursuing, in 
     conjunction with the African Union and other international 
     actors, a sustainable peace settlement to end the genocide in 
     Darfur, Sudan, assisting the parties to the Comprehensive 
     Peace Agreement for Sudan with implementation of the 
     Agreement, coordinating policy, making recommendations, and 
     pursuing efforts related to conflict resolution to bring 
     lasting stability to all areas of Sudan and the region, 
     including northern Uganda and Chad, facilitating, in 
     cooperation with the people of Darfur and the African Union, 
     a dialogue within Darfur to promote conflict resolution and 
     reconciliation at the grass roots level, and developing a 
     common policy approach among international partners to 
     address such issues: Provided further,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 3719), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. 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.


                           Amendment No. 3823

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3823 on behalf of 
Mr. Leahy regarding Colombia.

[[Page 6772]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3823.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 urgent assistance to support the demobilization 
                          process in Colombia)

       On page 121, line 14 after ``That'' insert the following:
       of the funds appropriated under this heading, not less than 
     $3,300,000 shall be made available for assistance for the 
     Peace and Justice Unit of the Colombian Fiscalia 
     notwithstanding section 599E of Public Law 109-102: Provided 
     further, That

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3823) was agreed to.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 3798

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to call up and consider amendment No. 3798 on behalf of Mr. 
Kennedy regarding the AmeriCorps Segal awards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
pending amendment is set aside, and the clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Kennedy, proposes an amendment numbered 3798.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 honor Eli Segal's contribution to AmeriCorps by providing 
 that the national service educational awards provided, from available 
   resources, to AmeriCorps members on completion of their terms of 
              service shall be known as ``Segal awards'')

       At the end of title VII, insert the following:
       Sec. ___. Any national service educational award described 
     in subtitle D of title I of the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12601 et seq.), made with 
     funds appropriated to, funds transferred to, or interest 
     accumulated in the National Service Trust, shall be known as 
     a ``Segal award''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3798) was agreed to.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 3746

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3746 on behalf of 
Mr. Lieberman which makes a technical correction to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Lieberman, proposes an amendment numbered 3746.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

       On page 167, beginning on line 7 strike ``, 
     notwithstanding'' and all that follows through ``(42 U.S.C. 
     5174)'' on line 9.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3746) was agreed to.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 3699

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3699 on behalf of 
Mr. Cornyn regarding the distribution of CDBG funds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is currently pending.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides, and we urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Nelson of Florida be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the question is on 
agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3699) was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senate for its cooperation in 
moving forward on this bill. As others may know, there have been two 
amendments that I know of that were going to be debated and voted on 
this morning which have been withdrawn. We are making good progress in 
the consideration of Senators' amendments. If Senators have amendments, 
this is the time now to let us know.
  As you know, we are under cloture. We are not going to permit 
nongermane amendments to be brought up. So there will be objections 
made as a general proposition to accelerate the further discussion and 
consideration of this bill. We hope to complete action on the bill 
today. That certainly is possible with the fact that Senators are 
proceeding to let us know about their amendments that are germane. 
There is a list of amendments Senators have told us about that we 
expect to be called up. This is the time to do that. So we urge 
Senators to help us proceed on an orderly basis to complete action on 
the bill today.
  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. BUNNING. Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks about 
the supplemental appropriations bill now on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my opposition to 
the emergency supplemental bill. It has, unfortunately, become routine 
to see emergency spending bills on the floor. But I understand the 
pressing need for this legislation to defend America from terrorism and 
respond to one of the worst natural disasters in America's history.
  These reasons are why we have emergency supplemental legislation in 
the first place. I strongly support the President's $92 billion 
request. His request includes essential funding to pay the men and 
women serving in our Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also 
provides the funding needed to restore damaged military equipment and 
purchase new state-of-the-art technology.
  For fiscal year 2007, we have budgeted for much of the cost of the 
war on terror, but this emergency supplemental is important to provide 
our American Armed Forces the additional funding they need today.
  I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with the men and women serving 
in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting the defense portion of this 
legislation. And I would like to roll up my sleeves and help the 
Americans who were so devastated by Hurricane Katrina rebuild

[[Page 6773]]

their homes and communities. I believe strongly in these two missions, 
and I will fight to ensure they are properly funded.
  But today we are looking at legislation that has billions of dollars 
of extra spending in nonemergency areas. In fact, it has everything but 
the kitchen sink. As I read through the programs that will provide $20 
million for oyster fishermen in New England and $4 million for erosion 
control projects in California and Michigan, I am starting to believe 
the kitchen sink must be in there, too, somewhere.
  It saddens me to see in this legislation that States outside of the 
gulf coast are trying to latch on to the people who suffered from last 
year's hurricanes. Emergency spending should be just that--used for 
emergency purposes. We should not just add in billions of dollars of 
extra funding because this is a moving legislative vehicle.
  The legislation before us includes some programs like the Community 
Development Block Grant Programs which are funded significantly higher 
than the President's request. While I support this program, I do not 
think this emergency spending bill is the appropriate place to increase 
overall funding for CDBG. I do not see the need to spend an extra 
billion dollars and expand CDBG's scope beyond States affected by 
Katrina.
  The legislation further limits the CDBG money by requiring States to 
spend nearly 20 percent on affordable rental housing. I believe it is a 
mistake to take community planning decisions out of the hands of local 
and State officials.
  And there are other examples of States not affected by the hurricanes 
trying to obtain emergency funding. Everyone who has had some form of 
natural disaster in their State is trying to get a piece of the pie. I 
do not want to diminish the tragedy of any disaster, but the Federal 
budget process includes funding for these isolated events which were 
never intended to be funded with emergency spending.
  For example, there were a series of bad storms in California in 2002 
that flooded Los Angeles roadways and flooded buildings with hail. The 
legislation before us would provide $51 million for transportation 
repairs--repairs that the State of California has already paid for. 
That is right, this emergency bill contains money to repay States for 
natural disasters that occurred years ago. This is unacceptable.
  I have long supported congressionally directed projects and am 
prepared to defend my projects in the fiscal year 2007 appropriations 
bills. As a member of the Budget Committee, I can tell you firsthand 
how important it is to set targets and plan ahead. That is how we 
maintain accountability.
  We need to remember that every dollar we spend in this supplemental 
came from some hard-working American taxpayers. The American people 
deserve a Government that is careful with their money. That is why I 
will vote against this legislation.
  I have also told the President I will support his veto of this 
legislation if it passes Congress above his $92-plus billion request. I 
believe we need to cut spending and work out a responsible plan that 
meets the needs of the war on terror and rebuilding in the gulf coast 
region.
  I urge my colleagues to curb spending in this emergency spending 
bill. I ask for them to consider their vote and what will happen if we 
pass this legislation. I urge those who are on the fence or on the 
border or about not to vote for this bill, not to vote for it but if 
they do, to support the President's veto when it comes.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3688

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the Senator from Washington was kind 
enough on a previous occasion to offer amendment No. 3688. I call for 
the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is now 
pending.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  For any of my colleagues who had the chance last evening to look at 
the national news, the story that led virtually all of the national 
networks was the concern that our public health officials and worldwide 
public health officials have, with regard to the dangers of an avian 
flu pandemic. We listened to the Secretary of HHS talk about the 
numbers of Americans who would be affected, some 2 million people. With 
a pandemic, we would face the potential of closing down airlines, 
closing airports, dangers in the workplace, health dangers.
  This is something the Subcommittee on Bioterrorism and Public Health 
Preparedness has been very concerned about, and I pay special 
commendation to the chairman of our committee, Senator Burr, who has 
had a series of hearings not only on the dangers of avian flu and flu 
generally but also on the dangers of bioterrorism.
  There are some very important common threats that come from 
bioterrorism and from an avian flu danger. Obviously the first thing 
that a nation has to do is to be able to detect these pathogens in 
countries where they may be developing, and then, secondly, to detect 
them here at home. That is why development and support for a public 
health system is so important.
  Then there is the challenge of containment, to try to contain any of 
the dangers. And then, obviously, there is the treatment for 
individuals who are affected. That can be treating individuals who are 
affected or trying to provide a vaccine for individuals, so the dangers 
to those individuals are minimized. These challenges all fall under the 
rubric of the development of a national plan. I will come back to that 
in a moment. We in the United States have not had that kind of 
effective plan developed that would be necessary to deal with the 
central challenge of a public health emergency.
  This amendment I offer is a simple but vital amendment. It is a 
linchpin in any kind of battle against the dangers of avian flu. That 
is, if we are expecting our drug industry to be able to develop the 
vaccines--and we have given a good deal of flexibility to the Food and 
Drug Administration in these kinds of emergencies, to provide approval 
to vaccines that might not have been and probably would not have been 
given the kind of safety evaluations that other prescriptions drugs 
would have taken through--we have to ask: Who is going to receive these 
vaccines or treatments? Primarily, they will be individuals whom we 
call first responders. What are they going to do? They are going to go 
into the infected area and try to contain it.
  It is one thing to invest hundreds of millions and billions of 
dollars in developing the vaccines and treatments to minimize the 
health impact of the dangers of avian flu, but if we are going to ask 
first responders to go in and risk their lives, their health, and the 
economic stability and security of their families, we ought to be 
willing to say to these individuals: If you are going to get sick, and 
you are going to lose your job, or if there is going to be danger to 
your health as you serve as the frontline defenders for the rest of 
society, then we are going to compensate you for the loss of income you 
are going to have as a result of taking this vaccine. That is what this 
amendment does. It provides for a compensation program for first 
responders, the people on the front lines of a pandemic.
  One can say: Is this necessary? All we have to do is look at history, 
and we will find that when you do not have a compensation program, you 
do not have volunteers willing to serve as first responders, and 
willing to take on these challenges. This amendment protects our first 
responders, and so it protects the rest of society as well. It is a 
very limited amendment. That is the reason it is so important. You can 
ask: Is this really an emergency? No one can look at the news last 
night, and see the lead story on all three networks, saying there is a 
real danger

[[Page 6774]]

that is coming at you, and say we ought to treat this as business as 
usual. That is why I believe this amendment is appropriate to this 
supplemental.
  The administration seems to be suffering from a condition that could 
be called ``CDD,'' competence deficit disorder. Whether in Iraq or 
Katrina or any other major crisis, the administration has been 
incompetent, including the issue of dealing with avian flu. Our HELP 
Committee has analyzed the administration's regular failure to prepare 
for a flu pandemic, and today we are releasing a report showing that 
they have failed to take the steps needed to see that America is ready 
for this national challenge. They have failed to invest in the hospital 
surge capacity, in needed information technology, and in the public 
health surveillance and training programs that are needed for an 
effective response.
  The endless challenges outlined in the pandemic flu plan are a symbol 
of the administration's failure. The preparations for avian flu have 
been in such prolonged disarray that they are releasing their third new 
plan this week. The Bush administration has known of the need for a 
plan to prepare for a flu pandemic since the day it took office. But 
2001 came and went without a plan, then 2002, 2003, 2004, and almost 
all of 2005, and still no plan. In each of these years, the warnings of 
a potential pandemic grew louder but were ignored.
  This chart shows the warnings that have been offered by health 
experts around the world. From May 2002, the World Health Organization:

       Authorities must understand the potential impact and threat 
     of pandemic influenza.

  This is from the GAO, November 2000:

       Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key 
     issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines 
     and antivirals.

  From the Institute of Medicine in 1992:

       Policymakers must realize and understand the magnitude of 
     the influenza pandemic.

  Then we had the series of flu outbreaks: December 2003, outbreak in 
South Korea; outbreak in Vietnam, 2004; outbreak in 2006 of avian flu 
in Britain. This chart shows all the outbreaks in the most recent 
years.
  What have other nations done on the pandemic? First, let's look at 
other countries around the world that have developed a comprehensive 
plan for the pandemic. In October 1997, we had a program by the 
Japanese; Canada in February 2004; Czechoslovakia in April 2004; 
February 2005, Hong Kong; March of 2005, Great Britain.
  I will not include these plans in the Record, but let me show the 
extent of the British pandemic flu program. I have illustrated this at 
other times during similar discussions. Here is the Canadian plan. 
These are enormously comprehensive programs. They are programs that 
deal with rural areas, urban areas, training programs. And not only are 
there programs, they are being implemented. Our strategy was issued in 
November 2005, and it has remained incomplete since then. The 
administration has sent a second plan to us now.
  What is it basically that we are trying to do? We are trying to get a 
comprehensive plan from the administration, a plan that has been 
implemented. Let me show one other chart. This isn't just what I 
believe. From the GAO report, November 2000:

       Federal and State influenza plans do not address the key 
     issues surrounding the purchase and distribution of vaccines 
     and antivirals.

  From June 2005:

       The draft plan does not establish the actions the Federal 
     Government would take to purchase and distribute the vaccine 
     during an influenza pandemic.

  This is from a GAO June 2005 report. That is the current situation.
  Right now, we have in this legislation resources to pruchase the 
vaccines in an emergency. But we do not have a compensation program. We 
have a compensation program in name, but that is all it is. It is not 
funded. Well, you can say we will try to find a way to fund it in the 
future. Tell that to the downwinders out in Utah. Tell that to my 
friend, Senator Hatch, who has been absolutely brilliant in terms of 
looking after those individuals, whose lives were so affected by the 
experiments with nuclear materials so many years ago. He, to his 
credit, developed a compensation program. I welcomed the opportunity to 
work with him to try to help these people whose health had been 
absolutely destroyed by exposures, in the national interest, as we 
developed various nuclear weapons.
  Here is our majority leader, Senator Frist, who said:

       Too many health care workers have been deterred from 
     receiving the smallpox vaccine--in part because of the 
     uncertainties about what would happen, and how they would 
     provide for themselves, if they suffered a serious adverse 
     reaction to the vaccine.

  That states it as clearly and succinctly as one could possibly say 
it. We do not have a guaranteed compensation program for pandemic flu 
vaccines in this legislation or in any other place in our health care 
system. This amendment provides a down-payment for the compensation 
program. You can say: Well, why should we do that for this particular 
program? All we have to do is look at other vaccine programs, other 
public health programs, for swine flu, childhood vaccines, and, after 
Congress acted, for smallpox. We had a compensation plan for people 
injured by those experimental vaccines. But for the new ones, we only 
have an empty sham of a compensation, with no funding.
  So, Mr. President, that is what this amendment does. It provides some 
$289 million for the development of that compensation program. It is 
effectively the same kind of program that has been essential in the 
past, and it is essential now if we expect our front-line responders to 
be willing to take experimental vaccines and to risk their lives for 
the common good of the community that may well be threatened by avian 
flu or bioterrorism. Individuals who are well trained as front-line 
responders ought to have the assurance that if they take an 
experimental drug and they go out there to protect the public, if 
something is going to happen to them, there will be a compensation fund 
to compensate them for their health care needs and their immediate 
needs, if that should turn out to be the case. Nothing more, nothing 
less. That is essentially what this amendment does.
  Mr. President, I see our floor managers here. I am glad to 
accommodate whatever they would like. I would like to get a yea or nay 
vote at some time. I know they have a full program. I ask for the yeas 
and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am checking 
with the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee 
on Labor, Health and Human Services to see what the reaction is to the 
amendment. They are having a hearing as we speak over in the 
Appropriations Committee. So I feel obliged to get their advice and 
counsel as to what response ought to be made, if any, to the Senator's 
amendment. We have no objection to proceeding or to having a vote on 
the amendment, but the Senate is entitled to know what the reaction 
might be.
  Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine and understandable. I will wait until we 
hear from the chairman and ranking member. I don't intend to extend the 
discussion. I think it is pretty understandable. I am glad to wait 
until the leader lets us know when they want to address it and complete 
action on it. I will be available.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator very much for that 
indulgence. If there are others who wish to offer amendments, I am 
prepared to ask unanimous consent to temporarily lay aside the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts to permit other amendments 
to be offered. I do ask unanimous consent for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I would like to offer two amendments and have a moment 
to speak about two amendments that are germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for that purpose.

[[Page 6775]]




                           Amendment No. 3750

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will bring up for a brief discussion 
my amendment No. 3750.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3750.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 direct the Secretary of the Army to develop a 
comprehensive plan for the deauthorization of deep draft navigation on 
the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet and address wetland losses and other 
                    issues relating to that Outlet)

       On page 159, strike lines 1 through 10 and insert the 
     following:

     $7,250,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, 
     That the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of 
     Engineers, shall use $3,500,000 to develop a comprehensive 
     plan, at full Federal expense, that, at a minimum, will 
     deauthorize deep draft navigation on the Mississippi River 
     Gulf Outlet established by Public Law 84-455 (70 Stat. 65, 
     chapter 112) (referred to in this matter as the ``Outlet)'', 
     extending from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf Intracoastal 
     Waterway, and address wetland losses attributable to the 
     Outlet, channel bank erosion, hurricane and storm protection, 
     saltwater intrusion, navigation, ecosystem restoration, and 
     related issues: Provided further, That the plan shall include 
     recommended authorization modifications to the Outlet 
     regarding what, if any, navigation should continue, measures 
     to provide hurricane and storm protection, prevent saltwater 
     intrusion, and re-establish the storm buffering properties 
     and ecological integrity of the wetland damaged by 
     construction and operation of the Outlet, and complement 
     restoration of coastal Louisiana: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall develop the plan in consultation with the 
     Parish of St. Bernard, Louisiana, the State of Louisiana, the 
     Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Commerce, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
     National Academy of Sciences: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary shall seek input, review, and comment from the 
     public and the scientific community on the plan: Provided 
     further, That the Secretary shall ensure that an independent 
     panel of experts established by the National Academy of 
     Sciences reviews and provides written comments on the 
     proposed plan: Provided further, That, not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit an interim report to Congress comprising the plan, the 
     written comments of the independent panel of experts, and the 
     written explanation of the Secretary for any recommendation 
     of the independent panel of experts not adopted in the plan: 
     Provided further, That the Secretary shall refine the plan, 
     if necessary, to be fully consistent, integrated, and 
     included in the final technical report to be issued in 
     December 2007 pursuant to the matter under the heading 
     ``investigations'' under the heading ``Corps of Engineers--
     Civil'' of title I of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247; 
     Public Law 109-148, 119 Stat. 2814): Provided further, That 
     the amount provided under this heading is designated as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. Res. 
     05 (109th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget 
     for fiscal year 2006: Provided further, That, of the amount 
     made available under this heading, $3,750,000 shall be 
     available only to the extent that an official budget request 
     for a specific dollar amount, that includes designation of 
     the entire amount of the request as an emergency requirement, 
     is transmitted by the President to Congress.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment that I offer tries to 
move forward a very difficult situation that we are faced with in 
Louisiana about how to protect not just the New Orleans city proper but 
the greater metropolitan area and parts of south Louisiana from 
flooding in the future.
  As you know, Mr. President, because you have been gracious enough to 
be one of the Senators to go walk through the neighborhoods and see the 
flooding, being a firsthand witness, it wasn't just the hurricanes, 
Katrina and Rita, but it was the breaking of levee systems. Some of 
those levees were long industrial canals that served this great port 
which, together with the South Louisiana Port, is the largest port 
system in America. Some of these levees were along the lake. Some of 
them were along what we call the London Avenue Canal.
  There was a project that was designed and structured by the Corps of 
Engineers back in the 1930s and 1940s called the Mississippi River gulf 
outlet. I think you actually stood on that levee, Mr. President, and 
looked to see where that breach occurred. This avenue was thought--at 
the time we built it and designed it, like so many large civil works 
projects we have done in this Nation--to be a positive effort to help 
expand the opportunities for the port for trade and commerce. For a 
while, it did serve that purpose. But what has happened is that over a 
decade, it has caused such erosion in the great expanse of marshland 
that it was placed in--or the marsh was dredged through and created, 
that it really is causing, according to everyone who has looked at how 
the flooding occurred in our area, it is causing serious--not only 
environmental--damage but is now a real threat to life and property.
  So there has been an effort underway between port officials, parish 
officials in St. Bernard, and the business community to try to come up 
with a way to close the Mississippi River gulf outlet but to do it in a 
way that protects the parish of St. Bernard primarily and the lower 
ninth ward, as well as trying to give some period of time for the few 
businesses that are along the gulf outlet to make arrangements to move.
  My amendment would simply provide a de minimis $3.5 million for the 
Corps of Engineers to develop a closure plan because the consensus at 
home is that the Mississippi River gulf outlet, which is demonstrated 
here on the map, which served at one time as a very important shipping 
channel--it is significant that shipping has greatly diminished as its 
threat to the environment has substantially increased. Because we have 
not had the Federal or State resources to actually protect these 
marshlands the way we should, this channel has become quite wide, much 
wider than any of us had anticipated--even the Corps. And the 
possibilities of flooding have been increased because the channel has 
been expanded and these marshes have been eroding from many different 
factors, not just this.
  So this very modest $3.5 million would allow a study--a plan, not 
really a study, because the studies are completed--and this will become 
part of our overall protection system for this region. Again, the point 
is that we are not just building levees to protect southern Louisiana 
and southern Mississippi and other places. It is a combination of some 
levees, some coastal restoration, and some smart navigation channel 
work, or rework, that is integrated--much more of a sophisticated, 
coordinated approach than in the past.
  I offer this amendment by way of explanation to show that the studies 
have been done. There has been a lot of evaluation of past storms. This 
will allow the Corps to come up with a plan to close MRGO, provide for 
shipping and good environmental restoration, and, most importantly, 
protect St. Bernard Parish and the lower part of ward 9 in Orleans 
Parish and New Orleans east from flooding in the future.
  So that is the amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3752

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3752.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3752.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. 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 direct the Secretary of Commerce to provide a grant to the 
Port of New Orleans to mitigate increased costs resulting from the loss 
 of deep draft navigation access to certain facilities at the Port in 
                  the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina)

       On page 178, after line 21, add the following:

                  Economic Development Administration

       For an additional amount for the mitigation of increased 
     costs resulting from the loss of deep draft navigation access 
     to certain facilities at the Port of New Orleans in the 
     aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,

[[Page 6776]]

     $8,500,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007, to 
     be provided by the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary for Economic Development, to the Port of 
     New Orleans in the form of a grant: Provided, That the 
     Secretary shall administer the grant under this section in 
     accordance with section 209 of the Public Works and Economic 
     Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3149): 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.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, this amendment is a 1-year grant of $8.5 
million to the Port of New Orleans to mitigate the increased costs 
resulting from the loss of deep-draft navigation access to certain 
facilities and ports. This is part B of this amendment. We worked to 
create a plan to close this from large deep-draft vessels. They still 
have access, obviously, through the inner harbor canal lock through the 
GIWW. We still have to find a way to help offset some of the costs to 
some of these companies that are located here as a transitional plan, 
so that we can make these arrangements that the Corps is recommending 
for safety of the port facilities and the people around it. That is 
basically what amendment No. 3752 will accomplish.
  As I have said before, this was created back many decades ago when we 
didn't realize the environmental impact. It has caused not just 
problems from Katrina and Rita, but it prompted a great deal of 
flooding back in 1965 with Hurricane Betsy, one of the worst in this 
region, well before Katrina and Rita. So we have known for a long time 
that this had to be done.
  With these two amendments, I believe the port can have some money for 
the transition, the Corps can get the plans done to ready the closure, 
and we will be well on our way to protecting a great number of people 
at a minimal expense to the Federal Government or to the local and 
State governments and having a great benefit for shipping, the 
environment, and the community that lives along this industrial 
channel.
  I thank the chairman for the time to discuss the amendments. We will 
follow his direction as to when these amendments come up for a vote. I 
yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, to respond to the Senator's comments, in 
looking at the list of amendments that are not germane, these two 
amendments appear to be not germane postcloture and therefore not in 
order. We are checking to see what the reaction is from the authorizing 
committee. What that would amount to is this is an authorization that 
has not been approved. The language amounts to an authorization of a 
water project that has not been approved by the committee that has 
legislative jurisdiction over the issues. So we are awaiting a response 
and a reaction from the legislative committee to the amendments.
  I suggest we move on to other amendments that may be in order. The 
Kennedy amendment was temporarily laid aside so the Senator could 
discuss her two amendments. Having done so, I think we can return to 
the Kennedy amendment and then let the Senate work its will on that 
amendment. The Senator from Massachusetts has asked for the yeas and 
nays on his amendment, and we could proceed to a vote.
  We were trying to get a reaction from the chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee having jurisdiction over the pandemic 
influenza vaccine issue, the Labor, Health and Human Services 
Appropriations subcommittee. They are having a hearing right now and we 
haven't had a response to our inquiry about the reaction. We also think 
the leaders are entitled to notice that this could be subject to a 
recorded vote to get the reaction as to whether this is the time to do 
that or if they are available to discuss it, if the leader wants to 
discuss the issue. So awaiting those advices, I suggest the absence of 
a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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 understand that two other amendments 
have now been cleared for the consideration of the Senate.


                    Amendment No. 3713, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 3713.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment is pending.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment that was offered 
last evening by the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, Mr. 
Burr. As I say, it has been cleared on both sides. I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be modified with the modifications at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 238, line 23, strike ``Control and Prevention, 
     and'' and insert ``Control and Prevention, $5,000,000 shall 
     be for the Smithsonian Institution to carry out domestic 
     disease surveillance, and''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified? If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3713), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I now advise that we can call up an 
amendment of Senator Kennedy regarding democracy in Iraq.


                    Amendment No. 3686, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3686, on behalf 
of Senator Kennedy and others, regarding democracy in Iraq.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. 
     Kennedy, for himself, Mr. Biden, and Mr. Leahy, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3686.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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:

       On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:


          UNITED STATES STRATEGY TO PROMOTE DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

       Sec. 1406. (a) Of the funds provided in this chapter for 
     the Economic Support Fund, not less than $96,000,000 should 
     be made available through the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
     Rights, and Labor of the Department of State, in coordination 
     with the United States Agency for International Development 
     where appropriate, to United States nongovernmental 
     organizations for the purpose of supporting broad-based 
     democracy assistance programs in Iraq that promote the long 
     term development of civil society, political parties, 
     election processes, and parliament in that country.
       (b) The President shall include in each report submitted to 
     Congress under the United States Policy in Iraq Act (section 
     1227 of Public Law 109-163; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note; 119 Stat. 
     3465) a report on the extent to which funds appropriated in 
     this Act support a short-term and long-term strategy to 
     promote and develop democracy in Iraq. The report shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of the objectives of the Secretary of 
     State to promote and develop democracy at the national, 
     regional, and provincial levels in Iraq, including 
     development of civil society, political parties, and 
     government institutions.
       (2) The strategy to achieve such objectives.
       (3) The schedule to achieve such objectives.
       (4) The progress made toward achieving such objectives.
       (5) The principal official within the United States 
     Government responsible for coordinating and implementing 
     democracy funding for Iraq.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3686), as modified, is as follows:


[[Page 6777]]

       On page 126, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:


                           DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ

       Sec. 1406. (a) Of the funds provided in this chapter for 
     the Economic Support Fund, not less than $104,500,000 should 
     be made available through the Bureau of Democracy, Human 
     Rights, and Labor of the Department of State, in coordination 
     with the United States Agency for International Development 
     where appropriate, to United States nongovernmental 
     organizations for the purpose of supporting democracy 
     assistance programs in Iraq that promote the long term 
     development of civil society, political parties, election 
     processes, the rule of law, reconciliation activities, and 
     parliament in that country: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     State shall consult with the Committees on Appropriations 
     prior to the initial obligation of funds made available under 
     this section on the uses of such funds: Provided further, 
     That of the funds made available under this heading, up to 
     $8,500,000 should be made available for the United States 
     Institute of Peace for programs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
       (b) The President shall include in each report submitted to 
     Congress under the United States Policy in Iraq Act (section 
     1227 of Public Law 109-163; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note; 119 Stat. 
     3465) a report on the extent to which funds appropriated in 
     this Act support a short-term and long-term strategy to 
     promote and develop democracy in Iraq, including:
       (1) A description of the objectives of the Secretary of 
     State to promote and develop democracy at the national, 
     regional, and provincial levels in Iraq, including 
     development of civil society, political parties, and 
     government institutions.
       (2) The schedule to achieve such objectives.
       (3) The progress made toward achieving such objectives.
       (4) The principal official within the United States 
     Government responsible for coordinating and implementing 
     democracy funding for Iraq.

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the senior Senator from Kentucky 
knows, the Kennedy-Biden-Leahy amendment sets aside $104.5 million in 
economic support funds in the supplemental for U.S. nongovernmental 
organizations for democracy building programs that promote the long-
term development of civil society, political parties, election 
processes, the rule of law, reconciliation activities, and parliament 
in Iraq.
  Currently, there are six nongovernmental organizations doing 
excellent democracy work in Iraq under extremely difficult and 
dangerous conditions. Our expectation is that $96 million of the funds 
in our amendment would be allocated among the six organizations in the 
following way to continue their work in Iraq:
  IFES would receive $20 million. The International Research and 
Exchanges Board would receive $6 million. The National Endowment for 
Democracy would receive $10 million. The America's Development 
Foundation would receive $16 million.
  The National Democratic Institute and the International Republican 
Institute would each receive $22 million. These funds would be in 
addition to the $15 million that the administration has requested for 
these activities in fiscal year 07.
  In each case, the additional funds are intended to be used by the 
organizations over the next 18 months to continue their current 
operations. I understand that each organization will need to submit a 
proposal to justify the use of funds before they can be made available.
  Does the Senator from Kentucky agree with this allocation of funds?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I do.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Does the Senator from Vermont agree with this allocation 
of funds?
  Mr. LEAHY. Yes, I do. And I would add that the amendment also 
provides that up to $8.5 million should be made available to support 
the activities of the United States Institute of Peace in Iraq.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Kentucky, 
Mr. McConnell, and the Senator from Vermont for their assistance on 
this amendment.
  The amendment provides $104.5 million for American nongovernmental 
organizations helping Iraqis to create the essential building blocks of 
democracy. It is cosponsored by Senators Biden and Leahy.
  Last year, Iraq passed several important milestones on the long road 
to democracy. However, as important as the two elections and the 
referendum on the constitution were, they were not decisive, and it is 
far from clear that democracy is being firmly established in Iraq.
  The process of building democratic institutions is different and 
requires patience in developing effective governmental structures, a 
genuine rule of law, political parties committed to peaceful means, an 
active civil society, and a free press. Constructive international 
engagement is essential as well in the case of Iraq. For a country as 
heavily repressed as long as Iraq, democracy will take even longer to 
take root.
  It is far from clear, however, that the Bush administration has a 
long-term strategy--or even a short-term strategy--to solidify and 
continue the democratic gains that have been made so far.
  American nongovernmental organizations such as the National 
Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the 
National Endowment for Democracy, IFES, formerly known. as the 
International Foundation for Election Systems, the International 
Research and Exchanges Board and America's Development Foundation are 
well respected in Iraq and throughout the world. Each has substantial 
operations in Iraq, and their work is essential to the administration's 
goal of building a stable democracy in Iraq.
  Yet despite their success so far in helping to promote democracy and 
the enormous risks their employees take by working in the war zone, the 
administration has made no long-term commitment to provide funding for 
their work in Iraq. Each organization operates on pins and needles, 
never knowing when their funding for Iraq operations will dry up.
  The American nongovernmental organization IFES has been in Iraq since 
October 2003. It has provided technical assistance in each of Iraq's 
elections so far, and it has been asked to provide such assistance for 
regional and provincial elections scheduled for April 2007.
  It is also preparing for a possible second referendum on the 
constitution, and is assisting as well in the enactment and 
implementation of legislation governing the operations of a new 
election council for local elections.
  Inexplicably, funding will run out in June, and the administration 
has not yet committed any additional funds. None of the funds in this 
supplemental spending bill are set-aside for it, and none of the meager 
$63 million requested in the fiscal year 2007 budget for democracy-
building is intended for IFES either. Our amendment would provide $20 
million to sustain its democracy work in Iraq for the next 18 months, 
through the end of fiscal year 2007.
  An independent media is also essential to a successful democracy. A 
U.S. nongovernmental organization, the International Research and 
Exchanges Board--IREX is working in Iraq to see that the Iraqi people 
have independent, professional, high quality news and public affairs 
information. To create an environment in which a free press can 
flourish, it is also seeking to establish a legal, regulatory, and 
policy environment that supports independent media.
  IREX's funding for these important programs is also running out, and 
it will be forced to close its operations this summer, which would pull 
the rug out from under many struggling new press organizations in Iraq. 
Our amendment would provide $6 million to sustain IREX's democracy work 
in Iraq for the next 18 months.
  In addition, the nongovernmental organization America's Development 
Foundation provides essential aid to support and sustain civil society 
in Iraq. ADF and its partner civil society organizations in Iraq have 
provided training and assistance to thousands of Iraqi government 
officials at the national, regional, and local level on issues such as 
anticorruption, transparency, accountability, fiscal responsibility, 
whistleblower protection, and the development of nongovernmental 
organizations.
  ADF wants to continue its work, but its funding will end in June. 
USAID supports this work and has a contract pending, but it doesn't 
have the resources to fulfill it. Our amendment

[[Page 6778]]

provides $16 million to sustain its work over the next 18 months. 
Similarly, the National Endowment for Democracy has no clear sense of 
what the future holds for them in Iraq.
  Two of the endowment's core grantees--the Center for International 
Private Enterprise and the Labor Solidarity Center in Iraq--have 
important democracy promotion functions.
  Since opening a regional office in Baghdad in October 2003, the 
Center for International Private Enterprise has worked to build 
capacity for market oriented democratic reform in Iraq. It has provided 
training and grant support to approximately 22 Iraqi business 
associations and chambers of commerce.
  The Labor Solidarity Center works directly with Iraqi trade unions to 
develop skills in strengthening independent and democratic trade 
unions.
  In addition, the endowment partners with 32 local organizations on 
the ground in Iraq to promote and sustain civil society projects on 
political development, raising awareness of women's rights, and 
encouraging the free flow of information to Iraqi citizens.
  The endowment wants to continue working directly with the Iraqi 
people and be able to guarantee continuity in its democracy grants to 
Iraqi organizations. But no funding is set aside in this bill or in the 
fiscal year 2007 budget for its programs.
  Our amendment provides $10 million to sustain the democracy programs 
of the Center for International Private Enterprise, the Labor 
Solidarity Center, and the Endowment for Democracy's local partners for 
18 months. Similarly, the International Republican Institute and the 
National Democratic institute--are doing truly impressive work in Iraq 
under extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
  The International Republican Institute programs in Iraq have focused 
on three principal goals: development of an issue-based political party 
system; establishment of the foundation for a more transparent and 
responsive government; and the emergence of an active and politically 
involved civil society.
  The National Democratic Institute supports a number of democracy 
programs in Iraq as well, with emphasis on political parties, 
governance, civil society and women's rights. It has four offices in 
Iraq to promote these essential building blocks of strong democracy, 
and it works directly with Iraqi partners and hundreds of local civic 
organization.
  Both IRI and NDI want to continue to build these essential links 
between the government and political parties, in order to enable the 
government become more responsive and effective in addressing the needs 
of Iraq's people.
  Despite the impressive contribution of these two Institutes to 
democracy in Iraq, neither is guaranteed steady future funding for its 
programs. The administration's budget provides only $7.5 million for 
each Institute--enough for just 2 months of operating expenses. Our 
amendment provides an additional $22 million for each institute's 
essential democracy programs in Iraq for the next 18 months.
  The amendment also provides $8.5 million for the U.S. Institute of 
Peace for its important work to promote reconciliation.
  This amendment has broad support in the democracy community, and I 
ask unanimous consent to print letters supporting it in the Record at 
the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thousands of Iraqis are working hard, often at great 
risk to themselves, to develop civic groups, participate in political 
parties and election, and run for and serve in political office. The 
dramatic pictures of Iraqis waving their purple fingers after voting in 
past elections remind us of the enormous stakes.
  Progress to avoid civil war and defeat the insurgency is directly 
related to progress on democracy-building, and ongoing work on this 
all-important issue must be a top priority.
  We must be clear in our commitment to stand by these organizations 
that are working on the front lines in the struggle for democracy in 
Iraq every day. We also need to demonstrate to Iraqis and others that 
we are committed to Iraq's long-term democratic development. We need a 
long-term plan and a long-term strategy that is backed by appropriate 
resources.
  President Bush has called for patience in Iraq. He should heed his 
own advice. He can't speak about having patience for democracy in Iraq, 
and then cut funding for the groups that are assisting so capably in 
its development.
  Our financial commitment to the organizations at the forefront of the 
democracy effort must be strong and unambiguous. By failing to 
guarantee continuity for their programs, we send a confusing signal 
that can only be harmful for this very important effort.
  We are now spending more than $1 billion a week for military 
operations for the war in Iraq. At this rate, it would take the 
military less than one day to spend the $104.5 million provided in this 
amendment for democracy promotion. Surely, we can commit this level of 
funding for democracy programs over the next 18 months.
  Regardless of whether we supported or opposed the war, we all agree 
that the work of building democracy requires patience, skill, 
guaranteed continuity, and adequate resources.
  It makes no sense to shortchange Iraq's political development. We 
need a long-term political strategy, and we must back up that strategy 
with the needed resources, if we truly hope to achieve a stable, 
peaceful and democratic Iraq.
  Our amendment provides the resources necessary to ensure continuity 
in these democracy programs in Iraq. I thank Senators McConnell and 
Leahy for their hard work on this provision, and I am delighted that it 
will become part of this legislation.

                             National Endowment for Democracy,

                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 2006.
     Hon. Ted Kennedy,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of the Board of Directors 
     of the National Endowment for Democracy, we are writing to 
     thank you for your commitment to creating a viable and 
     sustainable democracy in Iraq.
       As you know; the National Endowment for Democracy received 
     the first of several awards from the Department of State in 
     February 2004 to support programs carried out by our four 
     core institutes, the International Republican Institute 
     (IRI), the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Center 
     for International, Private Enterprise (CIPE), and the 
     Solidarity Center. In addition, NED directly funds local 
     Iraqi groups focusing on the promotion of women in the 
     democratic process, strengthening an independent media, and 
     increasing youth participation in the political process. 
     After our September 2006 Board meeting, NED will not be able 
     to maintain its current program in Iraq without renewed 
     funding.
       Should funding for democracy programs in Iraq be available 
     for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2006 and into Fiscal Year 
     2007, the Endowment will facilitate the development of a 
     nationwide coalition of local groups that crosses geographic, 
     ethnic and confessional lines, which will advocate for 
     political tolerance, accountable governance, rule of law and 
     rational use of national resources. Also, NED will continue 
     to fund CIPE, which has a developed network of over 40 
     business associations and chambers of commerce. CIPE's 
     program will support Iraqis in building a platform for 
     moderate and market-oriented approaches in Iraq's political 
     process. Further, NED will provide funding to the Solidarity 
     Center to support local Iraqi trade unions in developing 
     policy platforms and advocating for labor legislation, and 
     working with the Iraqi oil unions to develop their capacity 
     to be a force for promoting transparency, anti-corruption, 
     and the rule of law in Iraq's largest economic sector.
       The Endowment is committed to supporting the Iraqi people 
     in developing a democratic culture and creating institutions 
     that will promote individual rights and freedoms. This will 
     be a long-term endeavor, and we thank you for your continuing 
     support and dedication on this important issue.
           Sincereely,
     Vin Weber,
                                             Chairman of the Board
     Richard A. Gephardt,
     Vice-Chair of the Board.
                                  ____



                                National Democratic Institute,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2006.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to express our deep 
     appreciation for your commitment to long-term democracy 
     building efforts in Iraq. Your leadership in this issue

[[Page 6779]]

     has allowed non-profit organizations such as NDI to continue 
     to help courageous Iraqis struggling for a more democratic 
     and open society. The long-term success of America's efforts 
     in Iraq will ultimately rest on our ability to empower these 
     Iraqis to overcome a long history of isolation, dictatorial 
     rule, and ethnic division.
       With the support of Congress, the National Endowment for 
     Democracy, USAID, and the Department of State's Bureau for 
     Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, NDI has, since 2003, 
     developed a sizeable program that works to strengthen civil 
     society, political parties, governing-institutions, and 
     women's political participation and leadership. With seven 
     offices throughout the country, NDI employs more than 200 
     Iraqi program staff and 30 full-time international staff from 
     Canada, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Serbia and the United States. 
     An additional 30 practitioners from the U.S. Canada, Eritrea, 
     the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom have regularly 
     visited Iraq to share expertise with their Iraqi 
     counterparts.
       NDI's program works directly with Iraqis almost exclusively 
     outside the Green Zone to build the critical linkages between 
     Iraqi citizens and government that are necessary for long-
     term legitimacy of, and participation in the country's new 
     democratic system. The Institute has trained more than 6,000 
     political party and 3,000 women activists, provided best 
     international practices on issues such as federalism and 
     human rights to key Iraqi decision-makers and the 
     Constitutional Drafting Committee, and helped more than 150 
     nascent NGOs deploy more than 30,000 election monitors for 
     the two national elections and constitutional referendum. 
     Many of the same NGOs have, with NDI support, led town hall 
     meetings for more than 300,000 Iraqis on the new constitution 
     and the workings of the parliament.
       Building democratic institutions and processes, beyond 
     elections is a long-term proposition. In parts of Eastern 
     European alone, the United States, through organizations such 
     as NDI, continues to be engaged after the region's initial 
     transition 16 years ago. Iraq will likely require an even 
     longer international engagement. With the recent election of 
     the first parliament under a new constitution, the real work 
     in Iraq is just beginning. And, NDI remains committed to the 
     long-term democracy programs needed to meet this challenge.
       Such a sustained commitment would not be possible without 
     continued U.S. government support; and the leadership and 
     vision that you and your colleagues have shown for ongoing 
     democracy promotion efforts is greatly appreciated by NDI and 
     other organizations involved in Iraq.
       With best regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Kenneth Wollack,
     President.
                                  ____

                                            International Research


                                          and Exchanges Board,

                                   Washington, DC, April 20, 2006.
                                              Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: I am writing to thank you for your 
     strong support for democracy assistance in Iraq and your 
     efforts to ensure that this support from the United States 
     continues. IREX, a non-profit organization dedicated to 
     education, civil society, and media, has been working to 
     support Iraq's nascent independent media sector as part of a 
     USAID civil society project--the Iraqi Civil Society and 
     Independent Media Program.
       We strongly believe that a vibrant and professional 
     independent media sector is crucial to a stable and 
     democratic Iraq. Capable Iraqi individuals and organizations 
     are working with U.S. support and risking their lives for the 
     sake of media freedom, but much work remains to be done. 
     However, our work is slated to end on June 30, 2006 due to 
     lack of funding for democracy initiatives. Key media 
     initiatives and successes supported by the U.S. Government 
     that face closure with an end of U.S. assistance, include:
       The National Iraqi News Agency (www.ninanews.com), the 
     first independent commercial news agency in the Arab World. 
     After only 7 months, approximately 1500 NINA stories are 
     carried by more than 50 Iraqi media outlets each month. NINA 
     sets a standard of professionalism for the media sector and 
     has survived the effects of two bombings yet carried on its 
     work unimpeded.
       Iraqis for Public Broadcasting is a group of dedicated 
     civil society and media professionals who have served as a 
     public watchdog to fight government and political 
     interference in the Iraqi Media Network. The group has 
     developed a new public broadcasting law that could help 
     develop IMN into the Arab world's first independent public 
     broadcaster.
       The Iraqi Media Network, meant to be the public broadcaster 
     for Iraq, has been beset by attempts at political control of 
     its news and public affairs programming. IREX is one of the 
     few organizations that has been able to work inside IMN with 
     its journalism staff, assisting in development of programming 
     on the elections and the constitution, providing citizens a 
     forum for debate. IREX is currently advising IMN on two new 
     programs that will link the different regions of Iraq as a 
     contribution to building a sense of a democratic Iraqi 
     identity spanning ethnic and religious divides.
       Training and support for journalists and media outlets 
     throughout Iraq will end. The program has provided training 
     to Kurds, Sunnis, Shiias, in many cases bringing the groups 
     together. Women have been a key target for the trainings.
       We welcome and commend your ongoing commitment to democracy 
     assistance for Iraq, not only independent media development, 
     but also in other key components of democratic development 
     such as civil society, elections, political processes, and 
     labor and business development.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mark Pomar,
     President.
                                  ____



                                                         IFES,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 2006.
     Hon. Edward Kennedy,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kennedy: On behalf of IFES and our experts 
     working on election related projects in Iraq, I am writing to 
     thank you for the thought and attention you have devoted to 
     sustaining a steady stream of funding for critical democracy 
     promotion activities in Iraq. As a non-profit organization 
     with an active presence in Iraq, we greatly appreciate your 
     efforts to highlight the democratic needs of the Iraqi people 
     for lawmakers and policymakers alike.
       As you know, IFES has been involved with the 
     democratization process in Iraq since October 2003 when we 
     first conducted an assessment of the political situation 
     followed by the development of electoral scenarios and cost 
     models for Coalition Provisional Authority. Since September 
     of 2004, IFES has provided technical assistance to the 
     Independent Election Commission of Iraq (IECI), while at the 
     same time providing significant technical and material 
     support for the conduct of three electoral processes in the 
     country as part of the UN-led International Election 
     Technical Assistance Team (TEAT).
       Helping democratic institutions find the strength and 
     creativity to work in hostile political environments is one 
     of the most difficult tasks in democracy assistance, but it 
     is a task with which we have experience and through which we 
     have achieved notable successes. Going forward, Iraqi 
     election organizers face a number of challenges surrounding 
     the creation of a new and permanent election management body 
     by the Council of Representatives, the design and 
     implementation of a new voter registration system, conduct of 
     local elections in April 2007, and post-election support for 
     possible referenda on the constitution and regional issues. 
     Our work in Iraq, which has merely begun, has given us a 
     unique, firsthand perspective on the post-invasion political 
     and electoral transition in Iraq. It is our strong view that 
     there has never been a more critical time to sustain and 
     strengthen Iraq's democratic process. Continued support for 
     our work after July 1, 2006, when IFES' current programming 
     is set to end, will help to ensure the future of a fair and 
     transparent electoral process in Iraq.
       Your commitment and engagement on this matter is timely and 
     essential and we commend you for your sustained vision and 
     focus to promote not only our work, but that of other key 
     democracy promotion organizations.
           Sincerely,
                                              Richard Souderiette,
                                          President and CEO, IFES.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to the amendment, as 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 3686), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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. 3688, as Modified

  Mr. KENNEDY. I understand there is an understanding that we vote at 
noontime and I have 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. It is the 
intention the pending amendment be set aside so we can consider Kennedy 
amendment No. 3688, as modified, upon which the yeas and nays have been 
ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator

[[Page 6780]]

from Massachusetts be recognized until the hour of 12 o'clock, at which 
time we will have a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KENNEDY. In the 45 seconds remaining, I indicate to the Members 
of the Senate this amendment has the complete support of all the public 
health officials and departments virtually across the country; the 
public health community virtually universally appreciates and 
understands the importance of this program. It does also have the 
complete support of the first responders. If we want to do something 
that is going to help to protect our first responders, in public health 
emergencies and with the dangers of a pandemic, this is an amendment to 
do so.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor. The question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3688, as modified, on which the yeas and 
nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called 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 53, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 107 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Talent
     Wyden

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 3688), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 3717

  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3717.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I do so 
only for the purpose of checking to be sure that this is an amendment 
that has not been made out of order because of the invocation of 
cloture by the Senate.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, if I can respond to my colleague, I have 
been told that the amendment is germane under cloture.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Although it does not appear on our list at the 
desk, after a review, it appears to be germane.
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Mississippi, I do 
not plan on speaking to it now. I was instructed to get it in line. I 
will be back to speak to it. It relates to permanent bases in Iraq and 
calls for no permanent bases in Iraq.
  As the Chair says, it is germane, but I do not intend to call it up 
right now.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, continuing to reserve the right to 
object, it is my understanding this amounts to legislation and may be 
subject to a point of order. For that reason, authorization of basing 
on a permanent basis in a foreign country--it is not an appropriation 
of funds, as I understand it. It is strictly legislation and may very 
well be subject to a point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the Chair's understanding it is a 
limitation on the use of funds, which is not legislative.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I withdraw my reservation.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Chair.
  I assume unanimous consent was granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator suspend for just a moment 
while we sort out the technical issues?
  Mr. BIDEN. I apologize. I have been misinformed. I must call up, 
first, amendment No. 3717, and second degree that amendment with 
amendment No. 3855. That is my unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank my friend from Mississippi.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3717.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide that none of the funds made available by title I 
of this Act may be made available to establish permanent military bases 
   in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil infrastructure or oil 
                           resources of Iraq)

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


        PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES IN IRAQ

       Sec. 7032. None of the funds made available by title I of 
     this Act may be made available to establish permanent 
     military bases in Iraq or to exercise control over the oil 
     infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Madam 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. 3855 to Amendment No. 3717

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree Biden 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3855 to amendment No. 3717.

  The amendment is as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       On page 253, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

        Prohibition on Use of Funds for Certain Purposes in Iraq

       Sec. 7032. None of the funds made available by title I of 
     this Act may be made available to establish permanent United 
     States military bases in Iraq, or to exercise United States 
     control over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                          House Ethics Reform

  Mr. REID. Madam President, at the beginning of this year, we found a 
situation in Washington that was very uncomfortable. The Chair will 
recall, as all members recall, the majority leader in the House of 
Representatives had been convicted, within a period of a year, of three 
ethics violations. He was under indictment. For the first time in 135 
years, someone in the White House was indicted. The person in charge of 
contracting, Mr. Safavian, was led away literally in handcuffs as a 
result of his sweetheart deals with many people, including the infamous 
Jack Abramoff.
  We had many stories written about the K Street Project: If you were a 
trade association or a business that wanted to hire a Democrat, you had 
to get clearance from the K Street leaders. It was a situation that was 
very uncomfortable for everyone, as it should have been.
  The culmination of all of this was learning Duke Cunningham had taken 
more than $2 million in bribes.

[[Page 6781]]

  I try today to express my opposition and grave disappointment of the 
lobbying and ethics reform bill that the House of Representatives is 
expected to pass today. This is a bill pushed by the Republican 
leadership in the House. It is simply not much of anything. This House 
reform legislation is another example of the Orwellian world in which 
my friends in the majority live, I am sorry to say, starting with the 
President himself. Whatever he says, believe just the opposite.
  The Clear Skies bill led to more pollution. The Healthy Forests 
Initiative, clear-cutting the forests, is damaging our forests. The No 
Child Left Behind Act has left millions of children behind. The Budget 
Deficit Reduction Act increases the deficit. And now they are lobbying 
the Accountability and Transparency Act, which has the potential to 
wipe transparency out of the political process.
  House Republicans have completely abandoned the idea of reforming 
Washington. Instead, like a wolf in sheep's clothing, they are using 
the cover of the word ``reform'' to advance blatant partisan changes to 
campaign finance laws, changes that will hurt Democrats and help 
Republican candidates in the coming elections.
  Their approach to reform stands in sharp contrast to what we did on a 
bipartisan basis. About a month ago, Republicans joined Democrats to 
pass a lobbying reform bill, an ethics reform bill, the Honest 
Government and Open Leadership Act. It was passed by a large margin. 
The bill was based largely on a bill Democrats introduced the first 
week of the session. The legislation the Senate passed was not as good 
as the Democratic bill standing alone, but it was an improvement, a 
tremendous improvement over the status quo and imposed needed reforms 
so that Government serves the people, not the special interests. It was 
the most significant change in lobbying ethics in this country in a 
quarter of a century.
  Unfortunately, the bipartisan commitment to reform we had in the 
Senate has been completely abandoned in the House. Instead of passing a 
substantive smart and tough bill as we did in the Senate, the House 
Republicans have ignored the wishes of millions of Americans, gutted 
all lobbying ethics reform from their legislation, and instead filled 
it with partisan campaign finance measures that are intended to help 
them in the coming election.
  Essentially, they have opened the floodgates so they can pour money 
into Republican campaigns. The McCain-Feingold legislation that passed 
Congress and was signed by the President was important. It took away 
from campaigns corporate money, soft money. It was a reform measure 
that improved the political process in a significant way.
  And this McCain-Feingold legislation, if the House measure is allowed 
to become law, will have been corrupted. It seems House Republicans do 
not believe they can convince the American people to send them back to 
Washington if they play by the rules. So like their old leader, Tom 
DeLay, they are seeking to change the rules in the middle of the game. 
They are seeking to change the rules to influence the fall election.
  Here is an example. The House bill aims to disable so-called 527 
groups. These are groups that operate independently and apart from the 
parties and bring more people into the political process. They fund 
get-out-the-vote activities and help register voters, among other 
things.
  Notably, the House bill would not shut down spending by all 
independent groups but only certain independent groups. No, the House 
would leave Republican-leaning 501(c)6)trade associations free to raise 
and spend money, soft money, corporate money, money over and above 
McCain-Feingold spending limits. That is what this is about.
  These trade associations, such as Americans For Job Security, spend 
millions of dollars in ads to help elect Republican candidates. Nearly 
every Republican Member of the Senate elected last cycle will benefit 
by ads run by this group. Those ads were funded with soft money.
  If the people who want to change the present campaign financing laws 
want to do it, let's do it the right way: take a look at everything, 
not just take out of the blue certain things they may not like such as 
the 527s.
  What about these 501(c)(6) organizations? You will not find trade 
associations, though, mentioned in their bill, in the House bill. That 
makes no sense. We know less about these Republican groups than we do 
of 527 organizations. That is because 527s are required to disclose 
donors and how they spend that money. There is no such requirement for 
these trade associations.
  Here is another even more significant example of the tricks House 
Republicans are playing. The House bill repeals the critical limits on 
national party giving to individual campaigns. Right now, the 
Republican National Committee may only direct a limited amount of 
funding to individual congressional and Presidential campaigns 
according to a specified formula that is in the McCain-Feingold law. 
The House would do away with these limits.
  What would that mean? It would mean, instead of the limited amount of 
money that is available now, thousands--hundreds of thousands--of 
dollars could be given. It would mean that the Republican National 
Committee could give unlimited amounts to candidates in this cycle and 
to Presidential candidates in 2008. What we did in McCain-Feingold 
improved the system. Now, if the RNC can give unlimited amounts to 
candidates in this cycle and Presidential candidates in 2008, that is 
no small matter when you consider the RNC has roughly $40 million on 
hand right now.
  This provision made its way into an amendment filed by Senator McCain 
on lobbying reform we did in this body, an amendment which would weaken 
that bill associated with his name. On his behalf, I say he did the 
right thing: He never offered the amendment, never called up the 
amendment, and the Senate bill remained clean of such rollbacks.
  Democrats and Republicans alike have supported these restrictions 
because they are critical to protecting our political process from 
corruption in fact and in appearance. The authors of the last major 
reform bill--Senators McCain and Feingold--in an amicus brief with the 
court involving these limits called them ``essential . . . to maintain 
the public's confidence in the integrity of our political system'' and 
``indispensable to any [campaign finance] regulatory program.'' That is 
what they said.
  Without such limits, the Senators argued that ``the public's faith 
and participation in the political process will continue to decline.'' 
That also is another quote. Such expenditures, they argued ``create at 
least the perception that those who donate large sums to political 
parties . . . may enjoy positions of `improper influence.'''
  These were wise words by Senators McCain and Feingold. I think we all 
should live by them.
  In the wake of Abramoff, DeLay, and Cunningham, Americans are looking 
for us to change course. The House bill will keep us headed in the 
wrong direction. For that reason, Democrats will stand opposed.
  If there is going to be an attempt to do campaign finance reform 
above and beyond what was done with McCain-Feingold, then let's do it. 
Let's have committee hearings. Let's have a bill reported to the Senate 
and have a fair debate on what we need to do to clean this up, not just 
take one particular aspect of it. The Congress must not ignore the 
American people's desire to do a better job in ethics here in 
Washington.
  In January, when Americans across the country were crying for reform, 
we took the lead and fundamentally changed the debate on ethics and 
lobbying reform. I think it is commendable--as I have said here on the 
floor on a number of occasions, Madam President--I think it is 
commendable that we were able to pass this lobbying reform bill on a 
bipartisan basis. Thanks to our work, on a bipartisan basis, we passed 
some significant reforms that will ensure the Government of the people 
focuses on the needs of the people.
  It would be unfortunate to see these efforts sabotaged and ultimately 
fail

[[Page 6782]]

because the House majority has backed away from real reform and instead 
has decided that this legislation should be a vehicle to advance a 
partisan campaign finance agenda. If the trial of Tom DeLay and prison 
terms for Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham do not convince the 
Republican Party to clean up its act, Americans should begin to wonder 
what will.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I would like to ask my good friend, the Democratic 
leader, if his concern here is that the House bill overruled what we 
call the Colorado II decision in the Supreme Court, which basically 
would allow political parties which are now restricted to raising 100 
percent hard money to spend in coordination with the campaigns whatever 
they choose to spend. Is that the complaint I hear from my good friend, 
the Democratic leader?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I apologize, through the Chair, to my 
friend. I do not know what Colorado II is. Is that what you said?
  Mr. McCONNELL. What the Supreme Court held in Colorado II was that 
the prohibition on parties spending above what we call the coordinated 
amount remained intact and that parties could spend whatever they 
wanted to as independent expenditures, meaning they could not consult 
with the campaigns.
  I was listening to my good friend, the Democratic leader, and I 
understand he was decrying a provision in the House bill that, in 
effect, overturned that Supreme Court decision and allowed the parties 
to spend, in coordination with their campaigns, money beyond what is 
called the coordinated. And the Senator from Nevada was suggesting that 
was somehow, I gather, corrupting the process, if that money, which 
could now be spent independently of the campaigns, was spent in 
coordination with the campaigns.
  Did I understand correctly?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, through the Chair to my friend, the senior 
Senator from Kentucky, your explanation of asking me a question points 
out my problem with what the House is doing. I believe what we need is 
to have reform legislation in the House comparable to what we did here 
in the Senate. I think there are a number of us who would like to have 
gone further than what we did, but I would be satisfied with that. But 
for the House to call this lobbying and ethics reform is wrong. What 
they have tried to do is reform campaign finance laws.
  I say to my friend, if we are going to do a reform of campaign 
finance laws, then what we should do is have the committees of proper 
jurisdiction hear what changes they think should be made, with the 
advocates of this, bring it to the floor, and have a debate.
  As my friend indicated, talking about Colorado II, this is very 
complicated stuff. And I think if we are going to reform a little piece 
of it, let's look at it all. Let's look at how trade associations work. 
Let's look at everything. I am happy to do that. But what I am not 
happy to do is have the House call something lobbying and ethics reform 
when it is campaign finance reform. That is my concern.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, could I ask my friend one further 
question?
  Mr. REID. Of course.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is it still the position of the leader and the 
majority of those on that side of the aisle that the position they used 
to hold, which was that these so-called 527 groups should be treated 
like political parties and therefore have their contributions kept like 
a political party--that used to be the position of the majority of the 
Democrats, that the 527 groups which operate like parties should be 
treated like parties in terms of the contribution levels--I now gather 
that my good friend and a number of his colleagues on that side of the 
aisle have the opposite position, that somehow to treat a 527 like a 
political party, and therefore cap contributions like they are to 
parties, would somehow be a violation of free speech? Is that the 
position now that the Democratic leader is taking?
  Mr. REID. Madam President, every question the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky asked indicates how important it is to have a full, 
complete process here in the Senate about campaign finance. Every 
question he asks is more complicated than the last. Him asking me how 
the Democrats stand on this issue is something I cannot answer. These 
seats have changed back and forth since we took up McCain-Feingold.
  I will say this: Having worked as a candidate prior to the passage of 
McCain-Feingold and after it passed--as far as I am concerned, what 
happened in 1998, when I had a very difficult race in Nevada with my 
dear friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, John Ensign, we had a 
tough election, a tough election. But in the little State of Nevada, 
back in 1998, we did not have many people there. We are approaching 3 
million there now. We did not have 2 million then. John Ensign spent 
$10 million; Harry Reid spent $10 million. But the vast majority of the 
money was corporate money. People could give us hundreds of thousands 
of dollars. Now, that may not have corrupted John Ensign or corrupted 
Harry Reid, but it is a process that does not look good, and it is 
corrupting, it could corrupt an individual.
  Having run in 2004--it was a good election--I went out and raised 
money, as I did when I first started in this process. I would go to 
somebody. They would give me whatever the limits were: $1,000, $2,000. 
That limit would be printed, and everyone in the world knew what that 
person did for an occupation, where they lived, how much money they 
gave me. I felt so much better in 2004 than I did in 1998 because I did 
not have to go around asking people for these corporate donations.
  I have not talked to my friend, Senator Ensign, but I will bet you he 
agrees with me because I do not think either one of us felt comfortable 
with those huge corporate contributions that were coming into the State 
of Nevada. The purpose of it: the Republicans ran vicious ads against 
me. He had bad ads that were run against him.
  I think the process is better. If we are going to change the McCain-
Feingold process, let's do it by looking at everything, not just 527s. 
Let's look at trade associations. Let's look at State parties. Let's 
look at this PAC situation where we have all these leadership PACs. 
There are a lot of things we need to look at.
  But what the House is doing--disguising campaign finance reform as 
lobbying and ethics reform--is wrong. We did not do that here. And I 
think that speaks well of John McCain. He had an amendment prepared. He 
did not do it because he knows it would have corrupted McCain-Feingold. 
I would assume that is why he did not offer it. It would have corrupted 
the legislation we now have that we call McCain-Feingold, which I think 
has improved the process. I am glad the Supreme Court ruled that it was 
constitutional.
  Now, I know my friend, the distinguished majority whip. He did not 
like McCain-Feingold. He worked very hard against it. He did a good 
job. He is a fine lawyer and a good advocate. He lost. Those of us who 
supported McCain-Feingold won. And if we are going to change it, let's 
have another fair fight like we had with McCain-Feingold, where my 
friend from Kentucky can be on one side, I can be on the other. We may 
even wind up on the same side.
  But that is what kind of debate we should have, not what is happening 
in the House now, disguising it as lobbying and ethics reform, and 
really it is not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, just one final observation with 
regard to this discussion in which the Democratic leader and I have 
been engaged. And I am glad he is still on the Senate floor because I 
would not want to say this with him not being here. I noticed that he 
was glad the days of large corporate and individual soft money 
donations were gone from parties. I wish he would be equally offended 
by the fact that large donations are still available for the 527s. What 
is good for the goose is good for the gander.
  If large contributions--corporate and individual contributions--to 
parties

[[Page 6783]]

were outlawed because of the, ``corrupting potential'' of that, it 
seems to me entirely inconsistent to argue that they should not be 
eliminated from 527s.
  I think the reason our good friends on the other side of the aisle 
have had an epiphany about 527s is because they now believe these 
activities are beneficial to them. So the consistency is something that 
is hard to find in the course of this debate.
  It will be interesting to see what the final House bill includes. To 
simply allow political parties to spend money in coordination with the 
candidates wearing their party label, it is hard to conclude it would 
in any way corrupt the system.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, just one final comment.
  I believe that if 527s are doing things that are wrong, maybe we need 
to take a look at 527s but in conjunction with all the rest of the 
things that happen in campaign finance. I have no problem with that--
but not 527s alone. If we want to look at trade associations and all 
the other things, I am happy to do that, but let's not just single shot 
one of these because there are a lot of other things that need to be 
looked at at the same time.
  The distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I have had longstanding 
personal discussions off the Senate floor about campaign finance. We 
have had them on the floor. As I have indicated already, I have the 
greatest respect for how he feels. He is a real advocate for his 
position.
  I try to do the best I can for mine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thune). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I had the good fortune early in my 
political life to meet and work as an intern for Paul Douglas, a 
Senator from Illinois from 1948 to 1966. He wrote several books about 
ethics in government that are still widely quoted. I was fortunate to 
meet him and then to meet a man who counted him as a mentor, Senator 
Paul Simon. Both inspired me to do a few more things in my public life 
than I might otherwise have done.
  For instance, Paul Douglas had a rule in his office for staff that 
they couldn't take anything they couldn't drink. I assume that meant 
they could have an expensive drink at some local restaurant, but they 
certainly couldn't take a meal or a gift or anything like that. He had 
a personal rule that he wouldn't take a gift in his office that was 
worth more than $2.50. I can recall some angry constituent who sent 
Senator Paul Douglas a handmade, tooled leather belt with Paul Douglas' 
name on it which he returned. I am sure the donor was offended, but 
that was his rule. He made complete disclosure of his income and net 
worth, as did Paul Simon. I have tried to follow their example.
  We need meaningful ethics reform, but I agree with Senator Reid that 
we also need to have a serious conversation about campaign financing. 
They are related issues, but they are not the same. The issue we 
decided to vote on in the Senate on lobbying and ethics reform was 
timely and important. We know what happened. Mr. Jack Abramoff created 
a scandal across Washington with the excesses in which he was involved. 
He has pled guilty on some and is working with the Government, and 
there may be further indictments and convictions as a result. At least 
one Member of the House, Tom DeLay of Texas, was indicted and 
ultimately resigned before his trial. Others in both political parties 
are under suspicion.
  Neither political party has a monopoly on virtue. I know honest and 
hard-working people on both sides of the aisle. We should do our level 
best to restore the confidence of America in the process and the people 
who participate in it.
  The effort now by some House Republicans to inject campaign finance 
reform into this is a poison pill. They know if they can complicate the 
issue, ultimately nothing will happen. We would like to see our 
conference strictly set on lobbying and ethics reform.
  My personal feeling--and it may only be mine; maybe a few others 
share it--is that when it comes to campaign financing, we need to do 
something dramatic, something that States have already proven can make 
a significant difference. I am talking about public financing. I didn't 
come to this idea quickly. In fact, I didn't like the idea when I was 
first elected. I thought it was unconscionable that somehow we would 
create a system of public financing that would finance some of the 
strange and extreme candidates who appear from time to time. But I have 
come to realize that unless and until we make a significant change in 
the way we finance campaigns, we are not going to restore the integrity 
of this institution and others. We are not going to restore the 
confidence of the American people.
  It is dangerous to walk the streets around the Capitol because of all 
the traffic, all the visitors. It is even more dangerous during the 
course of the day as Members of the House and Senate race to their 
party headquarter buildings to make fundraising telephone calls, which 
we have to do; it is the only way to raise the funds so that people of 
modest means have a chance to compete in the campaign arena. It takes 
more and more of our time and more time away from what we should be 
doing on the floors of our respective Chambers. Public financing is an 
appropriate way to address that. If we did it on a comprehensive basis, 
we could have genuine reform.
  Senator Reid of Nevada has said that is a worthy goal, campaign 
finance reform, but let's do it the right way, not have something 
parachuted into the conference committee by House Republicans as a 
poison pill to real ethics reform. I will do everything I can to defeat 
what is so-called ethics reform out of the House that does little or 
nothing to clean up our act on Capitol Hill and tries to inject a 
clearly political issue into this debate. We need to pass the kind of 
reform that will restore confidence. Complicating it with campaign 
finance reform is not the way to do it at this moment.
  Let's do it the right way. Let's have hearings, deadlines. Let's 
create a bill. I would like to join with other Senators, perhaps from 
both sides of the aisle, to make sure public financing is part of the 
debate.
  I yield the floor and 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, some housekeeping items have been cleared 
on both sides.


          Amendment Nos. 3618, 3619, 3714, and 3716, withdrawn

  I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 3618, the subject 
of which was addressed by division II of Coburn amendment No. 3641.
  I also ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendments numbered 3619, 
3714, and 3716.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business?


                           Amendment No. 3855

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the second-degree 
amendment of the Senator from Delaware to his first-degree amendment.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I think we are ready to proceed to agree to that on a 
voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on that 
amendment, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3855) was agreed to.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is now on agreeing to the 
underlying amendment, as amended.

[[Page 6784]]

  The amendment (No. 3717), as amended, was agreed to.
  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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we continue to make good progress. We 
hope to complete action either this evening or tomorrow on the bill. It 
could be, in consultation with the leader, possible to complete action 
on the bill today and have a vote on final passage tomorrow if we are 
going to go a little late this evening, but we don't anticipate a late 
evening. We hope to be able to adjourn at a reasonable hour. With the 
cooperation of Senators, we can do that.
  We have cloture, which has been invoked, which limits amendments for 
consideration to germane amendments. We have entered into colloquies 
and we think some of these amendments are going to be withdrawn. We 
hope if Senators have an intention of disposing of their amendments, if 
they want a vote, now is a good time to come to the floor and make that 
request known. We can dispose of those amendments.
  We urge the cooperation of Senators, and if we get to some point, we 
may offer amendments for Senators, if they are in order and pending and 
have not yet been called up. As a matter of notice, we intend to press 
ahead and complete action on the bill within a reasonable time. And we 
will, with the cooperation of all Senators.
  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.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I will take just a moment of the Senate's 
time to thank a few people who worked hard to put together a colloquy. 
This is a very important conversation between three Senators that deals 
with the critical issue of the health of our soldiers who are coming 
back from combat. So I will read this for the Record.
  This colloquy is about a Comprehensive Casualty Care Center at the 
San Diego Naval Medical Center, and this is the colloquy. It starts off 
with myself saying:

       I would like to thank the Senator from Alaska and the 
     Senator from Hawaii for their outstanding leadership on this 
     bill and especially for their commitment to providing care 
     for our Nation's combat-wounded servicemembers.
       I understand that I have a commitment from both Senators 
     that they will work to ensure that $6.2 million in funding is 
     included in this bill for the establishment of a 
     Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center at the San Diego 
     Naval Medical Center.
       This vitally important funding will ensure that for the 
     first time, combat-wounded servicemembers from the West 
     Coast--who have endured approximately 25 percent of all 
     casualties--will be able to receive treatment and recover 
     from their wounds closer to their home.
       Since many of the most severely wounded require months of 
     treatment and rehabilitation, this will alleviate significant 
     hardship on our servicemembers and their families. No longer 
     will they have to travel to Texas or to the East Coast for 
     treatment.
       This ``West Coast Walter Reed'' will be able to treat 
     approximately 200 patients per year, including 160 nonamputee 
     patients and 40 to 50 amputee patients. While I lament that 
     even one more servicemember will be wounded in combat, I look 
     forward to opening the center and to working with the Navy to 
     ensure that our servicemembers are afforded the very best 
     possible medical care.

  That concludes my portion of this colloquy. I have been working with 
the Navy on this matter since they explained to us that so many of our 
west coast families have to be trekked all the way to the east coast 
for rehabilitation for these very severe injuries. The rehab is very 
intensive, and the whole family really needs to be included and 
involved in it. So now it is going to be so much easier for these 
active military from the State of Washington, from the State of Oregon, 
and I believe from Alaska, Hawaii, and even some other States such as 
Nevada that are east of California, to be able to avail themselves of 
the best treatment. I believe the Navy has been so focused on this that 
their dreams are becoming a reality. They are going to serve the 
military from all the various branches who get injured. It isn't just 
for the Navy; it is for everyone who gets injured in a severe way and 
needs this extended rehabilitation.
  So Senator Stevens, at the end of my remarks, said:

       The Senator from California is correct. She has my 
     commitment that I will work in conference to ensure that 
     these funds are provided for the Comprehensive Combat 
     Casualty Care Center.

  Senator Inouye then said:

       I too support the Senator's request. She has my commitment 
     that I will do my best to ensure funding is included in 
     conference.

  I believe, after speaking with them--and I have spoken to Senators 
Murray and Cochran about this--that this is something that just cries 
out for funding because our people are hurting, and it doesn't help 
them to be separated from their families and to have to make the trek 
across the country to learn how to live with these very disabling 
injuries. So we pray that the war will end soon. We pray that our 
soldiers will be coming home soon. I myself am working to see that we 
can begin redeploying troops immediately.
  I think as the Iraqis move forward, this is a year of major 
transition, and they need to prove that they want freedom as much as we 
want it for them. They now have their government getting into place, 
and I would like to see the end of these casualties. I know we all feel 
that way. But we have to also be realistic in that we have to serve 
those who are continuing to come back in great need of this kind of 
help.
  So, again, I hope all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will support this effort. I look forward to working with all of you so 
that we can tell the Navy that their hopes and dreams for this 
Comprehensive Combat Casualty Care Center in San Diego at the Naval 
Medical Center, will, in fact, be a reality. The $6 million we need is 
a very small amount when you look at the overall size and scope of this 
particular bill.
  I yield the floor.
  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 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3616

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3616 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment is now pending.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike $74.5 million 
for grants to States based on their production of certain types of 
crops, livestock, and dairy products, which were not included in the 
administration's emergency supplemental request.
  Let me point out again a statement of administration policy where it 
says:

       The administration is seriously concerned at the overall 
     funding level and the numerous unrequested items included in 
     the Senate bill that are unrelated to the war or emergency 
     hurricane relief needs.

  Obviously, this and others have been put into this bill in a very 
unacceptable fashion. It has been a longstanding policy in the Senate 
to prohibit the practice of adding authorizing language to an 
appropriations bill. Nevertheless, this bill includes a massive $3.94 
billion agricultural assistance program. None of this funding under 
this agricultural title is included in the administration's 
supplemental request.
  Interestingly, this nearly $4 billion add-on, title III of the 
underlying bill--remember, this is a $4 billion add-on--received a one-
paragraph mention in the entire committee report accompanying the bill; 
one paragraph to describe 31 pages of legislative language with a $4 
billion price tag.

[[Page 6785]]

  Let me read it for the benefit of my colleagues.

       The committee recommends $3.944 billion for emergency 
     agriculture disaster assistance. These funds will help 
     farmers and ranchers in States affected by recent hurricanes, 
     drought, flood, wildfire and other natural disasters recover 
     from resulting production losses. These funds will also 
     assist in the removal of debris from watersheds in order to 
     minimize the threat of flooding from future storm events. In 
     addition, the funds will provide economic assistance to 
     producers to compensate for high energy costs relating to 
     agricultural production.

  That last sentence is interesting. This will help farmers who have 
high energy costs related to agricultural production. I wonder what we 
are doing for the airlines, the trains, the American automobile owner, 
any other industry in America. We aren't doing anything for them in 
this emergency supplemental, but we are going to give the farmers 
nearly $4 billion additional.
  I am all for helping the appropriate farmers and other victims 
battered by hurricanes, but the agricultural assistance added in this 
bill is far more expansive than merely offering to help areas hit by 
the 2005 hurricanes, and at least the limited report language doesn't 
hide that fact. As my colleagues know, the USDA currently has a range 
of disaster assistance programs, including crop insurance programs, 
that are already available. Yet this bill is going to add nearly $4 
billion on top of the existing programs. In my view, the agricultural 
assistance funding is being used more as a vehicle to fill a voter wish 
list than it is to meet the urgent needs of the victims of the 2005 
hurricane season. Taxpayer dollars are being allocated for agricultural 
subsidies and bailouts which in some cases have nothing to do with 
hurricane recovery.
  This recovery would strike an earmark which provides $74.5 million in 
agricultural assistance for grants to States, based not on the 
hurricane damage, not on any emergency, but based on their production 
of ``specialty of crops, livestock and dairy products.''
  Why is this necessary? Have the hurricanes wiped out the specialty 
crop industry? What even is a specialty crop, and why does it need 
$74.5 million of taxpayer funding? I hope that a specialty crop is a 
money tree because that is what is going to be needed to pay for this 
bill.
  My colleagues may be interested to know that the bill defines 
specialty crops as anything but wheat, feed-
grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice or peanuts--anything but. Why do we 
exclude those commodities from receiving this funding? Is sugarcane 
made ineligible? Are my colleagues aware that the USDA already has a 
specialty crop block grant program which was authorized in 2004? Under 
the existing program, specialty crops are defined as fruits, 
vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits, and nursery crops including 
floriculture. The program is funded at $17 million for the current 
fiscal year, and it provides for $100,000 for each State that applies. 
Is there a problem with that program that I am not aware of that gives 
it just cause to providing it with an emergency supplemental 
appropriation to the tune of more than 1,000 percent above its annual 
appropriation?
  This bill provides $74.5 million that is to be used to award grants 
based on ``the share of each State's total value of specialty crop, 
livestock, and dairy production of the United States for the 2004 crop-
year, multiplied by $74.5 million. That means the more you produce, if 
your crops have not been hit by a natural disaster or flooding or 
drought, the more money you get. That is the polar opposite of what the 
USDA disaster assistance programs are about.
  Doesn't that fly in the face of what an emergency supplemental is 
for? An emergency supplemental is supposed to be about addressing needs 
and not about providing rewards for productivity. More importantly, why 
is what obviously is designed to be a nationwide agricultural funding 
assistance program, a program not requested by the administration, 
singled out in the statement of administration policy as objectionable, 
being included in a must-pass emergency spending bill that is supposed 
to address the global war on terror and hurricane recovery?
  My colleagues may be interested to know that under this legislation, 
States can use the grant to ``promote the purchase, sale or consumption 
of agricultural products.''
  I am not making this up. I am not making this up. Under this 
emergency supplemental bill, States can use the grant to ``promote the 
purchase, sale, or consumption of agricultural products.'' Last week, I 
mentioned that Federal dollars had been used to paint salmon on 
airplanes. Maybe that $74.5 million will be used to paint vegetables on 
airplanes or maybe a pretty flower.
  Upon closer reading of the legislative language, I notice that the 
bill actually creates a $100 million program for specialty crops. In 
addition to the $74.5 million that this amendment addresses, it 
provides for $25.5 million to make grants to ``the several States, the 
District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, to be used to 
support activities that promote agriculture.''
  I would like to repeat that for my colleagues: ``$25.5 million to 
make grants to the several States, the District of Columbia. . . .''
  I admire and respect the District of Columbia enormously. I know of 
no agricultural enterprise--well, maybe an illegal one, but I never 
knew of an agricultural enterprise in the District of Columbia. But 
they are going to be eligible for grants to be used to ``support 
activities that promote agriculture.'' As I say, I am not making this 
up.
  I hope the sponsors of the legislation will correct me if I am wrong. 
I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. I am confident they will. 
But it appears that with respect to the $25.5 million funding, the bill 
provides that all 50 States will each receive $500,000 of that money, 
while Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia each will receive 
$250,000. What specialty crops are grown in the District of Columbia? 
What specialty crops are grown here? What kind of campaign should we 
expect?
  The funding is not needed. It should be noted that, according to OMB, 
``In 2005, many crops had record or near record production, and the 
U.S. farm sector cash receipts were second highest ever.'' Can an 
unrequested $74.4 million grant program truly be sold as an urgent 
emergency spending needed at this time? I know my colleagues have the 
highest hopes for the success and safety of our troops and for the 
speedy recovery of the hurricane-ravaged gulf. But when the American 
people hear of these special interest riders, they are going to 
question their priorities, and rightly so.
  Again, I would like to refer to this poll. A 39-percent plurality of 
Americans, in a poll the day before yesterday, say the single most 
important thing for Congress to accomplish this year is curtailing 
budgetary earmarks benefiting only certain constituents. This amendment 
certainly fits that concern that Americans have.
  I was going to come back and talk before we voted on this bill. I am 
sure this amendment will be voted down, again, because others have that 
are similarly outrageous. But I want to say, we are sending a very bad 
message to the American people. I saw recent polls showing our approval 
rating at around 22 percent. I am glad to see that there are now some 
candidates who are running for office against pork barrel projects and 
earmarks and museums, taking that out of highway funds.
  They are sick and tired of seeing their children's futures mortgaged 
by this rampant, out-of-control spending.
  I will vote against this bill. When the President vetoes it, which I 
am reasonably confident he will, I will vote to sustain his veto.
  I believe that once the President vetoes this bill, the American 
people will strongly support that veto and that the American people 
will demand that we bring some kind of sanity to this system where, in 
the name of recovery from hurricane damage, and in the name of funding 
the war in Iraq, we spend billions--not millions, not hundreds of 
millions but billions--on unwanted and unnecessary products.
  I want to assure my colleagues that I will support anything to help 
repair

[[Page 6786]]

the damage caused by the hurricanes. I will do what is necessary to 
spend my taxpayers' dollars to fight and win the war in Iraq, which I 
still strongly believe is a noble cause, but I cannot go back to my 
constituents in Arizona and say that this is anything but a shameful 
exercise we are engaged in by taking their tax dollars in the name of 
an emergency and spending them on those projects, many of which we have 
discussed and debated at some length.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are some Senators who are in a 
meeting with the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. We 
are not going to go to a vote right now because of that conflict with 
some Senators. But we have an opportunity for those who want to speak 
on this amendment or any other pending amendment that has not been 
adequately discussed at this point.
  Let me say with regard to the amendment of the Senator from Arizona 
that I can remember in my State time and time again when we have had 
severe weather disasters; wet-weather-related disasters. The pecan 
growers, in particular, would inevitably have a difficult time making a 
case for the losses they sustained when Federal disasters have been 
declared and eligibility for Federal assistance had been promised 
because it is not the kind of program crop, so-called, such as cotton, 
rice, wheat, corn, that are traditionally supported by Federal 
programs.
  It almost takes someone at the local level who understands yield, 
production, and how records are kept where the State governments are 
much better situated in those States to have knowledge and 
understanding of the crops and of the values of trees and the crops 
they produce. Peaches is another example. In my part of Mississippi 
where I grew up, we had a good many peach orchards. We had a good many 
pecan orchards. And those who live in the rural areas of our State 
traditionally depend upon these crops to help sustain them.
  We are talking about not the kind of agriculture that produces 
millions of dollars of income but small amounts of income to supplement 
family needs. Workers in the area can move from orchard to orchard 
volunteering to help harvest these crops.
  I can remember as a young boy my grandparents who lived near Utica, 
MS, would traditionally kind of let the word go throughout the 
community that they were going to be picking up pecans on a certain 
day. And some of the workers would come and pick up pecans and in 
payment would get part of the pecans. They would get a part of the 
harvest. That was the payment. Money was short.
  We are not talking about wealthy landowners. We are talking about 
subsistence production in many cases which will qualify for the 
benefits under this title. If this amendment is approved, they won't 
get anything.
  These funds are going to the States so that at the local level a 
determination can be made as to the amount of compensation and support 
those who are disaster victims in these areas of agriculture are 
entitled to receive.
  I am hopeful the Senate will reject this amendment. I just spoke to 
two parts of it--orchards and the pecan trees--because from my personal 
experience I know a little bit about that.
  But driving through my State after these disasters, I can testify to 
the widespread damage to orchards, to pine forests on which people 
depend for their livelihood.
  In that part of the State where the storm's destruction was the 
greatest, there is very little of the traditional large cotton 
plantation areas. That is not that part of the State. That would be up 
in the mid to northern part of the State along the Mississippi Delta. 
That is where the heavy production of cotton is. It may be up in the 
prairie area of northeast Mississippi and north central Mississippi.
  Where this storm's destruction was the heaviest, there are a lot of 
people who lost pecan orchards, trees, or peach orchards.
  Dairy farms were seriously damaged, and dairy is included in this 
part of the title. Beef cattle production and those things that are 
grown to sustain those herds of cattle and to feed them were damaged 
severely.
  I am hopeful the Senate will understand that this is not something 
that the committee made up, either. I am not making this up. These are 
the facts as I saw them and that I can say to the Senate justify the 
inclusion of these funds in this bill.
  I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee to oppose the amendment that has just been 
offered. Our specialty crop producers are confronted with a number of 
challenges that threaten their viability and in some cases their 
ability to survive. It is no secret that my State of Washington is a 
major specialty crop State. We, in fact, rank No. 1 in the Nation in 
the production of a number of specialty crops--from apples to pears to 
cherries to raspberries to concord grapes, just to name a few of them, 
with 250 other fruits and vegetables produced in Washington State. The 
specialty crop industry represents a large segment of the agricultural 
commodities which serve the economic backbone of my State and many 
others.
  Unlike row crops such as corn, soybeans, cotton, there is virtually 
no support by the USDA for these fruits, and vegetable producers do not 
have access to crop insurance for their crops. Specialty crop producers 
have been hurt as the chairman of the committee enunciated.
  There has been a lot more--from fires and droughts, hailstorms, and 
wind. Our fruit and vegetable producers have faced some major 
challenges during the last two years. These same industries have been 
very hurt--and in some cases decimated--by the inflow of specialty 
crops from overseas, as well as a lack of access to labor and pests and 
diseases.
  I believe there is a need to make the commitment to help growers in 
all of our States and provide them with the assistance they desperately 
need.
  Many Americans don't realize that specialty crops represent 51 
percent of all farm cash receipts in the United States. That is more 
than $41 billion in annual farm value.
  Although our fruit and vegetable industry is large, it is not larger 
than other commodities. They have access to relatively little of the 
overall agricultural disaster programs.
  The section 32 grants to States to help specialty crops will help our 
fruit and vegetable producers survive these difficult conditions. 
Whether this is supporting research which is important, or promotion or 
marketing that is critical, these funds will help our fruit and 
vegetable farmers in business in every single State.
  I think everyone in the Senate knows that the United States should 
produce as much domestic food product as it can. And the $75 million 
that is targeted by this McCain amendment to help keep our fruit and 
vegetable producers in business is simply a modest investment, and it 
is a commitment to keep our farmers in business in very difficult and 
challenging times.
  I urge my colleagues to make the commitment to support the specialty 
crop farms and the farmers and the families who depend on it, and I 
urge them to vote against the McCain amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 3728

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
business be temporarily set aside and that we call up amendment No. 
3728 for consideration, which has been ruled germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

[[Page 6787]]

  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Vitter], for himself, and 
     Ms. Landrieu, proposes an amendment numbered 3728.

  Mr. VITTER. 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 for flood prevention in the State of Louisiana, 
                            with an offset)

       On page 165, line 19, strike ``$10,600,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$10,400,000,000''.
       On page 168, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:


                      FLOOD PROTECTION, LOUISIANA

       Sec. 2054. (a) There shall be made available $200,000,000 
     for the Secretary of the Army (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Secretary'') to provide, at full Federal expense--
       (1) pumping capacity and other measures required to prevent 
     flooding associated with modifications to outfall canals in 
     Jefferson and Orleans Parishes, Louisiana;
       (2) repairs, replacements, modifications, and improvements 
     of non-Federal levees and associated protection measures--
       (A) in areas of Terrebonne Parish, and of Jefferson Parish 
     in the vicinity of Jean Lafitte; and
       (B) on the east bank of the Mississippi River in 
     Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana; and
       (3) for armoring the hurricane and storm damage reduction 
     system in south Louisiana.
       (b) A project under this section shall be initiated only 
     after non-Federal interests have entered into binding 
     agreements with the Secretary to pay 100 percent of the 
     operation and maintenance costs of the project and to hold 
     and save the United States free from damages due to the 
     construction or operation and maintenance of the project, 
     except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the 
     United States or its contractors.
       (c) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     detailing a modified plan to protect lower Plaquemines 
     Parish, Louisiana, from damage attributable to hurricanes 
     with a focus on--
       (1) protecting populated areas;
       (2) energy infrastructure;
       (3) structural and nonstructural coastal barriers and 
     protection;
       (4) port facilities; and
       (5) the long-term maintenance and protection of the deep 
     draft navigation channel on the Mississippi River.
       (d) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a contract 
     with the National Academies to provide to the Secretary a 
     report, by not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, describing, for the period beginning on the date 
     on which the individual system components for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction was constructed and ending on the date 
     on which the report is prepared, the difference between--
       (1) the portion of the vertical depreciation of the system 
     that is attributable to design and construction flaws, taking 
     into consideration the settling of levees and floodwalls or 
     subsidence; and
       (2) the portion of that depreciation that is attributable 
     to the application of new storm datum that may require a 
     higher level of vertical protection in order to comply with 
     100-year floodplain certification and standard protect 
     hurricane.
       (e) The amounts provided under this heading are 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.


                    Amendment No. 3728, as modified

  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be modified according to the technical modifications which I have 
presented to the desk. These modifications do not change the scope of 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 3728), as modified, is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for flood prevention in the State of Louisiana, 
                            with an offset)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergencies'', as authorized by section 5 of the Act of 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses 
     relating to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other 
     hurricanes of the 2005 season, $3,299,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of the 
     Army is directed to use the funds appropriated under this 
     heading to modify, at full Federal expense, authorized 
     projects in southeast Louisiana to provide hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction and flood damage reduction in the 
     greater New Orleans and surrounding areas; of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading, $200,000,000 shall be used 
     for section 2401; $530,000,000 shall be used to modify the 
     17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue drainage 
     canals and install pumps and closure structures at or near 
     the lakefront; $250,000,000 shall be used for storm-proofing 
     interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the 
     stations during hurricanes, storms, and high water events; 
     $170,000,000 shall be used for armoring critical elements of 
     the New Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system; 
     $350,000,000 shall be used to improve protection at the Inner 
     Harbor Navigation Canal; $215,000,000 shall be used to 
     replace or modify certain non-Federal levees in Plaquemines 
     Parish to incorporate the levees into the existing New 
     Orleans to Venice hurricane protection project; and 
     $1,584,000,000 shall be used for reinforcing or replacing 
     flood walls, as necessary, in the existing Lake Pontchartrain 
     and vicinity project and the existing West Bank and vicinity 
     project to improve the performance of the systems: Provided 
     further, That any project using funds appropriated under this 
     heading shall be initiated only after non-Federal interests 
     have entered into binding agreements with the Secretary to 
     pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance, repair, 
     replacement, and rehabilitation costs of the project and to 
     hold and save the United States free from damages due to the 
     construction or operation and maintenance of the project, 
     except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the 
     United States or its contractors: 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.
       For an additional amount for ``Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergencies'', as authorized by section 5 of the Act of 
     August 18, 1941 (33 U.S.C. 701n), for necessary expenses 
     relating to those hurricanes and other disasters, 
     $17,500,000, 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: Provided further, That the 
     Secretary, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is directed 
     to use funds appropriated under this heading for the 
     restoration of funds for hurricane-damaged projects in the 
     State of Pennsylvania: Provided further, That the amount 
     shall be available for the projects identified above and only 
     to the extent that an official budget request for a specific 
     dollar amount, including a designation of the entire amount 
     of the request as an emergency requirement, is transmitted by 
     the President to Congress.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS CHAPTER


                      Flood protection, Louisiana

       Sec. 2401.(a) There shall be made available $200,000,000 
     for the Secretary of the Army (referred to in this section as 
     the ``Secretary'') to provide, at full Federal expense--
       (1) removal of the existing pumping stations on the 3 
     interior drainage canals in Jefferson and Orleans Parishes 
     and realignment of the drainage canals to direct interior 
     flows to the new permanent pump stations to be constructed at 
     Lake Pontchartrain;
       (2) repairs, replacements, modifications, and improvements 
     of non-Federal levees and associated protection measures--
       (A) in areas of Terrebonne Parish; and
       (B) on the east bank of the Mississippi River in 
     Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana; and
       (3) for armoring the hurricane and storm damage reduction 
     system in south Louisiana.
       (b) A project under this section shall be initiated only 
     after non-Federal interests have entered into binding 
     agreements with the Secretary to pay 100 percent of the 
     operation and maintenance costs of the project and to hold 
     and save the United States free from damages due to the 
     construction or operation and maintenance of the project, 
     except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the 
     United States or its contractors.
       (c) The Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     detailing a modified plan to protect lower Plaquemines 
     Parish, Louisiana, from damage attributable to hurricanes 
     with a focus on--
       (1) protecting populated areas;
       (2) energy infrastructure;
       (3) structural and nonstructural coastal barriers and 
     protection;
       (4) port facilities; and
       (5) the long-term maintenance and protection of the deep 
     draft navigation channel on the Mississippi River.
       (d) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary shall offer to enter into a contract 
     with the National Academies to provide to the Secretary a 
     report, by not later than 90 days after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, describing, for the period beginning on the date 
     on which the individual system components for hurricane and 
     storm damage reduction was constructed and ending on the date 
     on which the report is prepared, the difference between--
       (1) the portion of the vertical depreciation of the system 
     that is attributable to design and construction flaws, taking 
     into consideration the settling of levees and floodwalls or 
     subsidence; and
       (2) the portion of that depreciation that is attributable 
     to the application of new storm

[[Page 6788]]

     data that may require a higher level of vertical protection 
     in order to comply with 100-year floodplain certification and 
     standard protect hurricane.
       (e) The amounts provided under this heading are 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.

                               CHAPTER 5

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                     Customs and Border Protection


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       For an additional amount for ``Salaries and Expenses'' for 
     necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane 
     Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $12,900,000: 
     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.


                              CONSTRUCTION

       For an additional amount for ``Construction'' for necessary 
     expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and 
     other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $4,800,000, 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.

                       United States Coast Guard


                           OPERATING EXPENSES

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       For an additional amount for ``Operating Expenses'' for 
     necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane 
     Katrina and other hurricanes of the 2005 season, $90,570,900, 
     to remain available until September 30, 2007, of which up to 
     $267,000 may be transferred to ``Environmental Compliance and 
     Restoration'' to be used for environmental cleanup and 
     restoration of Coast Guard facilities in the Gulf of Mexico 
     region; and of which up to $470,000 may be transferred to 
     ``Research, Development, Test and Evaluation'' to be used for 
     salvage and repair of research and development equipment and 
     facilities: Provided, That the amounts provided under this 
     heading are 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.


              ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

       For an additional amount for ``Acquisition, Construction, 
     and Improvements'' for necessary expenses related to the 
     consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 
     2005 season, $191,844,000, to remain available until 
     expended: Provided, That such amounts shall be available for 
     major repair and reconstruction projects for facilities that 
     were damaged and for damage to vessels currently under 
     construction, for the replacement of damaged equipment, and 
     for the reimbursement of delay, loss of efficiency, 
     disruption, and related costs: Provided further, That amounts 
     provided are also for equitable adjustments and provisional 
     payments to contracts for Coast Guard vessels for which funds 
     have been previously appropriated: 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.

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                 ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS

       For an additional amount for ``Administrative and Regional 
     Operations'' for necessary expenses related to the 
     consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of the 
     2005 season, $71,800,000, 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.


            PREPAREDNESS, MITIGATION, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

       For an additional amount for ``Preparedness, Mitigation, 
     Response, and Recovery'' for necessary expenses related to 
     the consequences of Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes of 
     the 2005 season, $10,000,000, 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.


                            DISASTER RELIEF

       For an additional amount for ``Disaster Relief'' for 
     necessary expenses under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), 
     $10,400,000,000, 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I spoke to this amendment yesterday. I 
will not speak to it again. I will simply underscore several things.
  First of all, Senator Landrieu joins me in presenting this amendment 
which goes to the essential levee and hurricane protection needs of the 
greater New Orleans area.
  Second, the entire amendment is offset. So this amendment does not 
increase the spending in the bill by any amount--not one single penny.
  Third, we believe this amendment is very important to make sure that 
there are adequate funds for the essential levee hurricane protection 
work which is at the heart of this bill.
  We have many debates about what is at the periphery, but this type of 
work is at the heart of this bill, and, of course, the President and 
his leadership have made that clear.
  Again, I went into the details of this amendment yesterday. I won't 
go into them again. But I certainly hope in light of the fact that this 
amendment does not increase the cost of the bill, the Senate can come 
together and support Senator Landrieu and myself in passing this very 
important amendment to ensure that the vital work going on right now 
building up to the next hurricane season which starts in June can be 
done, and that all necessary moneys are there for all those important 
categories of work.
  I believe my colleague from Louisiana would like to say a few words 
in support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana. It 
has been a pleasure to work with him, and of course the leadership of 
the committee.
  As the Senator has pointed out, it does not add any money to the 
underlying bill, but it makes clear that there are four additional 
projects that are very crucial to the comprehensive repairs that are 
going on in the greater metropolitan area that simply need to be 
included. That is really the essence of this amendment.
  It does not add any money to the bill. It does not authorize anything 
outside the scope. It has been ruled germane.
  I again want to not only thank him for his good work but also 
acknowledge the leadership of the administration which has in the past 
few weeks come forward in terms of stepping up their leadership on this 
levee repair and how crucial it is to our area.
  I commend the administration for their support of the underlying bill 
which is very substantial.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, in closing, I would also say that this 
amendment has been cleared by the majority and minority managers of the 
bill.
  With that, I ask for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The yeas and nays are 
requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears not to be a sufficient second.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I rise to simply advise the Senator that 
I am told by staff that the authorizing committee has some concerns 
with the amendment and would oppose proceeding to a vote on the 
amendment at this time without the opportunity of discussing it with 
other Senators.
  That is the reason I didn't raise my hand to authorize the yeas and 
nays. I have no objection to the yeas and nays being ordered, but I 
didn't want us to proceed to a vote without the benefit of the advice 
and counsel of the legislative committee that sent word they have some 
concerns about the amendment. I don't know what the concerns are.
  As I reminded the Senate a moment ago, there is a meeting with the 
Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. Some Senators are at that 
meeting and I don't want to unnecessarily infringe on their interests 
by having a recorded vote as they are meeting on subjects of this 
legislation. This is a bill that funds the Department of Defense and 
the Department of State with supplemental appropriations to help pay 
for ongoing activities in the Middle East. This is a very important 
subject for Senators to understand at this particular time.

[[Page 6789]]

  I am sympathetic to their situation and think they should be able to 
question the Secretaries about the use of funds in this bill and the 
general situation in the area where we are fighting the war on terror 
and trying to protect the security interests of our country.
  Having said all of that, I don't want to slow down the Senate's 
consideration of legislation, but I hope we would not proceed to a vote 
on either the McCain amendment at this time or the Vitter amendment. We 
can wait until a little later. We will be on the bill for the balance 
of the afternoon. We hope to complete action on the bill at least by 
tomorrow morning. We appreciate the cooperation of all Senators and 
particularly those who are helping identify things that need to be 
addressed in this bill because of the devastating disasters that 
occurred in the southeast and the gulf coast region. They need the 
money now. We are not trying to slow down the action on the bill. We 
will not do that.
  I thank the Senators from Louisiana for understanding and hope they 
will not push for a vote right now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. If I could respond to the suggestions of the 
distinguished chairman through the Chair, I have no objection to 
scheduling this vote later in the day. I have been in a lot of contact 
with the authorizing committee, its leadership and its staff. I will 
continue to be in contact with them about issues contained in this 
amendment. I have no objection to proceeding to a vote later in the 
day.
  I do wish to restate my call for a rollcall vote. I would be 
perfectly amenable to any unanimous consent order to schedule the vote 
later in the day as long as that vote is assured.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears not to be a sufficient second.
  The senior Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I suggest to my colleague--and the chairman has been so 
helpful on all of the amendments--would it be possible through the 
Chair to request a specific time, or would the recommendation be to set 
this aside and come back to it at a later time? We have been working 
for quite some time on this. Would the Chair wish to set a time or 
should we think about setting it aside and coming back at a later date? 
We do not want to disrupt the proceedings taking place, as the Senator 
outlined.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. 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. BIDEN. Mr. President, I understand the chairman and the ranking 
member have already accepted my amendment. I will speak to it very 
briefly.
  The amendment they have accepted is straightforward, clear, and 
simple. It affirms that the United States will not seek to establish 
permanent military bases in Iraq and has no intention of attempting to 
control Iraqi oil.
  I know that is self-evident. We all know that. We know that is not 
our intention. The fact is, it is urban legend in Iraq, and our enemies 
in Iraq are using it as a rationale for continued opposition to the 
United States of America.
  The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report on the bill we are 
considering, noted:

       It's the current policy of the United States to establish 
     no permanent military bases in Iraq.

  I commend the committee for this important finding. It is an 
important message, as I said, to say not only to the Iraqis but the 
whole world. The administration policy has been less clear thus far, so 
hopefully it will be useful to the administration.
  I am sure the American Ambassador to Iraq understands the importance 
of the issue. In March he told Iraqi television stations that the 
United States has ``no goal in establishing permanent bases in Iraq.'' 
But, unfortunately, the Ambassador's statement has been clouded by 
mixed messages from senior administration officials in Washington.
  To my knowledge, the President has never explicitly stated that we 
will not establish permanent bases in Iraq.
  On February 17, 2005, Secretary Rumsfeld told the Committee on Armed 
Services:

       We have no intention, at the present time, of putting 
     permanent bases in Iraq.

  ``At the present time'' caused a stir.
  According to a recent survey, 88 percent of Sunni Arabs in Iraq 
approve of attacks on American forces in part because they are 
convinced that the Secretary's statement means that we do have 
eventually a desire to have a permanent base in Iraq.
  On February 15, 2006, at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
hearing, my friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, asked Secretary 
Rice:

       Is it, in fact, the policy of the administration not to 
     have permanent bases in Iraq?

  Rather than answering the simple one word, ``Yes,'' Secretary Rice 
said during a 400-word exchange on the question:

       I don't want to in this forum try to prejudice everything 
     that might happen way into the future.

  Not a very reassuring message to our friends in Iraq. These mixed 
messages are confusing also to the American people.
  But here is the most troubling thing. They make it more dangerous for 
our armed services, our men and women in Iraq on the ground. General 
George Casey, the ground force commander in Iraq, told the Committee on 
Armed Services last September:
  Increased coalition presence feeds the notion of occupation.
  According to an opinion poll conducted by a the Program on 
International Policy Attitudes from the University of Maryland in 
January 2006, 80 percent of the Iraqis believe we do have plans to 
establish permanent military bases. And an astounding 92 percent of the 
Sunni Arabs believe this to be true.
  These widespread suspicions contribute to the violence against 
American military personnel in Iraq, in my view. Why do Iraqis believe 
we want permanent bases? Why do they think we should subject ourselves 
to the enormous ongoing costs in Iraq? Do they think we want their 
sand? No, I think they think we want their oil.
  According to a 2004 Pew Charitable Trust international survey on the 
American invasion of Iraq, all four Muslim states surveyed, including 
Turkey, Pakistan, Jordan, and Morocco, expressed overwhelming suspicion 
about the stated reasons for America's invasion of Iraq. Majorities in 
each of the countries believe that control of Mideast oil was an 
important factor in our invasion.
  If you believe, as I do, that we need a regional strategy in Iraq to 
tackle growing sectarianism, allaying these suspicions is critical. It 
is critical to winning the battle for the hearts and minds of 1.2 
billion Muslims in the world.
  Those who have been to Iraq, as I have--and I know the men and women 
in the Senate have--everyone here knows these rumors to be unfounded, 
to be untrue. It is not our intention to control their oil. It also is 
not who we are.
  However, that is not what the people of the Muslim world think. 
Before we quickly dismiss these fears as ludicrous, remember what the 
Iraqis have been through in three decades: Three wars and a tyrannical 
regime that turned paranoia into a way of life, turned neighbor against 
neighbor, friend against friend, brother against brother.
  And remember the longer history of Iraq in the region which is 
ingrained in the Iraqi psyche: 400 years of British and Ottoman 
occupation have, to put it mildly, led to certain suspicions about 
foreign presence.
  As CENTCOM Commander GEN John Abizaid testified before the Committee 
on Armed Services last September:

       We must make clear to the people of the region we have no 
     designs on their territory or resources.

  The amendment of mine that has been accepted will have no detrimental

[[Page 6790]]

effect on the military operations of our Armed Forces in Iraq or their 
ability to provide security for Iraqi oil infrastructure.
  The U.N. Council Resolution 1546 recognizes that the American and 
coalition forces are present in Iraq at the invitation of the Iraqi 
Government and that their operations are essential to Iraq's political, 
economic, and social well-being.
  We are anxious for the day when Iraqis can take control of their own 
destiny, but the Iraqis are suspicious of our intentions and growing 
increasingly impatient. I have no illusions that a single amendment 
will somehow change the dynamics of events on the ground, but I believe 
we have a duty to proclaim and demonstrate through our deeds that we 
have no intention whatever of either maintaining permanent Iraqi 
military bases or controlling Iraqi oil.
  If I may, I suggest what I proposed this past weekend, a third way on 
dealing with Iraq. Right now, we have basically two alternatives. The 
administration has a plan as to how not to lose but not one on how to 
win. Some of my friends in both parties believe the answer is to figure 
out how quickly we can pull out our forces. I want our forces out, but 
I also want to leave behind a stable Iraq so we need not go back in 
again.
  Toward that end, I laid out a proposal. I want to make absolutely 
clear what it is not. It is not a proposal to partition Iraq. As a 
matter of fact, I respectfully suggest that the proposal I have laid 
out, and signed on by Les Gelb and others, is, in fact, the only way to 
avoid the partitioning of Iraq.
  My fellow colleagues, we have gone from the major threat in Iraq 
being the insurgency to the major threat in Iraq being sectarian 
violence and a civil war. If you read the major press on Sunday, both 
the Washington Post and the New York Times have articles from well-
respected reporters on the ground in Iraq saying that the nation is 
dangerously careening toward partition.
  My proposal is designed to avoid partitioning. I believe, in order to 
be able to keep Iraq together and as a united government 5 years from 
now, we must give them breathing room now--breathing room now. The fact 
of the matter is, there is no plan on the administration's radar or 
anyone else's, for that matter, to deal with disbanding the militia or 
integrating the militia into the Iraqi military.
  And, right now, a unity government--which is a necessary precondition 
for what I am talking about--a unity government, without a plan as to 
how to keep the Sunnis in the game, is one that is destined for 
failure.
  We have had two unity governments already, and they have gotten us, 
quite frankly, nowhere. What makes anyone think because you no longer 
have Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who was disliked by the rest of non-Shiite 
Iraq, as prime minister that somehow the Sunnis are going to embrace a 
highly centralized Government, politically controlled by the Shia, and 
without any Sunni access to resources, and nothing being done about the 
death squads and the militia coming out of the Sadr camp and the Badr 
brigade, which has been trained, in part, by the Iranians? They are not 
likely to sign on.
  So the proposal I have laid out, which I will not bore my colleagues 
with in detail, but I will submit for the Record, the proposal I have 
laid out has five parts. I came to those conclusions based upon the 
following assessment: Nothing I propose is in any way contradictory to 
the existing Iraqi Constitution. Let me remind all my colleagues that 
the Iraqi Constitution, voted on last year by the Iraqi people, calls 
for the establishment--after a general election, which took place on 
December 15--of an Iraqi Government.
  Once the Iraqi Government is established--and it must be established, 
now, by May 20--the Parliament will meet. The Iraqi Parliament will 
meet, and they will appoint a committee to make recommendations on 
amendments to the Constitution.
  This process was made available because of the hard work of our 
Ambassador to Iraq. When they voted on the Constitution, you may 
remember, at the last minute, to save the deal, Zal was able to go out 
and get the following caveat put into their Constitution: that it was 
still able to be amended, particularly as it related to regionalism.
  For the Sunnis feared, above all, that you would have these two 
autonomous provinces with all the oil--north and south--and they would 
be left without any resources in the middle and at the mercy of those 
two regions. That is why the present Constitution in Iraq calls for the 
possibility of amendment. And the amendments the administration has 
been calling for, I have been calling for, and everyone else, are 
amendments designed to get further Sunni buy-in. For everyone knows, 
unless the Sunnis buy in, the insurgency will not stop. If the 
insurgency is not quelled, continued sectarian violence will erupt. And 
already the genie is out of the bottle.
  What has happened now is sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing is 
becoming a part of the political process in Iraq. In order to be able 
to stem that, there is a necessity, in my view, to get Sunni buy-in.
  Everything has changed on the ground since my first trip to Iraq, 
right after Saddam's statue fell, with Dick Lugar and with our 
colleague from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel.
  At that time, the Sunni former Baathist insurgents believed, if they 
resisted, they could drive America out, and they could once again take 
control of the central government. They believed that Sunni domination, 
as existed the previous decades, was again achievable.
  The Shia thought there was no possibility of them being able to 
dominate militarily, and they would have to be able to do that 
politically.
  And the Kurds saw themselves as a semiautonomous region not caring 
much about anything else that happened as long as they maintained their 
autonomy.
  What has happened in the last couple years? Well, what has happened 
in the last several months, when the mosque was blown up in the Shia 
area, it unleashed--it unleashed--sectarian violence. It unleashed it 
in a way that the brigades of the existing militia began to wreak 
vengeance and havoc.
  Every day you pick up the paper, what do you read about in Baghdad? 
You read about 2, 12, 14, 50 Sunnis found bound and gagged and shot in 
the head. You read of death squads.
  On this floor, a year and a half ago, I warned that the police 
department in Iraq was not being organized and was essentially becoming 
a group of death squad people, dominated by the sectarian groups.
  What has our military told us now? They told us just that, just that. 
And what has happened now is our chief military guy on the ground, 
General Casey, says we have to radically reform the police. And he 
calls 2006: the year of the police. The year of the police--a tacit 
acknowledgment they have been a vehicle of dividing Iraq in sectarian 
ways rather than one of uniting Iraq.
  Read today's papers--the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA 
Times. What are you reading? You are reading now that members of the 
Iraqi Army are refusing to be deployed outside the areas from which 
they come.
  The election on December 15--and I came to this floor afterward--it 
was heralded as this great democratic movement. What was it? Ninety 
percent of the Iraqis who voted on December 15 for a new Iraq voted for 
sectarian or ethnic parties. If you look at the results, it was a call 
for, effectively, the thing we do not want--division and partition. 
That is what it was. Only 10 percent of the votes cast in Iraq on 
December 15 were for nonsectarian, nonethnic parties or candidates.
  So much for this notion that there is this nonsectarian oasis that 
exists in Iraq that we can now drink from in order to unite Iraq.
  So I say to my colleagues, the proposal I have come forward with is, 
I believe, the only reasonable way in which to guarantee there is not a 
division of Iraq, that there is not partitioning. My proposal calls for 
a strong central government controlling all of the revenues, all the 
resources, all the oil revenues, controlling a united army, and in

[[Page 6791]]

charge of border security and foreign policy.
  But what it does is what we did, in part, in Bosnia in the Dayton 
Accords. It gives the sectarian areas breathing room. It does not 
insist that the central government and the Parliament dictate to the 
people in the Sunni area, for example, what their laws on marriage 
should be, what their laws on divorce and property settlement would be, 
any more than we allow the Federal Government to tell the people of 
Mississippi or the State of Washington or the State of Delaware what 
those laws would be. That is not division.
  I remind everybody, what did we do? We won a Revolutionary War, but 
we could not get a consensus among the 13 Colonies to have a strong, 
united central Government, so we developed the Articles of 
Confederation. It took us 13 years to have our Philadelphia moment. It 
took us 13 years.
  Let me go back to Bosnia and continue that analogy. The Dayton 
Accords called for the establishment of a place called the Republika 
Srpska. Remember, Serbians within Bosnia-Herzegovina had their own 
republic, were allowed to keep their army, allowed to keep their 
military, and three Presidents were elected under the Constitution--a 
Serbian President, a Bosniak President, and a Croat President. That was 
necessary to keep this place from splitting and splintering. There was 
no possibility you would get them all on the same page, in the same 
box, after the ethnic cleansing that had taken place.
  What is happening now in Bosnia-Herzegovina? Now they are rewriting 
their Constitution. The Republika Srpska is ready to give up their 
status, give up their military, as well as move from three Presidents 
to one. Why? They want to become part of Europe. They want to become 
part of Europe and benefit economically. That is why we needed to give 
them breathing room.
  My proposal does not do a single thing that the existing Constitution 
does not contemplate in Iraq. And my proposal requires--requires--as a 
precondition the establishment of the very government that is being 
established right now. But it goes beyond that. As our Ambassador said 
to us, down at the White House, in the teleconference with the 
President and about six Senators and the members of the war Cabinet of 
the President--he said: Mr. President--I am paraphrasing--we first have 
to establish this government. Then we need a program. The government 
needs a program.
  Essentially, what my proposal calls for are the outlines of a 
program, a program whereby the Sunnis are guaranteed a piece of the 
economic pie.
  Now, people would say: Joe, why? And I have run this by at least a 
half a dozen Iraqi leaders in Iraq--Sunni, Shia, and Kurds--and it 
ranges from ``not sure'' to ``supportive.''
  Why? What has changed? Here is what has changed. This is how the 
ground has shifted. No. 1, there is now sectarian violence, and ethnic 
cleansing is underway already now.
  Secondly, the Sunnis no longer think there is any possibility of them 
controlling the central government and all of Iraq any longer. They 
have given up that notion. They know it is not possible. Some diehard 
Baathists and terrorists still think that. But the vast majority of the 
Sunni leadership knows that is not in the cards. That is not where they 
were 8 months ago.
  Now, what happened with regard to the Shia? The Shia now know they 
can be the dominant political party in Iraq. But they have also figured 
out, in the last 3 months--they have had, as we Catholics say, their 
own epiphany. And what was their epiphany? It is that they know they 
cannot control the insurgents. They know there is nothing they are 
going to be able to do in the foreseeable future to keep their mosques, 
the oil wells, and infrastructure from being blown up.
  The Kurds. What has happened in the last 3 months with the Kurds? The 
Kurds value, above all else, their autonomy. They really want 
independence, but they value their autonomy. Why would they be part of 
this deal to give up part of the revenues to guarantee the Sunnis have 
revenues? A simple reason, folks: They have now decided there is no 
possibility of them occupying Kirkuk and being independent in a country 
that blows apart. Why? The Turks will take them out. The Turks will 
take them out. The Turkoman, the Syrians, and others who live in 
Kirkuk--the Turks will not allow the Kurds in Iraq to essentially have 
an independent state if a civil war breaks out.
  So they have all figured it out. But they do not know quite how to 
fix it. You may say: Biden, isn't it presumptuous for you to tell them 
how to fix it?
  Quite frankly, every move forward of late has been from an American 
initiative.
  Well, I heard the White House criticize my plan, saying we ought to 
let the Iraqis do it. Well, how do they explain the fact that the 
President of the United States got on the phone and told the Iraqis: 
``Jaafari is out''? How do they explain the fact of noninterference 
with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense getting on a 
plane and going over to Iraq and saying: ``Jaafari is out''?
  Do you call that meddling? I call it meddling, but a rational 
meddling, a rational meddling for their own well-being and, long term, 
ours.
  And I might add, who was it that insisted that the Constitution, that 
was clearly going to be voted on overwhelmingly, be amended at the last 
minute to allow further amendment? Our Ambassador? He did it. Why? It 
made sense in order to get the Sunnis into the election.
  Because they were not ready to buy in if they knew this Constitution 
was cast in stone. That is nice meddling.
  What I am proposing does not even approach that. What I am proposing 
is what everybody knows has to be dealt with in Iraq; and that is, you 
have to figure a way that the Sunnis have some resources.
  Now, if you are a Sunni, and you have been able to get a new 
government here, where you get a few people who are in the government, 
what do you think happens in a parliament, where 60 percent of the 
parliament is dominated by the Shia when it comes to distributing 
resources in the central government? Do you think you are going to get 
many hospitals built in the Sunni region? Do you think you are going to 
get many roads built? Do you think you are going to get many wells dug? 
These folks are not stupid.
  But if you guarantee them a rational piece of the economic pie--sort 
of like revenue sharing--if you guarantee them something approaching 20 
percent of the oil revenues, after the central government has paid for 
all it needs to make them function, then, in fact, they know they have 
the ability to provide for their own needs, and they are not going to 
be left totally out in the cold. It is money distributed by a strong 
central government.
  I would add one other point. People ask: Why would the Sunnis and 
Shia give up what they now control, all this oil? Why would they give 
any guaranteed peace to the Sunnis? I will tell you why. Some of my 
colleagues remember when Dick Lugar and I came to the floor and said 
there would not be oil to pay for this war.
  Why did we say that? We are not all that brilliant. Because we went 
to the oil men, we went to Mr. Yergin from the Cambridge research 
outfit that advises all the major oil companies in the United States. 
He came and testified and said: You can't get oil out of the ground in 
sufficient amount unless you invest $30 billion in the ground.
  What does everybody agree to now? Everybody, including the 
administration, says we have to invest $30 billion in the ground.
  What is the next message coming from the oil industry worldwide? They 
will not invest sufficiently in Iraqi oil unless there is a centralized 
oil ministry with actual control and unless there is a reasonable 
prospect of an end of the insurgency and the prospect of no civil war. 
So why would the Shia give up part of their oil that is in the south? 
There is no oil in the middle. It is in the north and the south. Why 
would they give it up? Because they know with the investment, the oil 
pie

[[Page 6792]]

will be so much bigger. Although they would be giving up a little bit 
with the Constitution, they will be getting considerably more revenue. 
This is not rocket science. That is what this is about.
  There are five pieces of the plan. If we are ready to go to something 
else, I am happy to cease and desist.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, we understand 
the meeting with Senators and the Secretary of State and Secretary of 
Defense is still going on. We are advised that a good time for the vote 
on the McCain amendment would be about 3:30. You are getting wound up.
  Mr. BIDEN. Well, I am. Although I may speak long, I speak seldom. But 
this is very important to me and to our country. I want to make sure, 
whether people agree or disagree with my proposal, they understand it. 
And if they disagree, they know why they disagree. A lot are agreeing.
  Here is the deal. There are two alternatives we have now been 
offered. One side says we are going to keep things from getting worse, 
where we have no strategy to make them better. The other side of the 
equation says, things aren't going to get better so we better get our 
troops out of there as quick as we can. Neither speaks to what I think 
is our national interest and objective and they are dual: One, get the 
troops out as rapidly as we can and leave behind as stable and 
integrated country as possible. Because if we don't leave behind a 
stable government, we are going to do exactly what I predict is going 
to happen in Afghanistan. We are going to be back in Afghanistan. Read 
today's paper. My argument is, we should be sending more forces rather 
than less. Read the paper today. The paper today says our folks and the 
Afghanis and others say the Taliban is about to occupy again the 
Pashtun area, that the rural areas of southeastern Afghanistan are now 
controlled by the Taliban and al-Qaida.
  Hear me. If they are controlled by the Taliban and al-Qaida, mark my 
words, that control will be consolidated because we left too soon, we 
don't have enough resources there, and we didn't finish the job. I 
don't want the same thing happening in Iraq. So just pulling troops 
out, which I would love to do, pulling them out and trading a dictator 
for chaos is no answer. Leaving them in without a plan to be able to 
bring them out with a country left behind is also not a plan.
  Here is the deal, five pieces to my proposal, all contemplated by the 
present Constitution and all totally consistent with the establishment 
of an integrated government. The first part of that plan requires that 
there be strong central government control over revenues, border, 
natural resources, and distribution of them. As part of that, we would 
also do what the World Bank has done before: Have a World Bank 
committee overseeing the distribution of resources, which we have done 
in many countries, to guarantee transparency.
  The second piece of this is a requirement that the Constitution be 
amended, or theoretically it could be done by the Parliament, where the 
Sunnis are guaranteed a portion of the oil revenues after the central 
government has paid all its bills, as the Kurds would be and as the 
Shia would be.
  The third piece of this is, instead of doing what the administration 
has done, which is in this budget cut off more economic aid to Iraq--I 
find that amazing. We are ending economic aid, reconstruction aid in 
Iraq. What is the plan for this democracy? We should, in fact, continue 
economic aid to Iraq, which I am sure is hugely unpopular because it 
has been so badly spent so far, but require a fundamental change in the 
distribution of that aid away from megaprojects to small-bore projects. 
We should, at the same time in part 3, be calling upon our erstwhile 
partners who committed resources to Iraq to deliver them. And we should 
have an altar call for our Arab friends in the gulf who are making 
ExxonMobil look like a piker. They have plenty of money. And it is as 
much in their interest to see civil war not break out, as it is in 
ours.
  All of that aid should be conditioned on one important thing: A 
guarantee of human rights and women's rights. People say: Biden, we 
know you wrote the Violence Against Women Act. What is the deal here? 
The reason is not only is it morally the right thing to do, it is 
essential for there to be any prospect of a democratic Iraq emerging in 
the future, essential that women have rights and are protected. And the 
condition upon the aid should be the guarantee and ability to oversee 
not abusing the rights of women in their laws, in their provinces, 
similar to our States, similar to the State of Delaware, the State of 
Mississippi, as well as the fact that overall human rights be something 
that is transparent.
  The fourth piece of this plan calls for what I have been calling for, 
for 2 years, I admit. Dr. Kissinger has been calling for it for a year 
and three-quarters, Secretary Shultz has been calling for it. Secretary 
Powell is calling for it. We need a regional conference. We need to get 
all of Iraq's neighbors, such as we did in Afghanistan, get all of 
Iraq's neighbors to essentially enter into an agreement not to meddle 
in Iraq's affairs. People ask: Why would they do that? Why would Iran 
do that, why would Turkey do that, why would the Arab neighbors do 
that? A simple reason: The last thing any of them want is a civil war.
  They say the Iranians might want a civil war. No. What the Iranians 
want is what they have. What they have now is Americans being bled 
financially and physically, with 10 or 12 divisions tied down. That is 
what the Iranians want.
  What they don't want is a civil war. You ask why? In Tehran, the 
Government of Tehran and the clerics know that 75 to 80 percent of 
their constituency hates them. They know they are incredibly unpopular. 
You are sitting on top of an unpopular government, knowing that there 
is not enough energy for there to be another revolt, another revolution 
among the people. Do you want 17 million of your Shia Arab brothers--
and don't forget the Iranians are not Arab, they are Indo-European, 
they are Persian--do you want 17 million of your Shia Arab brothers 
learning how to fight and learning how to muster their physical 
capability perhaps for the next year on your border while they are 
engaging with 60 million of your Shia citizens who don't like you? I 
guarantee you, the answer is ``no.'' They don't want that.
  The Turks don't want a civil war. Civil war means the Kurds are going 
to go their own way. The last thing the Turks want is the Kurds going 
their own way. And for Lord's sake, the Arab Gulf States don't want a 
civil war because they then begin to count their days. So it is in 
everyone's interest.
  How do you get this regional conference? I believe we can and I am 
confident we will. Get the P5, the permanent 5 of the Security Council 
to lay down the parameters for a regional conference, get a U.N. 
Security Council resolution passed calling for a regional conference on 
Iraq and nonintervention. And then do what I have been calling for for 
2 years, set up a contact group made up of the regional and world 
powers who will essentially police the deal--not send troops into Iraq, 
police the deal--so that all those who sign on in the region do not 
interfere and observe they are not interfering.
  The fifth piece of my plan calls for a date to be announced, that by 
the end of 2008, the majority of American forces will be redeployed. 
There are two reasons for that. To give the U.S. military certainty, to 
give them certainty to plan, for there is no possibility of them 
pulling American forces out in 6 months or 8 months. I am not going to 
presume to tell the military how long an orderly change in our presence 
in Iraq would take and when it should take place. If it occurs sooner, 
all the better.
  But the second reason to state it is to let the Iraqis know, as 
Democrats and Republicans and the President himself have acknowledged, 
that as long as they think we are there forever, they are not about to 
step up to the ball to make the hard decisions.
  So I believe the only reasonable prospect of holding Iraq together, 
to avoid partitioning, which could be a disaster, is to give the region 
breathing room and incentive to stay in the deal.

[[Page 6793]]

  I hope over time this will get a closer look. As Dr. Kissinger said, 
and I spoke with him and Vice President Cheney in Philadelphia at the 
World Affairs Council, when they asked Dr. Kissinger, after my speech 
along these lines, what he thought, he said he thought the plan 
warranted very close scrutiny. When I laid it out to Ash Carter, he 
thought the plan was a good plan. When I laid it out to other people, 
including former Republican and Democratic members of the foreign 
policy establishment, it went from: Joe, is this partitioning? and once 
explained that it wasn't, to not a bad idea, to fully embracing the 
idea.
  This is going to take a while. I remember when I came to this floor 
in the early 1990s and to the shock and dismay of my colleagues called 
for us lifting the arms embargo against the Bosnians and calling for 
air strikes against the Serbs. My colleagues thought that was crazy.
  I remember when I came back again, after meeting with Milosevic and 
him having told people in a private meeting that when he asked me what 
I thought about him, I told him I thought he was a war criminal and I 
would spend my career seeing that he was tried as one, my colleagues 
thought it didn't make sense. It took 3 years to convince the 
administration we should move. It takes time. But they did move. We 
didn't lose an American force. We stopped a genocide. We stopped the 
dismantling of an entire region of the world, and we saved the lives of 
at least a quarter of a million people.
  We can do that again. Don't expect everyone to embrace this plan. I 
realize it is strategically pretty broad. I realize it takes time to 
digest. My fervent prayer is, I would love it if 6 months from now, 
what I proposed proves not to be necessary because the Iraqis have 
embraced and rallied around this new government, that the insurgency is 
stopped, that we have not had continued ethnic cleansing, and that 
there is a unified central government as is. I would be delighted, 
delighted to stand on the floor and have people say: Told you, Joe. You 
didn't need the scheme you laid out.
  I pray God that is true. But I respectfully suggest to you it is not 
likely to be true. We better have a plan B for pulling out American 
troops precipitously without a plan, for keeping them in without a plan 
is a disaster either way you look at it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the speech I delivered 
earlier this week at the World Affairs Council be printed in the 
Record.

    The Way Forward in Iraq: Avoiding Partition, Preserving Unity, 
                     Protecting America's Interests

       It's an honor to be back at the Philadelphia World Affairs 
     Council.
       First, let me apologize to those of you confused by the 
     schedule. It shows me speaking this afternoon. Instead, you 
     get me to start your day. Look at it this way: things can 
     only get better. And they will, because I understand that 
     Vice President Cheney and Secretary Kissinger will be here 
     for lunch.
       I'd like to focus on an issue that weighs heavily on our 
     national consciousness--Iraq.
       I start from this hard truth: President Bush does not have 
     a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent 
     defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. 
     Meanwhile, the frustration of Americans is mounting so fast 
     that Congress might end up mandating a rapid withdrawal, even 
     at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos, and a civil war 
     that could become a regional war.
       Both are bad alternatives.
       Today, I will argue for a third way that can bring our 
     troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and 
     preserve Iraq as a unified country.
       I developed this plan with Les Gelb, the president emeritus 
     of the Council on Foreign Relations. It recognizes this new, 
     central reality in Iraq: a rising tide of sectarian violence 
     is the biggest threat to Iraq's future and to America's 
     interests. It is premised on the proposition that the only 
     way to hold Iraq together, and to create the conditions for 
     our troops to responsibly withdraw, is to give Shiites, 
     Sunnis, and Kurds room to breath in their own regions.
       Let me tell you what our plan is not: it is not partition. 
     Let me tell you what our plan is: It is consistent with 
     Iraq's constitution. It is consistent with the new unity 
     government. And it is consistent with--in fact, it is 
     necessary to--the goal of keeping Iraq unified within its 
     existing borders and not a threat to its own people, its 
     neighbors, or to us.
       I'd like to share the details of our plan with you.


                         The Current Situation

       I was last in Baghdad on December 15th to observe the 
     elections. It was my sixth trip to Iraq. It was incredibly 
     moving to see Iraqis go to the polls.
       I came back with a finger stained purple from the polling 
     ink. But I also returned with this warning: we must not, yet 
     again, prematurely declare, ``Mission Accomplished.'' Yes, 
     Iraqis voted by the millions, but who did they vote for? 
     Ninety percent cast their ballots for sectarian and ethnic 
     parties. Far from a democratic turning point, the elections 
     reflected Iraq's deepening fault-lines.
       Here's where we are in Iraq: we can't lose on the 
     battlefield and the insurgents can't win as long as enough 
     U.S. troops remain. But, as both our Ambassador and our top 
     general in Iraq acknowledge, violence between the Shi'a and 
     Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency as the main security 
     threat. It is driving the country toward chaos and civil war.
       Simply put, the sectarian genie is out of the bottle. 
     Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in large parts of 
     Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. 
     Sectarian cleansing has begun in mixed areas, with tens of 
     thousands of Iraqis fleeing their homes in recent weeks. 
     Dozens of dead bodies turn up daily in Baghdad.
       Meanwhile, Iraqis have less electricity, clean water, 
     sewage treatment and oil than before the war. Iraq's 
     government ministries are barely functional. Iraq looks more 
     like a failing state, not an emerging democracy.
       There is no purely military answer to this slow but certain 
     downward spiral. With more troops and the right strategy, we 
     might have stopped the insurgency. But no number of U.S. 
     troops will stop a civil war. To prevent it, we need a 
     political solution. The national unity government in which 
     the President has put so much stock is necessary, but it is 
     not enough. We have had ``unity'' governments for three years 
     in Iraq. Yet sectarian violence has escalated.
       What the Iraqis need now--and what this plan proposes--is a 
     genuine political way forward that, like our own Articles of 
     Confederation, gives Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds the 
     confidence to pursue their interests peacefully in a unified 
     country. In fact, the central government this plan proposes 
     for Iraq would be even stronger than America's first 
     government. With time, we can hope they will come to their 
     own Philadelphia freedom.
       At the same time, I believe we can't pull our forces out 
     precipitously, just as we can't keep them in Iraq 
     indefinitely. Withdrawing them too soon would open the door 
     to all out civil war that could turn into a regional war. It 
     also would leave parts of Iraq a haven for terrorists. That 
     would be disastrous for U.S. interests.
       What our troops deserve--and what this plan proposes--is a 
     clear target date for redeployment that, coupled with a 
     political settlement, will allow us to leave Iraq with our 
     basic interests intact.


                       A Five Point Plan for Iraq

       Ten years ago, Bosnia was drowning in ethnic cleansing and 
     facing its demise as a unified state. After much hesitation, 
     the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton 
     Accords to keep the country whole by dividing it into ethnic 
     federations. We even allowed Bosniaks, Croats, and Serbs to 
     retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and 
     others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are 
     strengthening their common central government, and disbanding 
     their separate armies.
       The Bush Administration, despite its profound strategic 
     misjudgments, has a similar opportunity in Iraq.
       The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by decentralizing it 
     and giving Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis the room to run their 
     own affairs. The central government would be left in charge 
     of common interests. We would encourage Iraqis to accept this 
     formula with major sweeteners for the Sunnis, a military plan 
     for withdrawing and redeploying U.S. forces, and a regional 
     non-aggression pact. The plan has five elements:
     1. One Iraq With Three Regions
       The first element is to establish three largely autonomous 
     regions with a viable but limited central government in 
     Baghdad.
       The central government would be responsible for border 
     defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues. The 
     regional governments--Kurd, Sunni and Shiite--would be 
     responsible for administering their own regions.
       The United States shouldn't impose this solution and we 
     don't have to because federalism is already written into 
     Iraq's constitution. In fact, the constitution creates a 
     limited central government and establishes a procedure for 
     provinces combining into regions.
       Increasingly, each community will support federalism, if 
     only as a last resort. Until recently, the Sunnis sought a 
     strong central government because they believed they would 
     retake power. Now, they are beginning to recognize that they 
     won't. Their growing fear is Shi'a power in a highly 
     centralized state, enforced by sectarian militia and death 
     squads. The Shi'a know that they can dominate the government, 
     but they can't defeat a Sunni insurrection. The Kurds want to 
     consolidate their autonomy.

[[Page 6794]]

       Some will ask whether this plan will lead to sectarian 
     cleansing. The answer is that it's already happening. 
     According to the Iraqi government, 90,000 people have fled 
     their homes since the February bombing of the Samarra mosque 
     for fear of sectarian reprisals. That's a rate of more than a 
     1,000 people a day. This does not include the tens of 
     thousands of educated Iraqis from the middle class who have 
     left the country.
       We must build in protections to prevent more cleansing and 
     to improve security in the big cities, which the 
     Administration has failed to achieve. Baghdad would become a 
     federal zone, while densely-populated areas with mixed 
     populations would receive both multi-sectarian and 
     international police protection.
       A global political settlement won't end the Sunni 
     insurgency, but it should help to undermine it. The Zarqawi 
     network would no longer have the sectarian card to play. 
     Sunni Nationalists and neo-Baathists would still be unhappy 
     but they would be easier to contain.
       Similarly, while decentralization won't end the militia 
     problem overnight, it is the best way to begin rolling it 
     back. Right now, there is no plan to disband the militia. 
     Militias have so heavily infiltrated the security forces that 
     our training program is effectively making them better 
     killers. The regions can become magnets for the militia, 
     integrating them into local forces, and eventually into the 
     national force. Again, the constitution already provides for 
     security forces within the regions. There is nothing radical 
     in this proposal.
       The Administration is focusing only on putting together a 
     unity government. But the ``unity'' government of the past 
     year wasn't able to govern or stop the violence. This one 
     offers little more promise. A much broader political 
     settlement that gives each community breathing space is the 
     best bet to prevent civil war and to keep Iraq intact.
     2. A Viable Sunni Region With Shared Oil Revenues
       The second element of the plan is to gain agreement for the 
     federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by giving them an offer 
     they can't reasonably refuse.
       Basically, they get to run their own region. That's a far 
     better deal than the present alternatives: either being a 
     permanent minority in a centrally run government or being the 
     principal victims of a civil war.
       As a major sweetener, we should press the Iraqis to write 
     into the constitution that the Sunnis would receive about 20 
     percent of all present and future oil revenues. That's 
     roughly proportional to their size. And it's far more than 
     they'd get otherwise, since the oil is in the north and 
     south, not the Sunni center. These revenues represent the 
     only way to make the Sunni region viable economically. If 
     Sunnis reject the deal, there is no guarantee they will get 
     any oil revenues.
       The central government would set national oil policy and 
     distribute the revenues, which would reinforce each 
     community's interest in keeping Iraq intact. There would be 
     international supervision to ensure transparency.
       Why would the Shiites and Kurds sign on? Petroleum experts 
     agree that the Iraqi oil industry will attract much more 
     desperately needed foreign capital if it is run as a unified 
     whole. Shiites and Kurds will get a slightly smaller piece of 
     a much larger pie. That's a better deal than they would get 
     by going it alone. Guaranteeing Sunnis a piece of this pie 
     will reduce the incentive of insurgents to attack the oil 
     infrastructure. That, too, would be good for everyone.
     3. More Aid, But Tied To The Protection Of Minority And 
         Women's Rights
       Third, instead of ending U.S. reconstruction assistance, as 
     the Bush Administration is doing, we should provide more. But 
     we should clearly condition aid on the protection of minority 
     and women's rights. The incompetence of the Bush 
     Administration's reconstruction program makes more 
     reconstruction money a hard sell. A new aid effort would have 
     to be radically different than the old one. For example, 
     instead of international mega-firms pocketing valuable 
     contracts, spending a huge chunk of each one on security, and 
     then falling short, Iraqis should be in the lead of small-
     scale projects that deliver quick results.
       The President also should insist that other countries make 
     good on old commitments, and provide new ones. He should 
     focus on the Gulf States. They're enjoying windfall oil 
     profits. They have a lot at stake in Iraq. They should step 
     up and give back.
       But all future U.S. aid would be tied to the protection of 
     minority and women's rights, clearly and unambiguously. We 
     should insist other donors set the same standard. Aid would 
     be cut off in the face of a pattern of violations.
       President Bush is now silent on protecting minority and 
     women's rights. If they are not upheld, there can be no hope 
     for eventual democracy in Iraq.
     4. Maintain Iraq's Territorial Integrity And Engage Its 
         Neighbors
       Fourth, this plan proposes that the United Nations convene 
     a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, 
     including Iran, pledge to respect Iraq's borders and work 
     cooperatively to implement this plan.
       The neighbors may see decentralization as a plot to carve 
     up Iraq. But they have an equally strong interest in not 
     seeing Iraq descend into a civil war that could draw them 
     into a wider war. Engaging them directly can overcome their 
     suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not 
     undermining it.
       The U.N. Security Council should precede the conference 
     with a call for the necessary declarations. The permanent 
     members of the Security Council should then sponsor and 
     participate in the conference to show a united international 
     front.
       After the conference, Iraq's neighbors will still be 
     tempted to interfere in its weakened affairs. We need an on-
     going mechanism to keep them in line. For two years, I've 
     called for a standing Contact Group, to include the major 
     powers, that would engage the neighbors and lean on them to 
     comply with the deal. I'm not alone. Former Secretaries of 
     State Kissinger, Shultz, and Powell have all called for the 
     same thing.
       President Bush's failure to move on this front is 
     inexplicable. There will be no lasting peace in Iraq without 
     the support of its neighbors.
     5. A Responsible U.S. Drawdown And A Residual Force
       Fifth, the President should direct U.S. military commanders 
     to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. 
     forces from Iraq by 2008. If the military can do it sooner 
     without precipitating a meltdown, so much the better. 
     Regardless, the President should make it clear that the 
     direction we're heading in is out, and no later than 2008.
       We would maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force--
     perhaps 20,000 troops--to strike any concentration of 
     terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest, and train its 
     security forces. Some U.S. troops and police would also need 
     to participate in a multinational peacekeeping force deployed 
     to the major multi-sectarian cities, as in the Balkans. Such 
     a force is now a non-starter with other countries, despite 
     their own interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq and the region. 
     But a political settlement, and their role in helping to 
     bring it about through a regional conference and Contact 
     Group, could change their calculus and willingness to 
     participate.
       Right now, our troops are still necessary to prevent total 
     chaos. But unless the Iraqis see and believe we are leaving, 
     they will have little incentive to shape up. Redeployment is 
     also necessary because we can't sustain this large a force in 
     Iraq without sending troops back on fourth and fifth tours, 
     extending deployments, and fully mobilizing the Guard. That 
     would do serious long-term damage to our military.
       A clear plan also would end the fiction the President keeps 
     repeating of a ``conditions based draw down.'' What 
     conditions justify the draw down of 30,000 troops since the 
     December elections? The situation has gotten worse.
       President Bush's refusal to give clear direction leaves our 
     military unable to plan an orderly draw down. It also leaves 
     our troops, the Iraqis and the American people in the dark. 
     It's time to end the guessing. It's time for clarity, but 
     clarity with responsibility. Redeploying our troops over 18 
     months will allow the political settlement I've proposed to 
     take hold and prevent all-out civil war.


                        Redeeming Our Sacrifice

       This plan for Iraq has its own risks. But this 
     Administration has left us with nothing but hard choices.
       The choice I'm proposing may be the only way left to keep 
     Iraq intact and allow our troops to come home with our 
     fundamental security interests intact.
       The choice I'm proposing can give all of us--Republicans, 
     Independents, Democrats, Americans--realistic hope that our 
     sacrifices in Iraq were not in vain.
       Thanks for listening.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator Biden's 
amendment to provide that none of the funds being appropriated in this 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill may be used by the United 
States to establish permanent military bases in Iraq. If we are serious 
about finding ways to neutralize the insidious insurgency that has 
killed over 2,400 American service men and women in Iraq, we must state 
clearly, unequivocally, and without further delay that we do not intend 
to remain in Iraq indefinitely. Permanent U.S. military bases are a 
temptation for terrorists and would be a continuing symbol of U.S. 
occupation.
  The U.S. Ambassador in Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said on March 24, 
2006, that the United States ``has no goal of establishing permanent 
bases in Iraq.'' Senior-level officials regularly promise that the 
United States will not establish permanent bases in Iraq. But the facts 
tell a different story.
  General John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle 
East, testified before Congress earlier this year that he couldn't rule 
out the possibility of permanent bases in Iraq.

[[Page 6795]]

And according to the Congressional Research Service, the Bush 
administration has requested more than $1.1 billion for new military 
construction in Iraq, nearly double what the United States has spent in 
Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates combined. This very bill we 
are considering includes $348 million for more base construction. This 
begs the question, if the U.S. Government doesn't plan to occupy Iraq 
for any longer than necessary, why are we spending billions of dollars 
to add onto and build more bases?
  At the end of March, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt said, and I 
agree, that ``we must . . . show that we will not become a permanent 
force of occupation . . .''. Last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza 
Rice conceded that the Bush administration had probably made 
``thousands'' of ``tactical errors'' in Iraq. Let's not compound the 
problem by establishing permanent bases in Iraq.
  I say it again: if we are serious about finding ways to neutralize 
the insidious insurgency in Iraq, we must convince the rest of the 
world--especially the Muslim world--that we do not intend to remain in 
Iraq indefinitely. Approving the amendment offered by the senior 
Senator from Delaware will help us send that message. Therefore, I urge 
my colleagues to support the Biden amendment to prohibit the United 
States from building permanent military bases in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, there are two amendments that have been 
cleared for consideration by the Senate.


                           Amendment No. 3605

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up 
and consider amendment No. 3605 on behalf of Mr. Lott regarding Armed 
Forces retirement home.
  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 Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Lott, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3605.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 designate the Navy, acting through the Naval Facilities 
   Engineering Command, as the agent for all matters relating to the 
    construction of a new Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, 
                              Mississippi)

       On page 193, line 25, insert after ``Provided,'' the 
     following: ``That the Navy, acting through the Naval 
     Facilities Engineering Command, shall be the agent for all 
     matters with regard to the planning, design, construction, 
     and contract administration related to the construction of 
     the new Armed Forces Retirement Home: Provided further,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3605) was agreed to.
  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.


                           Amendment No. 3657

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3657 on behalf of 
Senator Leahy and others regarding international disaster and famine 
assistance and hurricane relief.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Cochran], for Mr. Leahy 
     and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 3657.

  Mr. COCHRAN. 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 address a shortfall in funding for international disaster 
                         and famine assistance)

       On page 118, line 7, strike ``$136,290,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$171,290,000''.


                    Amendment No. 3657, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 3657), as modified, is as follows:

(Purpose: To address a shortfall in funding for international disaster 
            and famine assistance and for hurricane relief)

       On page 118, line 7, strike ``$136,290,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$171,290,000''.
       On page 117, line 25, strike ``$10,500,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$22,500,000''.
       On page 117, line 26, after ``That'' insert the following:
       of the funds appropriated under this heading, $12,000,000 
     shall be made available for assistance for Guatemala for 
     relief and reconstruction activities related to Hurricane 
     Stan: Provided further, That
       On page 126, line 12, after the period insert the 
     following:

                              (RESCISSION)

       Sec. 1406. Of the funds appropriated under the heading 
     ``Economic Support Fund'' that are available for assistance 
     for Egypt in Public Law 109-102 and under such heading in 
     prior Acts making appropriations for foreign operations, 
     export financing, and related programs, $47,000,000 are 
     rescinded: Provided, That such amount shall be derived only 
     from funds available for cash transfer assistance.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this amendment offered by myself, Senator 
Durbin and Senator Wyden, provides an additional $35 million for famine 
and disaster assistance for people in West Africa and in the Horn of 
Africa who are suffering from severe drought and hunger.
  In last year's supplemental we provided additional funding for this 
purpose and according to USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance 
it was extremely helpful.
  The situation this year is no less dire. Additional funding for 
famine and disaster assistance is required for the Horn of Africa where 
15 million people are at risk and an additional 8 million people in 
Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia face severe food and water shortages. To 
put it another way, they are going to die if we and others don't do 
more to help them.
  In Ethiopia alone, more than 740,000 people urgently need water, and 
more than 1.5 million children under five require immunizations against 
disease.
  The shortfall in this account also threatens to jeopardize USAID's 
response to other emergencies in Africa. Humanitarian programs in 
Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, and Cote d'Ivoire 
face cuts in funding despite worsening circumstances.
  In Cote d'Ivoire, 500,000 internally displaced persons face growing 
hardship and insecurity. USAID does not have the resources to respond 
to the increased needs of vulnerable people, especially women, and 
children.
  The situation in these countries is worse than pitiful. This 
amendment will not solve the problem, but it will save lives and help 
prevent the situation from getting even worse. It is what we need to do 
to give the relief workers who are trying to get food, water and 
shelter to these people the resources they need.
  Mr. President, the devastation caused by Hurricane Stan did not 
receive the attention that it should have by the Congress. That was 
partly because it was overshadowed by the terrible earthquake in 
Pakistan and by Hurricane Katrina.
  Whole villages in Guatemala were buried by some 900 mudslides, 670 
people died, 845 are missing, and 475,000 were directly affected. Many 
of them lost their homes, their property and their livelihoods as a 
result of Hurricane Stan. Most of the destruction occurred in one of 
the poorest parts of the country which is the source of the majority of 
Guatemalan immigrants to the United States. Yet so far we have 
contributed only a few million dollars.
  My amendment provides an additional $12 million for assistance for 
Guatemala for relief and reconstruction activities related to Hurricane 
Stan. It is not as much as I wish we could provide, but I know that it 
will

[[Page 6796]]

help address the most urgent needs of people who are trying to rebuild 
their lives.
  I want to thank Senator McConnell for agreeing to accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment being 
offered by my colleague from Vermont to provide much-needed emergency 
assistance to sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere through the Office of 
Foreign Disaster Assistance.
  Specifically, his amendment, which I am proud to cosponsor, would 
increase humanitarian aid funds by $35 million.
  The amendment has also now been modified to provide $12 million for 
hurricane relief assistance to Guatemala, which I also support.
  This supplemental is intended to meet emergencies. Well, many 
countries in Africa especially face dire emergencies, and the money 
provided in the Leahy amendment is desperately needed.
  The United Nations reports that more than 8 million people are facing 
a food crisis in the Horn of Africa--2 million people in Ethiopia alone 
are facing critical food shortages.
  The world has waited too long before, to respond to crises in 
Ethiopia and elsewhere. Let's act now and not wait for the television 
cameras to jar us into action.
  The Bush administration has not requested additional funds in the 
supplemental bill to meet this mounting crisis, despite the fact that 
conditions in the region have worsened considerably in recent months.
  Other regions are also facing emergency situations, most notably West 
Africa, the Great Lakes region, and Chad.
  And yet, in spite of these growing needs, the Office of Foreign 
Disaster Assistance faces the prospect of having to slash the budgets 
of lifesaving programs.
  I want to focus on one example: the Democratic Republic of Congo.
  I am told that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, critical U.S. 
assistance budgets for this year may be cut in half.
  In December, I visited the DRC, and I have to tell you, it is hard to 
imagine a place in greater need.
  However, budgetary pressures are forcing U.S. programs in the DRC to 
collapse the depth and breadth of their efforts.
  This means cutting food security programs, clean water, maternal and 
child health care programs, and other efforts to address fundamental 
human needs.
  The DRC has been wracked by war for years.
  Now, it finally sees some hope, but there are 2 million displaced 
people there.
  The Democratic Republic of Congo has long been called one of the 
world's most neglected emergencies. Let's change that.
  The situation in the DRC is just one of the humanitarian crises that 
currently plague the continent of Africa.
  But we can make a difference. We must not cut our disaster assistance 
to countries like the Congo in half.
  That kind of cut undermines everything we have been trying to do. It 
would be a strategic mistake and a moral failure.
  I call on my colleagues to support this additional emergency aid 
offered by the Leahy amendment.
  These supplemental funds are urgently needed and they will go a long 
way toward providing relief to the millions of Africans and others in 
the world who find themselves facing absolutely dire circumstances.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this amendment is offset by a reduction 
in foreign economic assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? The question is----
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada reserves the right to 
object.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, may I ask the chairman of the committee, 
is this an increase in funding in this bill?
  Mr. COCHRAN. No, it is not. If the Senator will yield, as I 
understand it, it shifts funds from a foreign economic assistance 
account to an account to provide disaster assistance in Guatemala for 
damages and expenses sustained in a hurricane.
  Mr. ENSIGN. So this is no net increase in spending in the bill?
  Mr. COCHRAN. My reading is that it transfers money from a foreign 
economic assistance account to one that provides disaster assistance 
for damages sustained in Guatemala as a result of a hurricane--
Hurricane Stan I think was the name of it.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 3657), as modified, was agreed to.
  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.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am advised that we are now prepared to 
go to a vote on the McCain amendment. For that purpose, I ask for the 
regular order.


                           Amendment No. 3616

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The McCain amendment No. 3616 is now pending. 
The yeas and nays were previously ordered on the amendment.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch).
  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 37, nays 61, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 108 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Allen
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Carper
     Chafee
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--61

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Crapo
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Martinez
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hatch
     Rockefeller
       
  The amendment (No. 3616) was rejected.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            GASOLINE PRICES

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today, life in America is tough. 
People are working very hard to make ends meet. In so many cases, 
families have to earn two incomes to meet their basic needs: mom 
working one shift, dad working another shift.
  It is a mystery to me, and I am sure it is to so many people in our 
country, how it is that the inflation index is so

[[Page 6797]]

modest when everything costs more, whether it is milk, whether it is 
electric, whether it is housing, whether it is prescription drugs, 
whether it is school, whether it is college and university tuition.
  I am reluctant to talk about my age, but since the days the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and I were in 
college, the tuitions have become such an expensive proportion of a 
family's income that it is hard to imagine how working people can get 
their kids into college and not have them drowning in debt by the time 
they finish.
  That is life in America today. No matter where you turn, it costs 
more. Look at ball game tickets. Look at theater tickets. Look at the 
pleasant amenities, see how much they cost, and one can understand why 
few people can afford to take advantage of these things. As a 
consequence, most Americans agree that this Nation is headed in the 
wrong direction. Who can blame them?
  We saw the Government's bungling and ineptitude in response to 
Hurricane Katrina. The administration's missteps in Iraq are costing 
Americans dearly in lives and dollars, and gasoline prices are out of 
control.
  Gas prices have gone through the roof. This chart shows in December 
of 2001, President Bush's first year in office, the national average 
price of gas was $1.06 for regular gas, $1.25 for supreme gas. Now we 
are at a much different point, $1.06 for regular has gone to $2.92, 
almost a $1.85 increase in the price. That is almost a 200-percent jump 
in price from 2001 when supreme was $1.25. Supreme now is $3.07.
  It is unconscionable. The American people are upset. Members are 
receiving e-mail messages, phone calls. Our constituents will tell 
Members what they think of these prices.
  Gas prices were low in 2001 when two oil men in the White House got 
together with their friends and the oil industry. They convened a 
secret task force to develop an energy policy. Then our friends, the 
Republicans in the Congress, passed the so-called Energy bill which was 
mostly a bunch of giant tax breaks for big oil and the wealthiest among 
us. They did not construct that, but that is what happened.
  What is the result of all this work by the Bush-Cheney administration 
and the Republican majority in the Congress? The average price of 
gasoline this week, as I said, is $2.92 for the lowest octane.
  What is the Republican answer to this problem? How about this: Give 
everyone a $100 tax rebate. Whoopee. What a celebration, 100 bucks. If 
you have a 20-gallon tank in your car, you get 2.5 fills before using 
your $100. In fact, the average family cost in gasoline today is up 
$1,800. Everyone knows this is a silly idea when they hear it. With 
gasoline prices at this rate, what is $100 going to do? Practically 
nothing; $100 is not going to do anything as long as the Republican 
Party is a subsidiary of big oil.
  Here is an example. To pay for the $100 rebates, the Republican 
Party, the Republican majority said they will close tax loopholes that 
oil companies enjoy. But the oil companies said: Wait a minute, don't 
get tough with us. So today we hear the Republicans have backed off 
that plan, holding their heads in wonderment like scolded 
schoolchildren.
  We all know about the obscene retirement package that former 
ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond received. His retirement package--get this--
was almost $400 million. When they recalculated his earnings over the 
period of time he served, his average income was $145,000 each and 
every day. How many people in this country earn over $145,000 a year, 
no less per day? It is incomprehensible. And the public has been 
justifiably outraged by this outlandish compensation package at the 
expense of the American people.
  Listen to what the now-ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson said on the 
``Today Show'' this morning. I heard it. He was asked if his company 
would offer his fellow Americans some relief this summer and discount 
gasoline prices. His answer was: ``We are in the business to make 
money.'' He said that was his job.
  I was CEO of a pretty big company, and I understand the business 
world. But when you deal in a commodity you have to be cognizant of 
your ethical and civic responsibilities to your country. Gasoline is 
not some run-of-the-mill product. It is vital to our entire society. It 
is critical. ExxonMobil is part of the American community and its 
neighbors are suffering. Businesses and American families are having 
real problems just affording gasoline. There are families who may 
decide not to go to the doctor this week for a sick child. They may 
postpone it. Small businesses are losing lots of money with higher fuel 
costs.
  Big oil needs to recognize the impact their commodity has on everyday 
Americans' lives. Mr. Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, needs to 
understand their special role in our functioning as a society.
  And the Bush administration needs to stop acting helpless. President 
Bush and Vice President Cheney often say: There is not much we can do 
about high gasoline prices. I do not see it that way. There are things 
they can do.
  There is something we can do here. We can get tough with the Saudis 
and get rid of their OPEC cartel. The OPEC oil cartel has one purpose--
to keep oil prices high by restricting exports or output. Their 
activity is a blatant violation of the GATT agreement, the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
  Not only is the President not getting tough with the Saudis, the 
administration is pandering to them. A year ago, when gasoline prices 
had already spiked well past $2 a gallon, the Saudi ruler visited the 
President at his ranch in Texas. What we saw was not the President 
getting tough but, instead, being very friendly, strolling through a 
flower garden with the Saudi leader. It looked like a friendly 
gathering, not a tough negotiation.
  Then, last week, President Bush's Energy Secretary traveled to an 
OPEC nation in the Middle East and praised the oil cartel. And this 
week, with the Saudi Oil Minister here in DC, the administration is 
putting down the red carpet and telling the Saudis and OPEC what a 
great job they do.
  What the President should do is tell the Saudis, point blank: Disband 
your OPEC cartel or we will file a complaint against you in the World 
Trade Organization.
  Under international law, OPEC is an illegal cartel aimed at keeping 
oil prices high. We need to force the Saudis and their friends to play 
by the rules. And that means no cartel. Forget about it.
  Mr. President, I say this: The next time the Saudis or one of the 
countries in the cartel has a problem with a belligerent neighbor, they 
should not dial 911 because there will not be anybody to answer that 
phone, not if they continue the pattern of behavior they have started.
  To the President: The American people have had enough. They want a 
change in leadership in this country. We need leaders who will stand up 
to the Saudis and the big oil companies. It is one of the only ways we 
can get oil and gasoline prices under control.
  We have to hunt for other sources of energy, for other ways to use 
the energy. We are seeing it now in hybrid cars. We are seeing now that 
in Brazil almost 75 percent of the people there are using an ethanol 
mixture, saving substantial--substantial--amounts of oil. And we have 
to be creative. We have the genius in this country. Why don't we turn 
it loose and make sure they have the incentives, the economic 
incentives, the market incentives to do those things that can save oil?
  I do not hear anybody saying, I do not hear the President of the 
United States saying--and I have not heard it in a long time--join in 
the sacrifice. We are at war. Join in conservation. We do not have 
enough. Help this country get through this crisis. And let the oil 
companies know the American people are in charge, not they. But that 
message is not sounded. The alarm is not rung. And that is the way life 
is here.
  I make this plea to the President of the United States and colleagues 
here: Step up to the plate. Really take an action to get that price 
reduced and not

[[Page 6798]]

be satisfied with excuses like: Oh, that is the marketplace. Baloney; 
that is what the American people will tell you. They do not want to 
drain their limited resources out the window by these outrageous prices 
for gasoline.
  We have to work together. But the only way we are going to work 
together is if there is some concerted leadership that says: Hey, we 
have to get on to this problem, and not pretend this problem will kind 
of go away by itself.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3601

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3601 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3601.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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 assistance relating to assessments and monitoring 
                   of waters in the State of Hawaii)

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


                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

       Sec. 7032. For an additional amount for ``Environmental 
     Programs and Management'', $1,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended, for assistance relating to assessments and 
     monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii; 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared by the 
Parliamentarian as being germane. It has been discussed with the 
leadership of the committee.
  It provides $1 million to the Environmental Protection Agency for 
assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of waters in the 
State of Hawaii.
  As some may be aware, the State of Hawaii sustained extraordinarily 
heavy rains and flooding for more than 40 days and 40 nights, beginning 
February 20, 2006, devastating many families and destroying public and 
private property.
  Unfortunately, on March 24, during this deluge, a Waikiki sewer line 
ruptured, sending more than 48 million gallons of raw sewage into the 
Ala Wai Canal, closing popular beaches in Waikiki.
  The water quality of other beaches and streams on the Island of Oahu 
was severely impacted by the sustained heavy rains that caused sewer 
overflows and runoff of tremendous amounts of sediment and pollutants. 
Sewer systems are designed to handle wastewater and very small amounts 
of storm water that infiltrates into the pipe system.
  During the continuous storm event, excessive amounts of water from 
the surrounding area infiltrated into the pipe, and homeowners 
discharged storm water into the sewer system. High bacterial levels 
exceeded the recreational water quality standards and the State 
Department of Health required beaches to be closed.
  Mr. President, I hope the Senate will approve this amendment. I urge 
the adoption of the proposed amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have been advised that the Senator from 
Arizona, Mr. McCain, wants to speak on the amendment and is on his way 
to the floor to do so. So awaiting his arrival, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. INOUYE. 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3673

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I call up for its immediate consideration 
amendment No. 3673.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3673.

  Mr. INOUYE. 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 increase funds made available for assessments of critical 
              reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii)

       On page 246, line 1, strike ``$500,000'' and all that 
     follows through line 8 and insert ``$1,400,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for assistance with assessments of 
     critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii, 
     including the monitoring of dam structures: 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. INOUYE. Mr. President, as I noted earlier, heavy rains, for more 
than 40 days and 40 nights, devastated many families and destroyed 
public and private property in the State of Hawaii.
  On the Island of Kauai, besides the serious damage to agricultural 
operations in these areas, the intensity and sustained nature of these 
storms caused a breach of two important reservoirs. A breach sent water 
and debris downstream at about 25 miles per hour and tore away homes 
and blocked off the north side of the island, hampering emergency 
services and assistance. In addition, floodwaters from the reservoir 
compromised the downstream reservoir, which public officials have now 
declared unstable and dangerous. These two reservoirs were built in the 
1890s.
  As a result of this failure, the only access to the northern part of 
the island sustained severe damage to the roadway, embankments, 
culverts, guardrails, and other structures. This damage was so great 
that the highway was shut down for over a week.
  The emergency supplemental already includes $500,000 for the U.S. 
Geological Survey's Hydrologic Networks and Analysis Program for 
assistance in conducting assessments of critical reservoirs and dams.
  This amendment asks for an additional $900,000, which would make it 
possible for the evaluation of critical reservoirs and dams throughout 
the State of Hawaii. I urge the adoption of this proposed amendment. It 
has been cleared by the Parliamentarian as being germane.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the amendments 
offered by my colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii, Dan Inouye, to 
the fiscal year 2007 supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4939. I ask 
that I be included as a cosponsor of both amendments.
  I believe that we, as government leaders, should continue to provide 
whatever forms of assistance are necessary to help the men, women, and 
children left devastated by natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina 
and severe flooding that recently marred the islands of Kauai and Oahu 
in my home State of Hawaii. Although the immediate crises have passed, 
the long process of recovery has just begun. Now, more than ever, we 
need to support the efforts of those engaged in the process of 
rebuilding their communities.
  I am pleased to see that the Senate Appropriations Committee has 
included $33.5 million in the emergency supplemental for disaster 
assistance in Kauai and Windward Oahu, and $6 million for sugarcane 
growers in Hawaii whose crops were destroyed by the floods earlier this 
spring. These funds will provide a great deal of assistance to the 
citizens of my home State as they work to repair the damage to their 
homes and businesses.

[[Page 6799]]

  However, as my colleague eloquently explained, we need to go further. 
His first amendment would provide $1.4 million to assess the security 
and safety of critical reservoirs and dams in Hawaii, including 
monitoring dam structures. This funding is crucial because the failure 
of Kaloko Dam on Kauai led to the severe flooding and loss of life. The 
other Inouye amendment would provide $1 million for environmental 
monitoring of waters in and around Hawaii.
  In March, I visited the hardest hit areas of our State and met with 
victims, emergency responders, and State officials. The situation for 
many of our residents is very grave. With hundreds of homes and 
businesses damaged or destroyed, critical infrastructure crippled, and 
days of search and rescue activities, the resources of our State have 
been severely strained. Hawaii needs Federal assistance to recover from 
the effects of the flooding, including restoring critical roadways, 
helping farmers to salvage crops, and inspecting and repairing faulty 
dams and flood control systems. It is clear that Hawaii will not be 
able to mitigate the damages in the near future and that long-term 
recovery efforts will require Federal assistance.
  As my friend indicated, President Bush yesterday declared a major 
disaster for Hawaii triggering the release of Federal funds to help the 
people and communities recover. I stand in strong support of Senator 
Inouye's amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am advised that the Senator from 
Arizona also wants to speak to the amendment that has just been 
offered. So unless there is someone else who seeks recognition at this 
time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thought maybe we had done enough pork 
barreling for one bill, but apparently there is never enough around 
here, never enough. I would ask the Senator from Hawaii, when is it 
enough? Another $1.9 million, that is all, just $1.9 million. We are 
already, for hurricane recovery, $7.7 billion above the President's 
request; emergency agricultural disaster assistance, $3.9 billion above 
the President's request; drought emergency assistance, $12.5 million; 
port security enhancement, $650 million; general provisions, $36 
million. It goes on and on and on.
  We are going to do something else for the State of Hawaii so we can 
win the war in Iraq and so we can respond to the hurricanes. One of 
these amendments is to provide assistance relating to assessments and 
monitoring of waters in the State of Hawaii--a million bucks for 
assistance relating to assessments and monitoring of the waters in the 
State of Hawaii, provided that the amount under this is designated an 
emergency requirement. What is it that is going on in the waters of 
Hawaii that designates it as an emergency?
  Then we have a $900,000 earmark, all for Hawaii, for assistance with 
assessment of critical reservoirs and dams in the State of Hawaii. I 
know something about that. We have a few reservoirs and dams in my 
State. I have yet to see an emergency that had to do with the war in 
Iraq and hurricanes that required that, but we are going to give them 
another $900,000. The sad thing about this is, they will probably get 
it. I am going to force a recorded vote on both of these amendments, 
but they will probably get it. Then in conference, there will be more 
money for Hawaii. And then in the next appropriations bill, there will 
be more money for Hawaii.
  My constituents live in Arizona. A lot of us are getting sick and 
tired of this--sick and tired, sick and tired.
  I ask unanimous consent to ask for the yeas and nays on both 
amendments and separate votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to a request for the yeas 
and nays on both amendments at this time?
  Without objection, it is in order to so request.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  Is there further debate on amendment No. 3673? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to amendment No. 3673.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 43, nays 53, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--53

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

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Hatch
     Rockefeller
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 3673) was rejected.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ALLARD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to 
speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I object. What is the regular order?
  Mr. REID. I will use leader time, then, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may use his leader time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, why can't we go on with 
the next vote, the regular order, I ask the distinguished Democratic 
leader?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader has the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have been in the Senate a couple of 
decades, and I have grown very fond of many people. There is no one in 
the Senate for whom I don't have high affection. But I have to say at 
the top of the list is a person whom I revere, a man by the name of Dan 
Inouye from Hawaii.
  Here is a man who has devoted his life to our country, and for 
someone to come on the Senate floor--even though the person doing that 
is my friend--and say what I believe are abusive things about Dan 
Inouye is offensive to me and I think should be to the rest of the 
Senate.
  This is a bill which is extremely important to our country. It is an 
emergency appropriations bill. Most of the money in this bill goes to 
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and rightfully so. But there are other 
emergencies that come up from time to time. The disaster of Katrina was 
an emergency, but there are acts of God that take place.

[[Page 6800]]

  One such act of God took place in Hawaii on the island of Kauai. 
Rains lasted for 40 days and 40 nights, devastating that little island, 
but in particular it broke a reservoir, killing seven people. Seven 
people are dead.
  Senator Inouye came to this Chamber and offered an amendment to have 
an emergency appropriation part of this bill. That is what it is.
  For my friend, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, about whom we 
all care, to come and say to Senator Inouye, ``Have you no shame?'' 
``Have you no shame?''--to Dan Inouye, a Congressional Medal of Honor 
recipient, on whom our country has bestowed the highest medal that can 
be given to a person in the U.S. military for heroism. ``Have you no 
shame?'' Dan Inouye? The President declared that 40 days and 40 nights 
in Hawaii a Presidential declaration of an emergency. Senator Dan 
Inouye was doing his job, as any one of us would do if we had 
torrential rains hitting our States.
  We know how strongly John McCain feels about issues dealing with 
appropriations, but this is beyond the pale. This is beyond the pale to 
say to Dan Inouye: ``Have you no shame?''
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3601

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3601 offered by the Senator from Hawaii. The yeas and 
nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) 
and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--45

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thune
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Carper
     Hatch
     Rockefeller
     Thomas
  The amendment (No. 3601) was agreed to.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say that Senator Inouye 
and I have been friends for many years. I believe the process we are 
doing--obviously, when I see billions and billions of dollars added to 
an emergency supplemental--is inappropriate and, of course, I in no way 
would want to--in no manner would I want to offend my friend, Mr. 
Inouye. If my remarks did so, I apologize for doing so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 10 minutes.


                       Offsetting Future Spending

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, we are wrapping up the debate. It is 
finished on this bill, and we are going to have votes in the morning.
  I think we need to ask some questions. We have a supplemental bill. 
Regardless of the amount of it, it is here. I think there is a real 
question in the country, and there should be a real question for us, on 
why we are doing a supplemental bill on the war which we know is 
happening, and also on projects associated with Katrina and Rita that 
we know are going to come through the authorization and the 
appropriations process. I think we need to look at that as a Congress 
and say why are we doing that, and be very honest about why we are 
doing it.
  The second point I would make is, in emergency legislation we have a 
lot of things that really aren't emergencies. I think we as a body 
ought to look at that and use self-discipline.
  But the third point is, and this is the one I think the American 
people are asking, we have a bill out here that is going to spend 
somewhere between $94 billion and $108 billion of taxpayers' money, and 
there was no attempt whatsoever to offset this spending--nothing. There 
were attempts on the floor to change it, but there was no attempt to do 
a rescissions bill. There was no attempt to look at the things where we 
know there is wasteful spending. There was no attempt to look at some 
of these things. This is a list of $54 billion in potential rescissions 
that I bet we could agree on $10 billion or $11 billion of if everybody 
knew the facts or the details. But we didn't do that. We didn't ask the 
Appropriations Committee to do that. It was not asked of them to do 
that. It is not their fault. They weren't asked to do it. That is the 
question the American people ought to be asking. Where is the oversight 
to see if everything is running well?
  If you ask the American people: Do you think the Federal Government 
is efficient, there is not going to be 1 or 2 percent that will say 
yes. If you ask the American people: Do you think we could do it more 
efficiently for less money, the vast majority of the American people 
would agree with that. And that is probably true. If you ask Federal 
employees, they will tell you that, too.
  The question is, Why are we not doing it when we are spending money 
we don't have? We ought to think about this the next time an emergency 
supplemental comes around. We ought to make an effort to find the 
offsets, and we ought to work together across party lines to say how do 
we secure the things we want. Some of those are different. If you are 
liberal or conservative, you may want different things. But if you are 
going to secure the future for those programs that help individuals and 
go a long way in securing what we need to do to make sure people have 
an honest, even start in this country, things that are valuable in that 
regard--whether it be the Food Stamp Program or Head Start or something 
like that--we are going to run out of money for those.
  In 9 short years, 81 percent of our budget is going to be consumed by 
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,

[[Page 6801]]

and interest. We should have the discipline to start now to make the 
significant changes that we need to make to be able to handle that 
emergency that is coming. The real emergency is not right now. The 
emergency is going to happen starting in 2009.
  I just ask that we look at that and think about it. How do we answer 
to the American public that we didn't try to trim any other type of 
spending as we spend $104 billion?
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coburn). Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. MURRAY. 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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 3819.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order en bloc against a 
list of amendments on the grounds that they are not germane under rule 
XXII. The amendments are as follows:
  Warner amendment No. 3620; Vitter amendment No. 3628, as modified; 
Wyden amendment No. 3665; Santorum amendment No. 3640, as modified; 
Salazar amendment No. 3645; Vitter amendment No. 3668; Obama amendment 
No. 3693; Obama amendment No. 3694; Obama amendment No. 3695; Obama 
amendment No. 3697; Menendez amendment No. 3675; Conrad amendment No. 
3715; Levin amendment No. 3710; Schumer amendment No. 3723; Schumer 
amendment No. 3724; Cornyn amendment No. 3722; Cornyn amendment No. 
3672; Byrd amendment No. 3708; Landrieu amendment No. 3750; and 
Landrieu amendment No. 3752.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the point of order may be 
made en bloc at this time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against these 
amendments, that they are not germane under rule XXII.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order with 
respect to all the amendments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. All the amendments that I read?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COCHRAN. My understanding is that the Chair sustains the point of 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair sustains the point of order on all 
amendments.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes 
the supplemental appropriations bill tomorrow morning, the Senate 
proceed to consider votes on or in relation to the following, with no 
intervening action or debate or second-degree amendments:
  Thune amendment No. 3704, and Vitter amendment No. 3728, as modified.
  I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time 
and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage with no intervening action 
or debate; provided further that following passage, the Senate insist 
on its amendments and request a conference with the House, and the 
Chair then be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KOHL. The supplemental appropriations bill now pending before the 
Senate includes nearly $4 billion in emergency agriculture assistance. 
This assistance is necessary for farmers and ranchers to recover from 
natural disasters that have occurred over the past year. This 
assistance is not only related to the horrible storms that ravaged the 
Gulf of Mexico coast last summer, but it also will be available for 
producers across the country who have similarly suffered from floods, 
storms, wildfires, drought, and other severe weather events.
  Also included in this assistance package is a provision to provide 
supplemental economic loss payments to producers of certain crops. The 
primary purpose of this assistance is to help compensate for the impact 
of high energy costs on agricultural producers. We must remember that 
while many businesses can pass on increased costs of production to 
consumers or other purchasers, the nature of the agriculture economy is 
such that farmers and ranchers are very limited in their ability to 
pass on such costs. Yet the costs of fuel, electricity, and other 
energy inputs are a very large part of the overall costs of 
agricultural production and when energy costs rise, as they have done 
in recent months, they put farming and ranching operations all across 
the country at risk. Unfortunately, the provision now in the bill does 
not apply to dairy producers.
  During consideration of this supplemental appropriations bill by the 
Full Appropriations Committee, I pointed out to my colleagues that 
dairy producers are suffering from high energy costs as are producers 
of crops. I ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Cochran, if he recalls the discussion we had on that topic at that 
time.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Yes. I say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I do 
recall that discussion.
  Mr. KOHL. It might be of interest to the chairman, and other 
Senators, to share some information I have received from the USDA 
Office of the Chief Economist on the question of how energy costs 
affect various types of farming operations. I asked the Chief Economist 
if he could provide the amounts that farmers pay for direct fuels 
costs, electricity, and indirect energy costs such as those associated 
with the production of fertilizer and chemicals. According to that 
office, using the most recent year for which these amounts are 
available, 2004, producers of so-called program crops, including wheat, 
corn, feed grains, rice, cotton oilseeds, and peanuts, paid a total of 
$9.9 billion for these sort of energy inputs. Of that total, corn had 
the highest energy costs with $4.9 billion. Cotton producers came in 
second at $1.7 billion. On the other hand, peanut producers paid $145 
million for these same costs. The average energy cost for these seven 
different commodities, by commodity, was $707 million.
  However, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the energy 
costs of dairy producers, as described by the USDA Office of the Chief 
Economist, was $2.2 billion. While dairy production was not the highest 
single commodity for energy costs, it did come in second and was three 
times greater than the average. While these costs were high in 2004, we 
all know what has happened, and is continuing to happen, to energy 
costs since then.
  I know the budget constraints that we face with regard to the pending 
supplemental appropriations bill, and I am aware of the statement of 
President Bush in regard to his views on spending. However, I would 
like to ask the chairman of the Appropriations Committee for his views 
on this subject. I hope he would be willing to work with me in 
conference to ensure that in the event funds are provided for 
supplemental economic assistance in a manner similar to what is 
provided in the pending bill, that dairy producers will be able to 
participate in a program to help compensate for the high energy and 
other costs facing the agriculture sector.
  Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for expressing his 
concerns and for providing the specific information regarding the 
effect of energy costs on agriculture. The Senator is correct, we will 
be under tremendous pressure in conference to limit the amount of 
spending in this bill. We all

[[Page 6802]]

know how important the farming economy is to this country and how badly 
farm income is being impaired by high energy costs. I would tell my 
friend from Wisconsin that I will work with him, and other Senators, to 
make sure that all farmers are treated fairly. The Senator's point 
about the costs affecting dairy producers, along with the others he 
mentioned, is well taken, and I hope an accommodation can be made to 
make sure all these farmers are treated equitably.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the chairman.


                        Army Modularity Programs

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague from 
Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, on a topic of importance to our Nation's 
military and our industrial base. The issue of importance concerns 
additional funding included by the House of Representatives for Bradley 
fighting vehicles and Hercules improved recovery vehicles. The House 
added $250 million for Bradley ODS vehicles and another $100 million 
for Hercules vehicles.
  Mr. STEVENS. As the Senator from Pennsylvania knows, I am keenly 
aware that these are important modularity programs for our Nation's 
Army.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I want to thank the Senator from Alaska for his efforts 
to address these and other Army programs in this supplemental 
appropriations bill. I recognize that there are financial limitations 
on what the Committee on Appropriations is able to do with respect to 
addressing the Army's recapitalization needs.
  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for his 
observations on the realities of the appropriations process. Candidly, 
there were more programs of need for the Army than there were resources 
available to the committee. I am committed to working with conferees to 
this bill in conference to try to address these two particular 
programs.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank my colleague for his remarks and I stand ready 
to provide whatever assistance might be necessary to secure 
supplemental appropriations funds for Bradley fighting vehicles and 
Hercules improved recovery vehicles.


                      public housing energy costs

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Transportation, 
Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  As my colleagues know, rising home energy costs and high prices at 
the pump are draining dollars out of our communities and the 
pocketbooks of American families. This is money that could be spent on 
school supplies, food and medicine, and retirement savings. The burden 
of high energy prices is disproportionately felt by low-income and 
working class consumers, who do not have the disposal income to meet 
these expenses. The unanticipated increases in energy costs due to 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita at the beginning of the 2005/2006 heating 
season have had a significant impact on the ability of local housing 
agencies to effectively manage their public and section 8 housing 
inventories.
  Nationwide, approximately 3 million families receive public housing 
or section 8 housing voucher assistance, which helps families pay for 
housing costs, including utilities. In Rhode Island, public housing 
provides homes for 16,000 households, 7,000 of whom are elderly or 
disabled and 9,000 family members. The section 8 voucher program serves 
an additional 16,000 residents, 3,300 who are elderly or disabled, and 
12,173 family members. Public housing and the section 8 voucher 
programs are important assets to communities and residents in Rhode 
Island, making affordable housing available to many elderly, disabled, 
and working families. In 2004, the average rent for a two-bedroom 
apartment in the State was $1,121. The average income needed for this 
rent is $45,000 per year, or $16.25 per hour. Teachers and librarians 
earn only an average of $40,685 per year in Rhode Island. Half of all 
Rhode Island residents cannot afford the rent on the average two-
bedroom apartment. The average hourly wage needed to afford a one-
bedroom apartment in the State is $14.05. A minimum-wage employee, 
working full time, would be able to afford $351 in rent.
  Public housing agencies pay utility bills, and vouchers include an 
allowance for tenant-paid utilities. The Department of Housing and 
Urban Development's (HUD) budget for fiscal year 2006 for both public 
housing and section 8 vouchers did not contemplate the growth in energy 
costs that we have seen since the gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. The 
1.5-percent increase budgeted for utility payments is woefully 
inadequate this year.
  For approximately 80 percent of public housing units, the local 
housing agency pays directly for utilities. The local agency cannot pay 
increased utility bills by raising rents. In the remaining 20 percent 
of public housing units, local agencies assist families, elderly, and 
disabled persons to pay utility bills where these bills would tip 
housing costs over 30 percent of income. HUD's public housing operating 
fund budget, which pays for utilities, for fiscal year 2006 
incorporated only a 1.5-percent increase for rising energy costs, a 
level not close to the utility rate hikes experienced by local 
agencies. In 2005, public housing agencies received just 89 percent of 
the amount necessary to cover basic maintenance and operations, and in 
fiscal year 2006, these agencies are expected to receive about 91 
percent of necessary funding. Public housing agencies cannot absorb 
these increases within their budgets or reserves. Without supplemental 
funding, many agencies will be forced to again cut back on basic 
maintenance and vital services to the elderly, disabled, and working 
families they serve.
  The section 8 voucher program is experiencing similar problems. About 
20 percent of assisted families have utilities included within their 
rental charges. For the remaining 80 percent, housing agencies provide 
the family with a standard utility allowance based on energy 
consumption for the housing unit where they live. HUD calculates the 
annual increases in voucher funding and the amount that agencies are 
permitted to pay on behalf of families for tenant-paid utilities based 
on area housing cost estimates. Again, these calculations were 
developed before' the recent increase in utilities. Housing agencies 
are required to recalculate and increase utility allowances for 
families whenever utility costs increase by 10 percent or more. 
However, under the current ``budget-based'' method of funding vouchers, 
no additional funding will be provided midyear to accommodate these 
increased costs. The failure to provide additional funding to local 
agencies for utility increases will create either greater rent burdens 
for low-income families or force agencies to reduce the number of 
families they assist within their limited budgets.
  An example from my home State of Rhode Island is illustrative of what 
public housing agencies are facing across the country. The Woonsocket 
Public Housing Authority serves 1,300 families in public housing, 
including 650 senior citizens. While the agency is authorized to serve 
669 families with vouchers, the funding provided to the agency under 
the budget-based voucher formula limits them to serving only 639 
families. Woonsocket has previously undertaken many energy-saving 
activities; however, utility costs for electricity increased 100 
percent in November/December 2005 over the same months in 2004. Natural 
gas increased 37 percent for the last 3 months of 2005. Utilities 
costs, which were 30 percent of the operating costs, now have begun to 
approach 40 percent and could go to 50 percent.
  For this reason, I filed an amendment to H.R. 4939, the emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill, to provide $493 million to public 
housing agencies to address rising energy costs for the section 8 
voucher program and public housing units. Unfortunately, the amendment 
is not germane postcloture and will not receive consideration. Local 
housing agencies are not able to absorb these costs and meet their 
mission to ensure safe, decent, and affordable housing. I am 
particularly worried that the problem will

[[Page 6803]]

only be exacerbated as HUD's fiscal year 2007 budget projects a 1.8-
percent decrease in utility costs. Rising energy costs will remain a 
pressing issue for American families and our local communities, and 
they need our assistance. I recognize the difficult budget constraints 
that the chairman and ranking member face this year as they begin the 
fiscal year 2007 appropriations process. I hope the chairman and 
ranking member can work with me to address the growing problem of 
rising energy costs on local housing agencies as they begin work on the 
fiscal year 2007 Transportation, Treasury, Judiciary, and HUD 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, local housing agencies in my State are also 
facing these rising energy costs. The Housing Authority of Springfield 
experienced a 28-percent increase in utility costs this winter during 
the city's second warmest January and the warmest February in recorded 
history. This utility increase represents an approximate 6-percent 
increase in the public housing agency's operating budget. As the 
Senator mentioned, many core programs within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction are facing deep cuts in the fiscal year 2007 budget 
request, and at this point, I am not certain what our allocation will 
be for the fiscal year. The Senator raises an important concern, and I 
will take a serious look at how these unbudgeted costs may be addressed 
so that local agencies can continue to manage their operations 
responsibly.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would second what the chairman has just 
stated about the budget constraints facing our subcommittee. I am 
committed to working with the Senator from Rhode Island during the 
fiscal year 2007 budget process to address these rising energy costs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to 
discuss my fire grant amendment to the Iraq and Hurricane Katrina 
emergency supplemental bill. Although there are procedural reasons why 
I cannot offer this amendment at this time, it would provide an 
additional $100 million for firefighter assistance grants to address 
the 9/11 Commission's finding that Congress should give high priority 
to providing funding for communications connectivity in high-risk 
areas.
  We should implement the recommendations of the independent, 
bipartisan 9/11 Commission and finally protect our ports and airports, 
our borders and mass-transit systems, our chemical and nuclear power 
plants, and our food and water supplies from terrorist attack. In July 
2004, the 9/11 Commission submitted to Congress and the Nation a report 
containing 41 recommendations on how to improve intelligence operations 
and homeland security. In December 2004, Congress enacted the 
Intelligence Reform Act, ``the 9/11 Act'', authorizing several of these 
recommendations. However, we have failed to live up to the commitments 
made in the 9/11 Act.
  Almost every single one of the recommendations made in the 9/11 Act 
on homeland security has been significantly underfunded. In addition, 
there has been a severe lack of leadership and competency at the 
Department of Homeland Security--culminating in the failed response to 
Hurricane Katrina. On December 5, 2005, when the 9/11 Commission issued 
its final report card, it gave the administration and Congress a series 
of C's, D's, and F's on many areas in homeland security. These areas 
include port security, border security, aviation security, chemical 
plant security, and first responders. We should have an aggressive, 
robust plan to secure our homeland, and this amendment would implement 
one of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.
  In the 9/11 Commission's December 2005 report card, the 
administration received an ``F'' on communications for first 
responders. Indeed, Hurricane Katrina exposed that, 4 years after 9/11, 
little progress has been made in creating a system where police, fire, 
and emergency medical service departments can communicate with each 
other. Homeland Security's fiscal year 2007 budget decreases first 
responder and homeland security funding by $400 million, which affects 
first responders across Illinois and throughout the Nation. Additional 
Federal funds are needed to protect our investments in homeland 
security preparation and response.
  Last year, more than $25 million was awarded to Illinois fire 
departments for equipment. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2007 budget 
reduces funding for the Fire Program from $545 million to $293 million. 
This program provides equipment and training to fire departments in 
Illinois and across the country to help them prepare and respond to 
terrorist incidents. One way to assist firefighters is to make sure 
that they have the necessary equipment that makes it possible for them 
to communicate across departments and agencies.
  In Illinois, STARCOM21 is the official statewide public safety two-
way radio system. It has been designed to serve State, local, and 
Federal law enforcement agencies statewide by facilitating multi-agency 
communication through radio interoperability. This important program is 
part of a push by the Federal Government to address communication 
problems experienced by first responders during national emergencies. 
As part of its STARCOM program, Illinois has purchased and distributed 
radios to 698 law enforcement agencies at a cost of $3,899,630, for an 
average cost of approximately $6,000 each; 755 fire departments at a 
cost of $4,531,580; and 212 emergency management, public health, and 
other agencies at a cost of $1,272,882. This is a total of 1,665 radios 
for $9.7 million. This is a little more than half of the universe of 
public safety agencies in the State. Illinois would like to provide 
additional radios to some of the larger cities--there are 10 cities in 
Illinois with populations over 100,000 people--but Federal assistance 
is required.
  My amendment addresses the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that 
first responders have interoperable communications equipment. My 
amendment would provide an additional $100 million for interoperable 
communications equipment so that first responders can respond to 
natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other public safety needs. 
Fire grants are already used by some jurisdictions for the purpose of 
obtaining communications equipment, and my amendment sets aside a pool 
of funding to encourage more departments to do so. This is important to 
help emergency responders field effective and reliable interoperable 
communications equipment to respond to natural disasters, terrorist 
attacks, and the public safety needs of America's communities.
  The lack of interoperable communications for America's first 
responders puts them and our communities in danger. Too many of our 
police, fire, emergency medical services, and transportation officials 
cannot communicate with each other, and our local departments are not 
able to link their communications with State and Federal emergency 
response agencies. A June 2004 U.S. Conference of Mayors survey found 
that 94 percent of cities do not have interoperable capability between 
police, fire, and emergency medical services, and 60 percent of cities 
do not have interoperable capability with the State emergency 
operations center. Almost half of the cities that responded to the 
survey said that a lack of interoperable communications had made 
response to an incident within the last year difficult. In November 
2003, OMB testified before Congress that there is insufficient funding 
in place to solve the Nation's interoperability problem, and it would 
cost more than $15 billion to begin to fix the problem.
  I appreciate Senator Stabenow's work on this issue and her 
cosponsorship of this important amendment. This is such an important 
issue for firefighters in Illinois and across the country that when 
there is another opportunity, I intend to bring this amendment before 
the Senate, and I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting it.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of amendment 3662 by my 
friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold. His amendment, which would 
have ensured continued support for the Office of the Special Inspector 
General

[[Page 6804]]

for Iraq Reconstruction, was ruled ``nongermane'' by the 
Parliamentarian.
  This is inexplicable and unfortunate. But the real travesty is that 
the majority, which could simply agree to accept this amendment, would 
prefer to hide behind the Parliamentarian's ruling and let it die.
  By all accounts, with the exception of the snipes of some anonymous 
Pentagon officials and their friends in the majority party who do not 
want the colossal blunders of the Iraq reconstruction program exposed 
to the light of day, the special inspector general has done an 
excellent job under difficult and dangerous conditions.
  He has uncovered numerous instances of waste and fraud--some, 
shocking in their audacity--and there are dozens of investigations and 
prosecutions under way.
  There is another $1.6 billion for Iraq reconstruction in this 
supplemental for precisely the same types of activities that have been 
funded under the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
  But in this bill they are funded under traditional foreign operations 
accounts, not under the Iraq relief and reconstruction fund.
  What this means is that, by not adopting the Feingold amendment, the 
special inspector general will not have oversight of these funds.
  Apparently the idea is for the State Department inspector general to 
take over this responsibility. But that office has no people in Iraq, 
no plan or budget to put people there, and no ability to do the job any 
time soon. They have said so themselves.
  This is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut down the only 
effective oversight of this massive reconstruction program which has 
been plagued by mismanagement and fraud.
  Projects have been poorly designed, grossly over priced, and many 
will never be finished, while U.S. contractors such as Halliburton have 
made off with huge profits.
  We are told by our friends in the majority, acting on behalf of some 
in the Pentagon and the White House who want to shut down the Office of 
the Special Inspector General, that they just want to return to the 
``regular order.'' That is their explanation for turning this 
responsibility over to the State Department.
  That is laughable. There is nothing that resembles the regular order 
in this multibillion-dollar supplemental, none of which is paid for. In 
one breath they argue that they cannot pay for the war through the 
regular appropriations process because it is an extraordinary expense. 
In the next breath they make the opposite argument to justify shutting 
down the Office of the Special Inspector General.
  If this were really about the regular order, the White House would 
support the amendment by Senator Byrd to pay the cost of this war, 
rather than continue to ignore the regular budget process and fund the 
war off budget, leaving it to future generations to pay.
  This is just another example of the hypocrisy of the President's 
bankrupt fiscal policy, and of those who continue to defend it in 
Congress. Use a figleaf to make it appear as if you support the regular 
budget process when in fact you are weakening it. This also is the 
latest example of the majority party's distaste and even disdain for 
oversight and for the checks and balances in our system that are 
supposed to root out corruption, waste, fraud and abuse and to make 
government work better as government spends the taxpayers' hard-earned 
dollars.
  The special inspector general has a difficult job. His job is to find 
the truth, and sometimes the truth is hard for government agencies to 
accept. Sometimes they would rather not have the spotlight shined on 
their mistakes.
  But the special inspector general works for American taxpayers, not 
for the Pentagon, and not for Halliburton.
  The Feingold amendment would have ensured continued oversight of the 
very programs the special inspector general was created to oversee. I 
want to commend him for his attention to this issue and his effort to 
protect American taxpayers. By using a technical sleight-of-hand 
maneuver to prevent the Senate from voting on this amendment--a vote 
they know they would lose--the majority has dealt a blow to oversight 
of the shoddy, wasteful, and criminal failures of the Iraq 
reconstruction program.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate approved my 
language to provide up to $8.5 million to the U.S. Institute of Peace 
in the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This funding would 
allow USIP to continue critical democracy-building programs in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  This $8.5 million will continue funding vital programs that are 
already in place on the ground in Iraq but that are in danger of 
running out of money before the end of the summer. And I would like to 
assure my colleagues that USIP has a plan on how to use every dollar of 
this funding.
  BG Donald Alston, our chief military spokesman in Iraq, has 
acknowledged, and I quote, ``[The insurgency in Iraq] is not going to 
be settled, the terrorists and terrorism in Iraq is not going to be 
settled, through military options or military operations. It is going 
to be settled in the political process.''
  Right now, a critical player in advancing that political process in 
Iraq is the U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonpartisan organization created 
by Congress in 1984 to, among other duties, facilitate the resolution 
of international disputes, train international affairs professionals in 
conflict prevention, management, and resolution techniques, and 
strengthen the education of emerging generations of young people in the 
United States and in foreign zones of conflict.
  USIP has embraced that mission in Iraq. U.S. Institute of Peace 
personnel are doing a magnificent job of facilitating interethnic and 
interreligious dialogue and conflict resolution. They are training 
Iraqi leaders at the national and local levels in democratic processes 
and rule-of-law programs. They bring unique experience and expertise in 
building a democratic government and a robust civil society. And, 
obviously, this is all the more critical today, as we acknowledge that 
Iraq's future will be decided in the political arena, not on the field 
of battle.
  But there is a problem. The U.S. Institute of Peace is on the verge 
of running out of funds for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and 
all of its ongoing programs in those countries will be halted in the 
coming months if we do not provide a necessary infusion of funds in 
this emergency supplemental.
  Some other amendments to this bill have been criticized because they 
do not pertain to Iraq or Afghanistan and because they are not 
emergencies. That is definitely not the case in this situation. The 
U.S. Institute of Peace is at the heart of our efforts to achieve a 
political success in Iraq. And we are truly at an emergency juncture 
where the institute will have to cease operations if it does not 
receive supplemental funding.
  For fiscal year 2004, USIP received $10 million in funding for its 
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those funds will be exhausted in a 
matter of months. The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a 
small increase for next fiscal year. But meanwhile, we face a crisis, 
here and now, that will require a shutdown in USIP operations at 
exactly the time when they are most urgently needed. The $8.5 million 
infusion provided in the bill will allow those operations to continue 
and, in some cases, to expand.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, we are now spending 
almost $6.4 billion a month in Iraq, overwhelmingly on combat 
operations. It would be penny wise and pound foolish to refuse to allow 
this modest $8.5 million infusion to allow USIP's all-important 
democracy-building programs to go forward in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  The U.S. Institute of Peace is active in Iraq and Afghanistan on 
multiple fronts. It has created networks of organizations and 
individuals committed to a peaceful, democratic outcome in Iraq. It has 
engaged in successful outreach to the Sunni community and supported 
participation of margin-
alized groups in the political process, including minorities, women and 
the disabled.
  In addition, the institute has trained hundreds of Iraqi officials in 
conflict

[[Page 6805]]

resolution and negotiation strategies, as well as provincial-level 
government and civil society officials in conducting interethnic 
dialogue. It has supported Iraqi civil society projects that promoted 
intercommunal and interreligious tolerance, including a project with 
the Iraqi Handicapped Association that brought together Iraqis of all 
faiths and ethnicities to promote participation of Iraq's disabled in 
the constitution process.
  In my limited time, let me cite just three examples of the good work 
that the institute is doing in Iraq:
  Increasing regional stability. Iraq's neighbors have done little to 
help stabilize the country. So the Institute of Peace facilitated a 
series of ground-
breaking informal dialogues among leading foreign policy and national 
security figures from Iraq and each of its six neighbors: Saudi Arabia, 
Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait. At this meeting, participants 
identified and began to work on how to address a number of challenges, 
including developing a regional reconciliation process to overcome 
deepseated cultural and political misconceptions and prejudices 
creating a broad-based effort to improve security promoting effective 
government inside Iraq, and building stronger economic ties.
  Promoting Sunni engagement. Obviously, reaching out to Sunnis is 
vital to dealing with the insurgency. In March 2006, the institute 
convened a meeting of Sunni political leaders and legal scholars to 
discuss the current constitution. Participants included Sunnis who 
rejected the approved constitution but who nevertheless joined in 
designing a strategy forward.
  Creating a new generation of leaders. Almost half of the Iraqi 
population is under the age of 21. Long-term peace and development 
depends on this generation developing democratic values. To this end, 
the institute supported the establishment of a student society at the 
University of Babylon-Hilla. This society is designed to foster freedom 
of expression and promote a culture of tolerance and respect for 
citizens' rights among Iraqi youth. In 12 months, it disseminated 
thousands of copies of student-produced newsletters--al-Iraqi--and held 
a total of 21 debates on controversial and timely issues, such as the 
role of Islam, federalism, unemployment and terrorism. The student 
society has grown into the largest student organization on campus--
larger even than the Sadrist Islamic Student Union. The project is 
galvanizing moderates and helping marginalize militants, providing an 
essential counterbalance to radicalization on campus.
  Let me emphasize that this funding would also be used for programs in 
Afghanistan. In that country, the institute has been hard at work 
building programs that promote the rule of law. As I am sure that my 
colleagues are aware, while much progress has been made in Afghanistan, 
there is a very real danger that the drug lords and warlords have ruled 
for decades will gain traction and undo U.S. success in installing a 
democratic government. One way to combat that is through the 
traditional mechanisms--councils of male village elders--that handle 
over 90 percent of legal disputes. The Institute of Peace has partnered 
with the Afghan Ministry of Justice in developing a strategy that will 
enable the formal and informal legal systems to work together and 
ensure that Afghans, in particular women and minorities, enjoy 
protection of their rights. One tribal leader at an Institute of Peace 
meeting said that his people want effective central government, but 
that they have never had a government they can trust. The institute 
aims to create the kind of legal system all Afghans can look to for 
justice with confidence.
  The bottom line is that all of this good work being carried out by 
the U.S. Institute of Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan will come to a 
crashing halt in the months immediately ahead if we do not provide this 
infusion of $8.5 million on an emergency basis. The institute's 
democracy-building efforts would end at exactly the time when they are 
most urgently needed. That would be unconscionable. Millions of Iraqis 
are putting their lives on the line because of their commitment to 
building democracy. We need to keep faith with those courageous Iraqis 
and their dream of a democratic Iraq.
  Further, I would like to inform my colleagues that our U.S. 
Ambassador, Zalamay Khalilzad, who is currently serving in Iraq, was a 
member of the USIP board of directors from November 1999 to May 2001, 
at which time he joined the National Security Council and had to leave 
the board. Ambassador Negroponte who served in Iraq prior to Ambassador 
Khalilzad called on USIP to assist him in calling together Iraqi 
religious leaders, and they would all meet in USIP's Iraq office. I am 
sure they would both join me in commending the work of the U.S. 
Institute of Peace.
  But before I finish my remarks I would like to take a few moments to 
speak about the history of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
  The U.S. Institute of Peace is a unique organization. Throughout our 
long history, America has been proud of its strong, well-led military. 
And this outstanding military leadership is no accident. It is possible 
because we maintain prestigious, world-class military academies which 
train some of the best and brightest minds in America in the art and 
science of war.
  But Americans also have a long history as a peace-loving people. Time 
and again, we have brokered peace between warring nations, and we have 
intervened to head off potential conflicts. The Institute of Peace 
draws on this proud tradition and today makes a vital intellectual 
investment in the art and science of peacemaking.
  Today's Institute of Peace is the fruit of a dream and vision that 
goes back to our Nation's Founders. Benjamin Banneker, often called 
``the first black American man of science,'' and physician Benjamin 
Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, noted and lamented 
the Constitution's failure to establish a Department of Peace to 
balance the Department of War. In their correspondence with Thomas 
Jefferson in 1792, Banneker and Rush envisioned a ``Peace Office'' 
which would be on an equal footing with the Department of War and would 
be charged with promoting and preserving perpetual peace in the United 
States.
  George Washington also supported the establishment of a Peace Office. 
And his support was not just casual. He believed that such an office 
should be an essential pillar of the new Nation. When he died in 1799, 
Washington's last will and testament bequeathed in perpetuity 50 acres 
in Potomac County to be used ``toward the endowment of a university--
under the auspices of the general Government.'' This bequest was 
intended to make possible the proper ``Peace Establishment'' that 
President Washington had written about as early as 1783.
  In a 1980 report, the Matsunaga Commission strongly recommended the 
establishment of the United States Academy of Peace. In the course of 
more than 70 meetings and hearings all across the United States, 
Senator Matsunaga of Hawaii and other Senators surveyed the full range 
of threats to world peace and explored ways to counter those threats.
  After much thoughtful debate, a compromise was reached, and the 
United States Institute of Peace Act was passed and signed into law by 
President Ronald Reagan in 1984. A board was installed, and the 
institute's first meeting was held in February 1986. Since that time, 
the institute has done remarkable work in such disparate nations as 
Afghanistan and Korea, Bosnia and the Philippines.
  Today, at the direction of Congress, the Institute actively pursues 
six interrelated activities: expanding society's knowledge about the 
changing nature and conduct of international relations and the 
management of international conflict; supporting policymakers in the 
legislative and executive branches; facilitating the resolution of 
international disputes; training international affairs professionals 
from the United States and abroad in conflict prevention, management, 
and resolution techniques; strengthening the education of emerging 
generations of young people in the United States and

[[Page 6806]]

in foreign zones of conflict; and increasing public understanding about 
the nature of international conflicts, as well as approaches to their 
prevention, management, and resolution.
  Mr. President, the USIP deserves our support.

                          ____________________