[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 10896-10912]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR 
       ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the conference report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4939) making emergency supplemental appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of June 8, 2006.)
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Lautenberg are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 10897]]


  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be allowed to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in the Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after a great deal of hard work by both 
bodies, I am pleased that the Senate now has under its consideration 
the conference report to accompany H.R. 4939, the fiscal year 2006 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  Overall, this bill which was requested by the President has two major 
points of focus. First, it provides needed funding to replenish the 
spending accounts of the Department of Defense, the Department of 
State, and other agencies and departments of the Government engaged in 
the global war on terror through the remainder of this fiscal year. 
Second, this supplemental includes critical funding for continued 
efforts to address the damage caused by the hurricanes in the Gulf of 
Mexico in 2005.
  The bill was adopted by the Senate on May 4, and we began discussions 
with our colleagues from the other body shortly thereafter. A 
bipartisan majority of the conferees reconciled the differences between 
the two bills and reached agreement on the conference report on June 8. 
The House approved the conference report this morning by a rollcall 
vote of 351 to 67.
  The conference agreement provides a total of $94.519 billion. Of this 
amount, over $70 billion is provided to carry out the global war on 
terror and to cover the expenses of ongoing operations and 
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Title II of the conference agreement provides $19.338 billion for 
hurricane-related damage and recovery costs. Title III provides $500 
million for agriculture disaster assistance to hurricane affected 
areas. Title IV includes $2.3 billion for influenza pandemic 
preparation and response activities. Title V provides $1.9 billion for 
various border security initiatives. Title VI includes $27.6 million 
for the Architect of the Capitol to address health and safety concerns 
in the utility tunnels in the Capitol complex. Finally, title VII 
includes general provisions and technical corrections.
  This conference agreement is the result of hard work and true 
compromise between the House and Senate. This bill provides critically 
needed funding to our troops in the field and it helps continue the 
recovery process on the gulf coast. The overall funding level meets the 
amount requested by the administration, and I hope this agreement will 
receive bipartisan support in the Senate.
  All members have had the opportunity to review the conference 
agreement, and I am happy to respond to any questions Senators may have 
about its contents. I do hope we will not indulge in needless delay and 
proceed with some dispatch in the consideration and approval of this 
agreement.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Martinez). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes in morning business with respect to a tribute to Senator 
Byrd and then make another statement with respect to the conference 
report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Reed are printed in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, as indicated previously, I would like to 
make a short statement pertaining to the supplemental appropriations 
conference report before us.
  It is interesting, my colleague from Florida spoke about the lessons 
of Hurricane Katrina. One of those lessons is we have to be prepared. 
In Rhode Island, we worked with Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Byrd, 
and also with Senator Harry Reid to incorporate within the supplemental 
appropriations bill an appropriation to help prepare our hurricane 
barrier in Providence, RI. I thank the chairman, Senator Byrd, and 
Senator Reid for this effort.
  Unfortunately, this provision did not survive the conference 
committee, and we are not able today to tell the people of Rhode Island 
that we are giving them much needed help to strengthen the Fox Point 
hurricane barrier.
  The Fox Point hurricane barrier literally is the protection that will 
preserve Providence, RI, and the surrounding areas from a devastating 
hurricane. It protects the city. It protects all the key resources 
there, such as the infrastructure. It is right at the head of 
Narragansett Bay. That is where Providence sits, and in a hurricane, if 
it roars up that bay, there is not much to stop it except this barrier.
  It was built in the 1960s. It was at that time a modern, state-of-
the-art construction, but the years have intervened. It is no longer a 
state-of-the-art construction. It needs work. It needs the electro-
mechanical system control system replaced. It is one of the few major 
facilities in the country that I think is still operated by its 
original electrical components. The barrier employs three 35-foot-high 
gates that are electronically operated. This is not only to keep the 
water out, but to make sure they can still continue to pump water from 
the rivers that back up the hurricane barrier.
  Now, most people don't think Rhode Island is the prime target of 
hurricanes, but in 1938 and in 1954 we were dealt devastating blows. In 
fact, the damage from the hurricane in 1938 in those dollars was $125 
million. Today it would be $1 billion. Hurricane Carol in 1954 flooded 
Providence, leaving the city under 8 feet of water and destroying 4,000 
houses.
  So we have a need to help the city upgrade these facilities to 
provide the kind of improved equipment and improved performance that 
will assure us that if a hurricane comes--and we all know that 
eventually they will come to Rhode Island and to the rest of the 
eastern seaboard--we will be prepared.
  Again, I thank the chairman and others for their work to put the 
money in, and I am disappointed that the money was taken out. I hope 
that in the future we can find another way in which we can protect the 
people of Providence, RI, and the whole State of Rhode Island.
  Mr. President, with that, I once again congratulate Senator Byrd, and 
I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate Senator Byrd as 
well. What a wonderful gentleman. What a gentle spirit, but what a firm 
voice. We value your service and we appreciate what you can teach us 
and what you have taught us.
  I also want to thank Chairman Cochran for the hard work that he has 
done on this supplemental bill. He also has put up with a lot of grief 
from myself and others. The bill is important. I am going to spend a 
few minutes on things I think the American people ought to be asking 
about this bill.
  The fact that we have the largest supplemental appropriations bill 
ever to come before this body to me is a great problem. It tells me 
part of the system is broken. The fact that the administration would 
request such a large emergency appropriation, and the fact that we 
would pursue it and pass it tells us that the system of the true 
appropriations and authorizing process is broken.
  We are in the fourth year--the third-and-a-half year--of a war, and a 
large portion of what is in this bill has been known in advance that we 
were going to need it and it should go through the regular order. The 
fact that we take it outside of the budget caps, the fact that we take 
it outside of the regular order when we know we are going to spend $60 
billion to $70 billion at least in executing and prosecuting the war 
and put it in an emergency supplemental I think says a lot about our 
process that we need to take very seriously and try to change.
  That is a criticism for the administration as well. A lot of the 
money in this is for the National Guard to refurbish and bring things 
up that we knew and in regular order we are going to be

[[Page 10898]]

processing in the Defense appropriations bill that is going to be 
coming before this body in the next couple of months. So the excuse to 
say this is all emergency falls short, because it is not. It is not all 
emergency. We have known all of this money is going to be spent, it 
should have come through the regular process, and we really don't have 
a good excuse to tell the American people why we are not doing that.
  The second criticism I have of this bill is that the administration 
requested no rescissions whatsoever. There is nothing in the Federal 
Government that we could trim to help pay for this emergency bill. That 
is the assumption of the request by the administration. I want to tell 
you that is the wrong assumption. Employees who work for the Federal 
Government, the valuable employees, they know that is not true. People 
outside of Washington know that is not true. Constituents all across 
this land know that if we had to find money and if we could drive 
things to make them more efficient, we could do it. The fact that we 
are not doing it is another problem with our process. That is not a 
criticism of individual Members of this body; it is a criticism of the 
process that we find ourselves in and that we are blinded in the forest 
by the trees.
  We ought to be back to regular order, and if we truly have 
emergencies, we ought to look to say, How can we trim from somewhere 
else to pay for it? Because, in effect, this $94.5 billion, my 
grandchildren, your grandchildren, and the generation that follows are 
going to pay for. Nobody that is working today is going to pay for 
this. We are transmitting the cost to our children and grandchildren. 
We are saying that we can't make an effort, or the administration 
doesn't request us to make an effort, or we don't make an effort to 
find other areas that are less important, lower on the obligation level 
for us, that we will just print the money and sign the notes and sell 
them overseas and say, Children and grandchildren, you pay for this 
because we don't have the courage to do the hard work to pay for it. We 
ought to take that criticism and say, Is that really what we want to be 
known for? Do we want to be known for not making the hard choices that 
are necessary to fund this war and at the same time not take away 
opportunity from our children and grandchildren? That is not a personal 
criticism, but that is a legitimate criticism that the American people 
ought to be asking.
  The third thing is there are things in this bill that are pure 
politics in nature. Let me just describe one. I withdrew this amendment 
on the floor, but I think the American people ought to understand what 
is going on. There is over $200 million in this bill for Osprey 
aircraft, the V-22 that has never proven itself in combat. It has never 
made the test in battle simulation that says it is a viable option. 
Neither the administration nor the Defense Department requested this 
money, and this money is going to be spent, it is in the bill, and this 
bill is going to pass and the President is going to sign this bill. But 
we are going to spend money, a quarter of a billion dollars, on this 
program, not because it was requested by the Pentagon, not because it 
was requested by the administration, but because it was requested by a 
business to continue a program that hasn't proven itself yet.
  There has to be some risk to those who don't perform when they are 
supplying our military with the latest in terms of equipment and 
materials, and there is not any, if we continue to do it this way. I am 
not an expert in the Defense appropriations process, but I have read 
what the Defense Subcommittee has said on this, and I have read what 
the articles have said on this, and it doesn't meet the test. Yet, we 
are going to spend it.
  The reason we are going to spend it is because there are enough 
Members in this body that have employment with this company throughout 
the country that the pressure to not fund it is greater than the 
pressure to do what is right. I believe we ought to ask ourselves about 
the criticism of that. That is not a way to run the future of this 
country, and it is certainly not a way to protect the heritage for our 
children in giving them the opportunity that we have all experienced in 
being in the freest and greatest country in the world.
  The risk for our country is a risk that we will lose that heritage of 
sacrifice today to create opportunity tomorrow. I know I am like a 
broken record to the appropriators, but my heart says that we should 
create at least the same opportunities in the future that we have all 
experienced, and to do less than that denies the very heritage that was 
given to us.
  So I haven't decided for sure whether I am going to vote for this 
bill. I know it is important to take care of the critical needs in the 
hurricane area. I have had two hearings on that, part of my 
subcommittee, the waste, fraud, and abuse associated with that. But I 
must emphasize, out of 37 hearings in the Federal Financial Management 
Oversight Committee, we found over $200 billion--$200 billion--of 
waste, fraud, and abuse in the last year and 2 months. Forty billion 
dollars of it in Medicaid in terms of false and inappropriate payments, 
$46 billion in Medicare, and $16 billion in Medicaid fraud in New York 
City alone. Yet we don't respond to it. There is no action on it.
  We had the Pentagon in 2005 pay $6 billion--$6 billion--in 
performance payments to contractors who did not meet the performance 
requirements of their contract. Yet we paid it anyway. But we haven't 
had a prohibition on that.
  I know on the Defense authorization as we get to that, Senator McCain 
is going to offer an amendment that I think is appropriate that we 
require that portion of the funding of the war that is legitimate to go 
through the appropriations process and regular order will be there. 
There are certain portions of that which are unexpected and we will 
continue to have to do supplementals to do that. But I would remind my 
colleagues that we are not going to be measured on what we do now; we 
are going to be measured on what is the opportunity for America 10 
years from now and 15 years from now.
  We were sent here to make the hard choices, and they are not fun. But 
we are not making the hard choices, because we are not looking at the 
programs that aren't effective, that aren't accomplishing the goals and 
eliminating them to pay for the things that we think are; we are just 
ignoring them and paying as we go, except we are not paying as we go. 
We are asking our children and grandchildren to pay.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I want to thank the very able Senator who 
has just spoken for his service to the Nation and to this body. I thank 
the very able chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Thad Cochran, for all of his meticulous--meticulous--work on this bill.
  The President asked the Congress to approve $92.2 billion of 
emergency spending and $2.3 billion to combat pandemic flu. When the 
committee opened its hearings on the supplemental on March 7, I stated 
my belief that it is our duty--our duty--to scrutinize the President's 
request, not only for what is in it, but also for what is not in it.
  The conference report that is before us includes $65.7 billion for 
the Department of Defense to fund the wars--and there are two of them 
going on--two wars: the war in Iraq, to which I was opposed, and I feel 
I was right, and in Afghanistan, which I supported; I support that war, 
and I supported that war from the beginning in Afghanistan--an amount 
said to be sufficient to prosecute those wars and supply our troops.
  Upon passage of this legislation, the total amount appropriated for 
the war in Iraq, including the cost of reconstruction, will be $318 
billion--$318 billion. That is $318 for every minute that has passed--
every minute--$318 for every minute since Jesus Christ, praise the 
Lord, was born. That is a lot of money. Mr. President, $318 for every 
minute that has passed since Jesus Christ was born 2,000 years ago. 
That is a staggering figure. And what is even more unbelievable is that 
the monthly cost of this war in Iraq, which I have opposed from the 
beginning, has been steadily escalating from $5 billion per

[[Page 10899]]

month in 2004 to more than $8 billion per month now.
  The American people--hey, those people who are out there in the 
prairies, in the Rocky Mountains, in the lands between Washington, DC, 
and the Rocky Mountains--they are all asking: How on Earth has the 
monthly cost of the war in Iraq grown so much in just 2 years? The Bush 
administration announced that major combat operations ended in May of 
2001. Remember that? The banner that we saw on the ship? Let me repeat. 
The Bush administration announced that major combat operations ended in 
May of 2003. But the costs of the war continue to spiral. How can that 
be? Why? Why? This administration does not want to answer these 
questions. Instead, the administration continues to request funds for 
these wars--two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq. The administration 
continues to request funds for the wars through ad hoc emergency 
supplemental appropriations bills.
  Regrettably, the Congress continues to duck for cover. Since the 
President took us to war in Iraq in 2003, the Congress has approved 
eight different emergency supplemental appropriations measures to fund 
the wars--eight. None of those measures received the full scrutiny that 
is required of such massive expenditures. You know it. I know it. We 
know it. Everybody should know it. The President refuses to include the 
full costs of these wars in his regular budget request. Instead, he 
sends the Congress emergency requests with little or no detailed 
justification.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, this President has 
requested $515 billion of emergency spending--yes, you heard me, $515 
billion of emergency spending that does not appear in the budget. This 
conference report includes language that I authored, urging the 
President to put the full costs of the wars in his annual budget. This 
is the fifth time the Congress has approved such a provision.
  My amendment was approved 94 to 0. It is time for the President to 
get the message. The administration's failure to budget for the wars 
means that neither the White House nor the Congress is making the tough 
decisions about how to make the most of public funds to pay for the 
ongoing wars.
  Tales of waste abound. Our troops deserve better treatment, as do 
you, the American people out there. I am pleased that the conference 
agreement includes $35.6 million for improved mine safety and health 
programs. Since January of this year there have been 19 coal mining 
deaths in the State of West Virginia, and another 14 mining deaths in 
the States of Kentucky, Alabama, Maryland, and Utah. This conference 
report will ensure that an adequate number of safety inspectors will be 
provided for our Nation's mines and will expedite the introduction of 
critical safety equipment into the mines. These are critical dollars 
which will begin to fill the gaps, the unacceptable gaps at the Federal 
Mine Safety Agency. There are too few inspectors, there is too much 
out-of-date safety technology, there are too many unprepared rescue 
teams, and the litany of problems at the Federal Mine Safety Agency 
goes on while the lives of our Nation's coal miners continue to be at 
risk.
  In the past 5 years at the Mine Safety Agency, safety has taken a 
back seat. At least 217 coal safety inspector jobs have been 
eliminated--wiped out. The political leadership at MSHA puts protecting 
miners' lives on the back burner.
  We have a moral obligation to make our coal mines safer. This funding 
will jump-start the job of protecting our coal miners' lives and 
providing some peace of mind to the coal miners' families.
  I know how those families feel. I grew up in a coal miner's home. My 
wife's father was a coal miner. You are looking at somebody who speaks 
the coal miner's language. I do. Coal mine safety should not take a 
back seat to coal production. Protecting the lives of our coal miners 
has to be job No. 1 in the mines.
  I cannot find the words to adequately express my heartfelt 
appreciation for the support of Chairman Thad Cochran of Mississippi 
and the other Senate conferees, particularly Senator Specter and 
Senator Harkin, for their cooperation. With this funding and with the 
recent approval of the mine safety authorization bill, Congress will 
have given clear, unmistakable direction to the administration. The 
safety of our coal mines and the brave miners who work in them must be 
paramount, uppermost. I will say that once more. The safety of our coal 
mines and the brave miners, men and women, who work in the coal mines 
must be paramount.
  With regard to funding required to recover from the gulf coast 
hurricanes, the chairman of our Senate Appropriations Committee took 
the bull by the horns. Under Senator Thad Cochran's leadership, the 
Senate added $9.2 billion to the President's budget request to aid the 
victims of the hurricanes. In addition, the Senate added funds to meet 
pressing emergency needs for drought relief, port security, the 
security of U.S. borders, and much needed medical care for the Nation's 
veterans. Sadly, the President, our President, threw down the gauntlet 
and threatened--yes, threatened--to veto the bill. The White House 
insisted that $14 billion of what it called low-priority items be 
dropped from the bill. As a result, the Republican leadership of the 
House and Senate sat down with White House staff and agreed to drop 
from the bill emergency disaster drought relief for our farmers, 
funding for critical veterans' medical services, and funding for 
increased security at the U.S. ports. Over $9 billion of critical 
funding for the victims of the hurricanes--over $9 billion--has been 
eliminated, including housing assistance, education assistance, and 
transportation funds. Where are our priorities?
  Instead, this administration has put its highest priority not on 
disaster needs but on massive tax cuts to the tune of $254 billion for 
2006, tax cuts--yes, hear me, tax cuts at a time when the Nation is at 
war and spending on that war is on the order of $8 billion per month. 
That is like spending $8 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--
$8 for every 60 seconds since our Lord Jesus Christ was born.
  The administration continues to have a huge credibility gap when it 
comes to homeland security. There is a continuing drumbeat that another 
terrorist attack is likely.
  Yet once again the administration is trying to secure the homeland on 
the cheap.
  The White House insisted that the conferees strip away $648 million 
for port security and $600 million for the Coast Guard from the bill. 
Take it out. The administration's speechwriters and the 
administration's policywriters seem to be living in different worlds.
  How serious is the administration about port security when the 
administration decides to allow Dubai Ports World to operate six major 
U.S. ports before the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of 
Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Security were made aware of the 
decision? Who is in charge? Who is in charge? What a fiasco.
  How serious are we about port security when Customs inspects only 5 
percent of the 11 million containers that come into the country each 
year? How serious are we about port security when the Coast Guard 
inspects only one-third of foreign ports that trade with the United 
States? Yet at the insistence of the White House--hear me now--at the 
insistence of the White House $648 million for port security is 
eliminated--gone, gone with the wind.
  With regard to border security, the administration continues to be a 
day late and a dollar short. They opposed my efforts--this little boy 
from the hills of West Virginia--yes. The administration continues to 
be a day late and a dollar short. They opposed my efforts last year to 
add funds for border security. How about that--your security, border 
security.
  Fortunately, Chairman Gregg, the great Senator from New Hampshire--I 
like him. No, he is not a Democrat. What difference does that make? I 
like him.
  Fortunately, Chairman Gregg and our House counterparts agreed--yes, 
that old boy from the mountains--agreed with me, and we now have 1,500

[[Page 10900]]

more Border Patrol agents. We now have 1,500 more Border Patrol agents 
and 581 more immigration investigators and agents, and 1,950 more 
detention beds.
  On May 18, 3 weeks after the Senate adopted the comprehensive Gregg-
Byrd border security amendment, the White House sent up its own border 
security package. Rather than following our lead--Senator Gregg and 
Senator Byrd--the White House insisted on reducing the package for the 
Department of Homeland Security by $728 million--that isn't chicken 
feed--and narrowing the focus to just the Southwest border.
  While some may view border security through a microscope, Chairman 
Judd Gregg and I share the view that when the border is tightened in 
one place, the threat will move elsewhere. We should anticipate that 
inevitable dynamic so that our border enforcement agencies will have 
the tools to effectively do their jobs when they need those tools, not 
2 or 3 years from now. Yet the President requested no funds--no funds, 
none--for the Coast Guard and no funds--none--for the northern border.
  Just few days ago, 17 alleged terrorists were apprehended in Toronto, 
Canada. This ought to have served as a wake-up call to all of us that 
the threat to this country is not only on our Southwest border but on 
all of our borders.
  Regrettably, the President had his way in conference. While I 
appreciate that we have another $1.2 billion for border security, I 
worry that the funds are not based on a sound plan for border security.
  In conference, Chairman Thad Cochran offered an amendment to 
establish a limit on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2007. He 
did so to expedite the consideration of the appropriations measure 
through the Senate in the absence of a final budget resolution. 
Chairman Thad Cochran and I share the goal of debating in the Senate 
and sending to the President 12 individual, fiscally responsible 
appropriations bills.
  I support setting clear, enforceable limits on the spending contained 
in the appropriations bills. The issue is: At what level should we cap 
spending? Chairman Thad Cochran presented to the conference a deeming 
resolution that would limit spending to $872.8 billion, the level 
proposed by the President.
  Once again, the President's budget represents an irresponsible plan 
that trades America's long-term future for short-term political gain. 
If the Congress approves the President's request for Defense and 
Homeland Security, the President's budget will fall $14 billion short 
of what is needed for domestic programs, just to keep pace with 
inflation.
  The President proposes the largest cut to education funding in the 
26-year history of the Education Department, $2.1 billion or a 4 
percent reduction. This is a nonsensical squandering of the future of 
our children.
  How are we going to compete in the global marketplace unless our 
young people have the tools they need?
  Although we have thousands of veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan, the President wants to collect $795 million in new or 
increased fees charged to whom? To our veterans to pay for whose health 
care? Their health care. He also proposes $800 million of additional 
fees for the health care of military retirees. What a way to say thank 
you to our dedicated troops.
  The President proposes a level of funding for Amtrak that will force 
it into bankruptcy. The logic behind that decision totally escapes me. 
With gas prices soaring, why would we want to eliminate a major 
provider of public transportation?
  At a time when we are facing record energy prices, our President is 
also proposing a $1.4 billion cut in funds for Low-Income Home Energy 
Assistance. What a farce.
  Despite the fact that the White House continues to raise the specter 
of another terrorist attack, the President proposes to cut first 
responder grants by 25 percent. The President proposes to cut fire 
grants by 55 percent. These are just more examples of budgeting in a 
closet.
  This week the FBI announced that in 2005 this country had the largest 
increase in violent crime in 15 years. And yet the President proposes 
to cut grants for State and local law enforcement by over $1.2 billion.
  So may I say that while our President talks a good game on investing 
in alternative energy supplies, his budget includes only half of the 
funds necessary to implement the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  To complicate matters even more, the President has proposed that the 
Appropriations Committees approve $7.4 billion of new user fees and 
changes in mandatory law, most of which are not even under the 
jurisdiction of the committees. For example, the President wants us to 
approve a $1.2 billion increase in the ticket tax charged airline 
passengers. At a time when the airlines are already facing financial 
difficulties, this is folly, pure folly. If there is one lesson that we 
should have learned from Hurricane Katrina, it is that there are 
consequences to starving Federal agencies. FEMA, which performed 
marvelously after the Northridge earthquake, the Midwest floods, and 
the 9/11 attacks, FEMA was no longer up to the task when Hurricane 
Katrina hit.
  After 5 years of starving domestic agencies, I wonder which other 
agencies will be the next FEMA. Will it be the Coast Guard? Will it be 
the Food and Drug Administration's ability to approve safe drugs or the 
ability of the Food Safety and Inspection Service to protect food 
supplies?
  I offered an amendment in conference to modify the amendment offered 
by Chairman Cochran to increase discretionary spending for fiscal year 
2007. One of the amendments was adopted on a bipartisan vote of 15-13 
to increase spending by $7 billion.
  Sadly, the White House and the House majority leader objected to the 
inclusion of the deeming resolution as modified by my bipartisan 
amendment. The conference report that is before the Senate, therefore, 
limits total discretionary spending to the President's stingy--too 
stingy--$872.8 billion request.
  At this funding level, the Senate will have little choice but to 
starve Federal agencies of the resources they need to responsibly meet 
the needs of the American people. That means relegating people's needs 
to the bottom of the barrel.
  The White House got what it wanted in this conference report. Less 
money for the victims of the hurricane, less money for drought relief, 
less money for key border security programs, no money for port 
security, and a ``cheap Charlie'' limit on other domestic spending.
  The President has just made a surprise visit to Baghdad.
  Let me say that again. Today, a little while ago, the President made 
a surprise visit to Baghdad. That is all right. Supporting our troops 
is very important. However, I have to ask, when will the President be 
visiting American ports to determine if they are safe?
  When will the President visit American farms that have been 
devastated by drought?
  When will the President meet with our Governors, our mayors, our 
police chiefs to understand why violent crime is on the rise?
  When will the President visit our Nation's hospitals to learn why 
health care in this country is unaffordable?
  When will the President visit our Nation's campuses to learn why the 
cost of a college education has grown 57 percent during his 
administration, while the level of Pell grants has been frozen for 5 
years?
  When will he start to look and listen to the voices of American 
citizens who want a leader for their future here at home?
  We now have appropriated $318 billion for the war in Iraq while 
America's needs go begging. I wonder if the President will ever ask 
himself about the consequences of that choice.
  While I have serious reservations about what has been dropped from 
the conference report, the conference report that is before the Senate 
provides essential resources for our troops and

[[Page 10901]]

help for hurricane relief. Therefore, I will support the adoption of 
the conference report.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act which, as the venerable and esteemed 
Senator from West Virginia stated, provides critical funding for 
America's troops, money for hurricane recovery, money for mine safety, 
while staying within the $94.5 billion funding level called for by the 
President.
  I am going to support this package. I support our troops. I applaud 
their efforts. I am a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, and I 
understand and recognize the tough choices that needed to be made in 
order to put this supplemental together. But with that said, a large 
component of this package is disaster assistance. When it comes to 
helping our fellow Americans through a crisis, we need to assist all 
with equal zeal.
  The fact is, while this bill offers some Americans a helping hand, it 
gives some others a cold shoulder. While this bill provides needed 
funding for agricultural disaster assistance in the gulf to producers 
affected by the hurricanes, it will not send a dime to Minnesota's 
farmers struggling to survive their own natural disaster.
  The Senate bill contained that helping hand. Chairman Cochran fought 
for--and has fought a number of times, by the way. And I thank the 
chairman for all the work he has done and all the work he has done on 
the supplemental and I certainly thank him for his sensitivity to the 
needs of Minnesota producers. I served with him when he was chairman of 
the Agriculture Committee before he became chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. But this relief never made it through the 
conference. It is not in the final bill.
  I find it incomprehensible, if not irresponsible, to provide weather-
related disaster assistance for one region of the country while 
withholding it from another. At its core, this is an issue about equity 
for all regions that are suffering.
  And to the thousands of Minnesotans whose very livelihood has been 
jeopardized and those losing their farms due to last year's disastrous 
weather, this bill is nothing short of cruel. The absence of this piece 
in the bill is nothing short of cruel.
  The images from Minnesota in 2005 speak volumes, surreal images of a 
mounting storm that almost defies description. Once unleashed, these 
ominous clouds transformed into tornadoes and a devastating downpour. 
Imagine looking out your living room window and seeing the shadow of 
this storm, as shown in this picture, cast on a farm you have worked 
all your life to build--a farm you have seen through good times and 
bad, from performing chores before school as a kid to managing the cash 
flow of a modern farming operation as an adult. These clouds must have 
brought great anxiety in their path.
  But these families would not have to wait long to find out what this 
storm would bring as they sought shelter from the tornadoes and from 
the high winds as they found cover from the 15 inches of rain that fell 
in 1 single day.
  When the sky cleared, this is the scene, as shown in this picture, 
victims of the storm found. These are the fields, carefully cultivated 
every year, that were the lifeblood of family farms. These fields, left 
in utter destruction, a source of great pride when covered by a healthy 
crop, became a source of great concern to producers who understood all 
too well that no amount of hard work and careful planning would undue 
the damage done to their fields.
  For many farmers, their worst fears were confirmed. In the sugar 
sector alone, revenue was reduced by $60 million in Minnesota in 2005, 
thanks to this natural disaster. In one county, crop loss exceeded $52 
million and farmers were prevented from planting over 90,000 acres, 
thanks to saturated fields.
  Yet the real story cannot be told through statistics. I have met 
these farmers, and I have listened to their personal trials endured as 
a result of this catastrophic weather. I was up in Lake Bronson, MN, up 
in the northwest part of the State, Kittson County. I think the town 
has about 180 people. I was there on some other matters. In a town of 
about 180 people, farmers came from surrounding areas. One hundred 
farmers showed up to talk about what they have been through, to ask for 
my help in trying to protect this disaster assistance relief.
  I looked at the faces of these men and women who are hard working--
you could just kind of see that strength in their hands and in their 
faces--and I turned to one of my staff and said: This is why America 
won Two World Wars. These are people who have been there for our 
country time and again. And they were hurting.
  Farmers are losing their operations, pure and simple. Some of these 
producers will not be coming back to the fields next year thanks to 
this storm. They are not just losing a business, many are also losing a 
family tradition.
  America is losing something here. Thousands of farmers are struggling 
to figure out how they will make their cash flow work this year. It is 
easy for us to talk about terrible crop loss numbers in black and white 
figures on a page, but these numbers do not quite sum up the weight 
felt by the farmer who is anxiously wringing his ball cap in his hands 
as he surveys a barren field and wonders how he will convince the bank 
to give him one more season.
  It may shock many Americans to learn these images behind me are not 
from the gulf but, instead, that they describe the natural disaster 
that struck northern Minnesota in the spring of 2005. Even more 
shocking to Americans might be the fact that, of the millions of 
dollars in agriculture disaster aid in this emergency supplemental, 
none will go to these Minnesota farmers.
  I traveled to the gulf so see the hurricane damage firsthand in order 
to fully understand what my fellow Americans who live far from my 
Minnesota home are suffering, and I have supported their cause in 
Congress. I do not know that any of my colleagues from the gulf have 
ventured to my part of the world to witness the dire situation going on 
in places like Kittson County--and, again, in size and scope what 
happened in the gulf is almost incomprehensible--but I urge us not to 
forget what is happening in other parts of the country. For the farmers 
impacted, this is their life, this is what they got. It is underwater. 
I invite my fellow Senators who are interested in meeting these farmers 
to come to Minnesota. And not just to Minnesota; I think this same 
scene would be replayed in North Dakota and South Dakota and probably 
replayed in Missouri and other parts of the country.
  It is true that the suffering in the gulf is great. I have seen the 
tremendous damage, and I am committed to helping. But the burden 
experienced by the farmers I met in places such as Lake Bronson, MN, is 
also great. Congress should come to the aid of all Americans who find 
themselves victim of natural disaster and are left in financial peril 
and economic hardship too great for them to resolve on their own.
  This is simply a matter of fairness. The agricultural disaster aid 
package that was included in the Senate version of this emergency 
supplemental appropriations bill--of which I coauthored that piece--was 
fair. It provided assistance to farmers afflicted by natural disasters 
regardless of region or the type of natural disaster. This is a simple 
matter of fairness.
  What this conference report does is divide the Nation. If not 
excluded for regional reasons, then I suppose we are left with the 
conclusion that hurricanes are the only true natural disasters that 
deserve congressional attention. We all know that is false. And 
taxpayers know better. They deserve better. The fact this conference 
report does not provide one dollar for Minnesota's farmers is a true 
injustice.
  I will vote in favor of this emergency supplemental bill because it 
provides critical funding for our troops. That is what it is about. I 
am going to be there

[[Page 10902]]

for that. But I will come to the floor again and again and again to 
raise the issue of disaster assistance for Minnesota farmers and others 
in the region. And at every turn I will work to move this funding. I 
will not let this inequity stand.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk 
about the supplemental bill before us. And I thank the Senator from 
Minnesota for his remarks on agricultural disaster spending. I agree 
with him how critical this is for his State, and for many others, 
including mine. And I was deeply disappointed that the administration 
opposed the Senate's agricultural assistance proposal that was in our 
bill.
  Their letter to us said they opposed it on principle because the 2002 
farm bill was designed, when combined with crop insurance, to eliminate 
the need for ad hoc disaster assistance. Unfortunately, that policy has 
really harmed us in many of our States. I hope to work with the Senator 
from Minnesota and others to make sure we recognize these disasters 
that occurred to our agricultural communities. And I, too, am deeply 
disappointed it is not part of the supplemental.
  Mr. President, I do want to speak for a few minutes this afternoon 
about funding for the war in Iraq and hurricane recovery and other 
national priorities.
  I want to share with my colleagues that I have three real concerns 
with the bill. First, really, is that it continues the charade we have 
had that this war be funded off-budget. And, second, this bill leaves 
out critical funding for areas such as veterans health care, port 
security, and emergency transportation assistance on the gulf coast.
  Much of the progress we made on the Senate floor, through many hours 
of debate, was thrown out because of an arbitrary limit that was set by 
the President that is really going to hurt a lot of our communities.
  Finally, I want to talk about how this bill improperly included a 
budget ceiling that is going to affect every single spending bill and 
many of the decisions we need to make in the coming months. I believe 
the supplemental is the wrong place to be enacting a budget that was 
never passed by this entire Senate. I want to talk about each of these 
concerns.
  I will, like all of my colleagues, vote for this bill in the end 
because it is important that we provide the funding for our troops to 
carry out their mission as we have asked them to do and because, of 
course, it supports the recovery efforts along the gulf coast.
  My first concern is that the administration keeps trying to fund this 
war outside of the regular budget process. Instead of including the 
money our troops need in the annual budget, they keep sending us 
supplemental emergency requests. This may seem like a very small issue, 
but it has two real large impacts. First, every dollar we spend through 
emergency funding adds a dollar to our national debt. With every 
supplemental, we are burdening our children and grandchildren with more 
debt. It used to be that emergency spending bills were for emergencies, 
things we couldn't foresee such as natural disasters. The need for the 
funding for the war in Iraq is not a surprise. It is not like 
responding to an earthquake that no one could predict. We should not 
hand over to the President the final authority on what deserves 
emergency funding.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing concern about this 
because this administration's approach is going to burden future 
generations. I don't think we should hide the true cost of the war from 
the American public, which we do through this supplemental process.
  Communities at home today are sacrificing because of the cuts that 
this administration and Congress have imposed on the annual budget. If 
the administration had to fund the war in the annual budget, those cuts 
at home would be a lot more painful. By funding the war off-budget, 
Republicans are hiding the true cost of the war and the real tradeoffs 
that we have to make because of it. I hope the administration will be 
honest with all of us about how much this war is costing and the 
investments that we are being denied at home because of the way this 
administration has chosen to fund the war.
  I believe the administration should not have the sole authority to 
decide what is worthy of emergency funding and what is not because we 
do have emergencies in our backyard as well as overseas.
  My second concern with this bill is that it leaves out many of the 
critical investments we fought to add right here on the Senate floor to 
the supplemental. Here in the Senate we worked very well on a 
bipartisan basis to make sure the bill funds priorities such as 
veterans health care. I commend Senator Cochran for his work in trying 
to get this bill through the Senate and working with all of us to make 
sure our needs were addressed. But, unfortunately, the President set an 
arbitrary limit for the size of this bill and said he wouldn't sign a 
bill that cost a penny more. What happened? The leadership rolled over, 
agreed to the President's limit, and now that is going to hurt our 
communities at home.
  One of the groups of people it is going to hurt the most is America's 
veterans. In April, the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Murray-Akaka 
amendment to ensure that our veterans get the help they need. Our 
amendment had broad bipartisan support. We worked with Chairman 
Hutchison and others to make this funding emergency spending. But what 
happened? That amendment was removed from this bill. That is a huge 
setback for the men and women coming home from the war today and 
entering a VA system that is now overwhelmed and underfunded. This 
funding would have allowed us to provide soldiers returning from Iraq 
and Afghanistan with timely access to the health care they earned.
  We know today that the VA is facing funding challenges. In March, the 
VA themselves told us that they are seeing 38 percent more Iraqi war 
veterans than they budgeted for. In fiscal year 2006, the VA expected 
to provide medical care to 110,000. That number is now rumored to be 
nearly 170,000. In fact, the VA has treated 74,000 Iraq war veterans in 
the first quarter of this fiscal year alone. We are hearing that 
veterans have to wait over a year to get the specialty care they 
deserve. Some are waiting over 18 months to get their benefits. We have 
long waiting lists with thousands of names on them at our major VA 
hospitals. Recently, a VA official actually told us that long waiting 
lists make care for mental health and substance abuse virtually 
inaccessible.
  I am frustrated that the funding we worked to get on the floor of the 
Senate for our veterans is no longer in the bill that is in front of 
us. I believe our veterans deserve better, and I hope that we address 
this issue again in the near future.
  I also want to take some time to mention other investments that were 
removed from this bill to meet the President's arbitrary limit. I am 
the ranking member of the Transportation-Treasury subcommittee. I can 
tell my colleagues that some very important funding initiatives were 
left on the cutting room floor, initiatives that were sorely needed to 
help the residents of the gulf and to help that region's economy 
recover. Let me give an example.
  The Senate-passed bill included $200 million in emergency assistance 
for transit authorities in the gulf region. In prior supplemental 
appropriations bills, we have included $2.75 billion for the Federal 
Aid Highway Emergency Relief Program, but there is no such companion 
program for transit agencies. So right now the principal transit agency 
in the city of New Orleans is operating on funding through a mission 
assignment from FEMA. But FEMA has made it clear that this funding 
support is going to expire at the end of this month. Without any 
additional Federal help, the very limited amount of bus service that is 
now being provided is going to be severely curtailed. In fact, I am 
told that as a result of the $200 million being eliminated during the 
conference deliberations on this bill, the New Orleans transit 
authority

[[Page 10903]]

is likely to be required to lay off between 300 and 450 employees. They 
are going to have to cut back their extremely limited service even 
more.
  Prior to Katrina, New Orleans had about 62 separate bus routes. By 
next month, they may have to cut that back to 17. New Orleans is 
desperate to generate the economic activity that is going to allow this 
city to again stand on its own two feet. They need workers, including 
workers who depend on mass transit, to fill all kinds of jobs. Cutting 
off those transit routes is not going to help that city recover, and 
throwing bus drivers on an unemployment line is not going to help that 
city recover.
  In Baton Rouge, city leaders are desperate for transit assistance to 
help them serve the thousands of Louisiana residents now relocated to 
that city. You can't just add bus service and commuter rail services 
and expect to cover that cost through the fare box. They have to be 
subsidized, just like transit services across the country. The city of 
Baton Rouge never budgeted for these subsidy costs. That city is 
struggling to provide city services all across the board. They just 
can't tax all of these new residents. In fact, some of them were left 
with just the clothes on their backs. I am deeply disappointed that 
this Congress acquiesced when President Bush chose to ignore all of 
those needs and draw a line in the sand saying he would veto any bill 
that exceeded his request.
  Because of that demand, the conference was also required to eliminate 
funding items for the gulf that the President himself requested. Here 
is why. The President set a limit, and if we wanted to fund anything 
new that went beyond that limit, the money would have to come out of 
the investment he requested. And one of those requested items that got 
eliminated in this conference was a $202 million request for HUD for 
tenant-based rental assistance. That funding was intended to serve some 
44,000 families, including families who had received HUD support prior 
to Katrina, and homeless families. The bill that passed the Senate 
expanded the purpose of this money to include the reconstruction and 
repair of HUD projects in the afflicted region and to provide vouchers 
for about 4,500 needy citizens in the region, especially the disabled 
and homeless.
  That provision received widespread support from numerous national 
organizations, such as AARP, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, 
American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, and 
Volunteers of America. But all that support didn't matter when it came 
to cutting billions of dollars out of the supplemental. The end result, 
the conference report now before the Senate eliminated every penny that 
the President requested and the Senate included for that activity.
  My final concern with this bill is, as I said before, it includes a 
budget ceiling that is far different from the one that was passed in 
the Senate. That budget ceiling is going to tie our hands when we work 
to try to help our communities. This undermines the work we do on the 
Budget Committee to meet America's needs. I know this was done once 
before, but I am still very concerned about the precedent we are 
setting. About 12 weeks ago, the Senate adopted a budget resolution by 
the narrowest of margins, 51 to 49. That budget included more funding 
than the President's request. That is because from the floor we did our 
jobs as Senators. We offered a number of amendments. Some were 
accepted; some were not. Some were added during the floor on 
consideration of the resolution.
  Here on the floor we adopted amendments to boost funding for 
Alzheimer's research, for cancer research, for low-income energy 
assistance, for homeland security, for mine safety, for land and water 
conservation, and we added funding to help recruit a larger Army to 
ease the burden on all of those who are now serving. Only after those 
amendments were adopted was the budget resolution found to be 
acceptable by the bearest majority in the Senate.
  Since that time, the conference committee has made no progress in 
reaching a final budget resolution for this year. It is this complete 
breakdown of the budget process that has now brought us to this point.
  As Members of the Senate are aware, the budget resolution claims to 
do many things. But the most significant thing it does is impose a 
spending ceiling on the Appropriations Committee. Now that the Congress 
has failed to adopt a conference report on the budget, the decision was 
made to include a provision in this supplemental conference report we 
are now considering that imposes a new spending ceiling on the 
appropriations process. Never mind that there is no such provision in 
either the House or the Senate bill.
  This emergency supplemental conference report now before us includes 
one small but extraordinarily meaningful paragraph that masks the fact 
that this Republican Congress has failed to enact a budget for the U.S. 
Government. Worse still, the ceiling that is included in this emergency 
supplemental bill is not the same one that was agreed to by the Senate 
when they barely passed a budget resolution 51 to 49. Instead, the 
ceiling that is included in this conference report is $9 billion lower 
than the level the Senate adopted, and $7 billion lower than the 
ceiling for fiscal year 2008. The ceiling that is included in this bill 
deliberately ignores the amendments that were adopted by this Senate 
back in March. So we are basically being presented with a spending 
ceiling that would wipe out the amendments that were adopted on the 
Senate floor and bring our ceiling right back down to the level 
recommended in the President's budget. The Senate already was presented 
with that ceiling in the resolution that was reported by the Budget 
Committee. But the Senate amended that proposal many times to add about 
$16 billion in spending to it, and only then did they find 51 votes to 
pass it.
  I am sorry the spending ceiling is now included in this bill. I don't 
think it belongs in an emergency supplemental bill for the war or for 
the needs of the people who live on the gulf coast.
  I do want to acknowledge that Chairman Cochran notified us that he 
would seek to add the deeming resolution to the supplemental. The 
bottom line is that a new appropriations ceiling does not belong in 
this emergency supplemental. The Democratic Senators on the 
Appropriations Committees want to enthusiastically support the 
appropriations bills that our committee is going to produce over the 
next several weeks and months. We want those bills to pass on a broad 
bipartisan basis. We want those bills to address the critical funding 
needs of the functions of our Government, whether it is health research 
or education or infrastructure investment or agriculture or the needs 
of our troops.
  In reality, it is going to be hard enough to produce appropriations 
bills that are going to get broad bipartisan support at the levels we 
adopted back in March. It is going to be almost impossible to do so if 
we ignore the amendments adopted on the Senate floor and impose a 
spending ceiling that was not proposed by the President.
  So I am very troubled by this bill. It used to do a much better job 
of meeting our priorities at home. But the President set a limit and 
the Republican Congress went along, and I think that is going to hurt 
the families that we represent.
  I will vote for the emergency supplemental because our troops need 
the resources to do their jobs and the gulf coast needs our help. But I 
am really deeply disappointed at the missed opportunities that are 
represented in this bill. We can do better, and I hope we stop the 
political games and start determining the right direction. Frankly, our 
troops and our country and our future depend on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from New Hampshire be recognized immediately following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Courthouse Shooting In Reno

  Mr. REID. In Reno, NV, yesterday, a friend of mine, Chuck Weller, was 
shot

[[Page 10904]]

in the chest. He is a family court judge. We have in Nevada district 
court judges that do everything but domestic relations and child 
custody and that kind of thing, which the family court judges like 
Judge Weller do. He was working at his desk and somebody shot him in 
the chest through a window. His condition has been recently changed 
from critical to serious. We think he is going to be OK.
  This is a real tragedy for our system of justice. They have not 
apprehended the man who shot him. They believe they know who did it. We 
don't know if the man has killed anyone else, but it is a real tragedy.
  Judge Weller is a person who does his very best to be fair and 
reasonable to those people who appear before him. When you deal with 
child custody matters, support matters, they are very personal, and a 
judge has a difficult time because there are intense feelings involved 
in divorce and child custody.
  I am really concerned about his wife, Rosa Maria, and their two 
daughters. They face difficult days ahead. Everyone in Nevada is 
grateful for Judge Weller's public service, and we stand with the 
family during these difficult days.
  I think of the men and women in law enforcement in Nevada and around 
this country; they are the finest that we have. They are the ultimate 
first responders. I am confident that they will bring Judge Weller's 
attempted assassin to justice and in the process restore peace to the 
Reno community. People are concerned. This happened 24 hours ago or 
more. The man has still not been apprehended.
  Judge Weller moved to Nevada in the early 1980s. He graduated from 
Georgetown School of Law in Washington, DC. He was elected to the Reno 
family court a couple years ago. During his election, he said he wanted 
to be a judge because ``you can help a lot of people.'' He was right. 
Judges do help a lot of people. They make decisions that are very 
important, but they help us all by administering justice across the 
country.
  We were reminded yesterday that sometimes judges need our help, 
particularly when it comes to protecting them from violence. It is an 
unfortunate fact that violence against judges, such as we saw in Reno 
yesterday, is not unique. It happens far too much.
  Federal judges receive an average of 700 inappropriate communications 
or threats every year. State court judges, because there are so many 
more, receive thousands. There is no room in our country for violence, 
but certainly not in our courthouses. That is where Judge Weller was, 
in the courthouse. These are some of the most heinous crimes we 
experience, I believe.
  But for the bravery of the men and women who serve on the bench in 
our courthouses, this violence undermines our entire system of justice. 
We can and must do everything we can to prevent these tragedies.
  Judges like Chuck Weller, clerks, jurors, and others who are serving 
their country at courthouses and upholding the law must be free to do 
so without threats to their lives.
  One of my valued employees, Darrel Thompson--a fine person--was 
called to jury duty in Washington, DC. He apologized and said, ``I am 
sorry I cannot be at work today.'' I said, ``Darrel, this is your 
obligation. I wish I could serve on a jury.''
  Mr. President, I have tried cases before more than a hundred juries. 
I told Darrel this is his civic duty. I feel that way so strongly that 
the system of justice must be administered without intemperance, 
without threats of violence.
  In Reno, the city and county are in the process of determining what 
actions they can take to prevent incidents like this from occurring at 
the courthouse. One of the things they are going to try is to put a 
film on the window so you cannot see as well. One of the people said, 
``I don't think we can afford bulletproof windows.'' That is up to 
local government. Certainly, we at the Federal level should do whatever 
we can to assist in the administration of justice all over the country.
  I have contacted the county commissioner in Washoe County to extend 
my support in doing whatever we can do from here to prevent such 
tragedies. If we can give Federal assistance all around the country, 
then we should do that. Certainly, we cannot have things like this 
taking place.
  A good place to start would be passing the court security bill, S. 
1968. This was introduced last year by Senators Specter and Leahy, the 
chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I intend to 
offer--unless they do it--the text of that bill as an amendment to the 
next amendable bill on the Senate floor.
  S. 1968 was introduced following a wave of violence against judges 
and their families in our country. A State court judge in Atlanta was 
killed by a criminal defendant. We also know that family members of a 
Federal judge in Chicago were killed by a deranged litigant. In the 
last 25 years, three Federal judges have been killed. Now Judge Weller, 
a State judge, has fallen victim. We are hopeful and confident that he 
will pull through.
  The Specter-Leahy bill would improve protections for both Federal and 
State judges. For State courts like the Reno Family Court, the bill 
would authorize Federal grants to improve security. These Federal 
grants might be used to strengthen courthouse infrastructure, such as 
adding bulletproof windows, or it might be used to hire additional 
security personnel in the courthouse.
  There are times when the Federal Government must step forward. One 
example, which is so important, is when the Federal Government stepped 
in to give rural police officers the money to buy bulletproof vests. 
Little counties in Nevada and other places simply could not afford 
them. They need bullet proof vests for protection. So there are things 
we can do to help in the administration of justice and police officers 
generally.
  The Federal Government already plays a role in educating State court 
judges. I have played a role in helping to fund the National Judicial 
College and keep it funded. It is based in Reno. Judges, I am sure, 
from New Hampshire, Tennessee, North Dakota, judges from all over the 
country, have been to the State judicial college in Reno. It is a 
wonderful facility for training judges. It is now entirely appropriate 
for the Federal Government to bolster its support for protecting State 
court judges from physical harm.
  The States will take the lead in protecting their own State court 
officers, but the Federal Government can and should help develop best 
practices and replicate successful security models around the country. 
Congress should take immediate steps to try to prevent a recurrence of 
the Reno tragedy from occurring in other places.
  I want to extend my thoughts and prayers once again to the Weller 
family that all will be well with Chuck. It is a difficult time for 
them and the entire Reno community. I ask everybody here to keep the 
Wellers in their thoughts, because this could be a judge in your State. 
But, in fact, it is in Nevada, and we are going to do everything we can 
to protect the administration of justice in our country. I appreciate 
very much the senior Senator from New Hampshire allowing me to speak 
before him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after I speak 
Senator Dorgan be recognized, and then that Senator Vitter be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak a little about the 
supplemental appropriations bill, which is now pending. I want to begin 
by congratulating the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Cochran, for the 
extraordinary job he did in producing this bill. When it left the 
Senate, it was around $105 billion. It comes back to us from conference 
at $94.2 billion or $94.3 billion--I forget the exact number. It was 
not easy to bring it down from the Senate position to what was 
acceptable to the President and to the House. It was really a result of 
Senator Cochran simply saying that we are going to make these

[[Page 10905]]

difficult decisions and we are going to have a bill that meets the 
conditions the President laid down for our spending responsibility. He 
deserves a great deal of congratulations and respect for having 
accomplished that.
  Within the bill, he has included also an issue which I am interested 
in as chairman of the Budget Committee. It is what is called a 
``deeming resolution.'' It sets the amount of money that can be spent 
on the discretionary side of the budget. That is those accounts that we 
appropriate, on which we spend every year, and which are automatic 
expenditures for things like education and some of the health care 
accounts and national defense are some of the big ones, as is homeland 
security.
  This deeming resolution has set a number of $873 billion, which I 
think is a very responsible number, which the President sent up in his 
budget, and the number the House had in their budget. It wasn't the 
number that left the Senate when we passed our budget. One of the 
Senators who spoke before me from the other side was upset that the 
number that passed the Senate was not included in the deeming 
resolution, which is a fairly ironic position for anybody to take since 
they voted against the budget as it left the Senate.
  In any event, the deeming resolution as it is in this budget is the 
number that was agreed to between the Republican leadership of the 
Senate and the House, and it was the number that the President felt was 
appropriate. It will be a difficult number to obtain, there is no 
question. It represents significant fiscal restraint. It is a clear 
marker that we are going to try to restrain the rate of growth of the 
discretionary side of the budget, which is critical to putting in place 
fiscal responsibility.
  I think it is important for people to know that, yes, we presently 
have a very large deficit. But this deficit is coming down rather 
precipitously from where it was projected to be 6 months ago. It was 
projected that we would have a deficit of well over $400 billion. We 
are projecting this year that it will be in the $300 billion range. 
That is a very positive move in the right direction. Part of that move 
is a function of the fact that we have started to control the rate of 
growth of the Federal Government, independent of our needs relative to 
fighting the war on terrorism and Katrina, which are events that we 
need to simply spend money on because of the catastrophe of Katrina and 
because of the need to have our troops in the field and have what they 
need to be adequately supported.
  Another reason the budget deficit has come down so much in the last 
few months is because our revenues are coming in as a result of the 
President putting into place, and the Republican Congress supporting 
the effort, economic policies which energized the economy 
dramatically--putting in place a tax policy that is fair to 
entrepreneurs and risk-takers in this country. We have seen people who 
are willing to go out and take risk, taking action that creates taxable 
events. Specifically, they have created new companies, created new 
economic activity and new jobs.
  As a result of those things, revenues are jumping dramatically. We 
have seen the largest revenue increase in the last 40 years, I believe, 
in this last year; and the year before that, we saw a historic revenue 
increase. The Federal Government is back to essentially where they 
were, in a historical context, over the last 20 years as a percent of 
gross national product. Those revenues had dropped precipitously over 
the last 3 years because of the breaking or bursting of the Internet 
bubble and the attack of 9/11, which caused a recession.
  So we are seeing the economy come back. We are seeing 5.3 percent 
growth, which is extraordinary. We are seeing a job situation where we 
have virtually full employment. According to the economists, when you 
get down to an unemployment level below 5 percent, you are basically 
talking about full employment. We have seen this as a result of this 
expansion of the economy that has now been going on for 39 straight 
months, or something like that. We have seen a huge jump in revenues, 
and the effective result of that is that the deficit is coming down 
also. In fact, if you were to take out the cost of fighting the war 
against terrorism and the cost of paying for the Katrina tragedy, we 
would essentially be functioning on what would be statistically 
considered to be almost a balanced budget.
  We would be at a historic low relative to the deficit as a percentage 
of the gross national product over the last 20 years. So we are moving 
in the right direction. By putting in place this deeming resolution 
873, we are asserting we are going to be aggressive to try to control 
the rate of growth on the discretionary side. That is all positive and 
good, and it largely comes about because we have very strong leadership 
on the Appropriations Committee through Chairman Cochran and his 
commitment to fiscal discipline.
  Another issue I wish to talk about and put the issue in the correct 
context so people understand what is actually happening is the issue of 
border security because there has been a lot of confusion as to how 
much money we are spending on border security, where we are spending 
it, and what it is being spent on.
  I have the good fortune of chairing the Homeland Security 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. As chairman of that 
subcommittee, I suggested we put in the supplemental as an emergency 
item--not as an emergency item, we paid for it--$1.9 billion, the 
purpose of which would be to pay for capital items which were in dire 
need by Customs, the Border Patrol, and the Coast Guard. These are 
items such as airplanes--Customs is flying 20 or so P-3s, and they were 
all grounded a month ago because they are 40 years over their useful 
life and they have serious structural issues that have to be checked 
all the time or they have the potential of serious structural issues--
new helicopters because the helicopters are 20 years past their useful 
life; new cars to be used on the border because the Border Patrol goes 
through cars rather rapidly because of the harshness of the terrain in 
which they have to use them; sensors; and unmanned vehicles. With the 
Coast Guard, it is fast boats to be used to make sure our shorelines 
are protected from people coming across who shouldn't be coming across 
and maybe want to do us harm.
  These are all capital items. The reason I suggested we do capital 
items is because I didn't want to create an outyear cost which we 
couldn't afford to pay for under the present budget system, but I did 
want to take off the table items I knew we were going to spend money on 
if we were going to have an effective Border Patrol, to have an 
effective Customs agency, and to have an effective Coast Guard.
  The White House looked at that number and said they really didn't 
want to do that. Instead, they shifted over and said: Let's do 
operational items, and they decided to take, of that $1.9 billion, 
about $800 million and spend it putting the National Guard on the 
border, and the balance of the money they basically used to project the 
hiring of new people and the addition of beds for detention, both of 
which I support, but both of which create certain issues, and that is 
what I want to talk about briefly--the issues created by the 
supplemental and what will occur in the followup appropriations bills 
of Homeland Security so everybody knows the playing field that is being 
defined.
  The practical effect of this supplemental is, yes, there will be 
money in place to hire an additional 1,000 agents. We already had money 
in the pipeline to hire an additional 1,500 agents this year. It takes 
about 40,000 applications before you can get 1,000 agents. It is not 
easy to hire them. Then you have to train them, and you have to have a 
physical facility to train them, which we have in New Mexico. But that 
facility doesn't have the capacity to train 2,500 agents a year; maybe 
2,000 but not 2,500. It is unlikely we can hire an additional 1,000 
agents before the end of this fiscal year--maybe 300 or 400, maybe even 
500. But I will agree that by putting the money in now, we accelerate 
what we planned to do next year, which is to hire another 2,000 agents. 
So we are accelerating that event, if that is the goal.

[[Page 10906]]

  Secondly, the proposal basically prefunds bedspace which should be 
funded and creates an outyear cost as a result of that and does a 
series of other operational things and actually some capital items with 
which I totally agree, such as technology investment and unmanned 
vehicle investment.
  But the practical effect of doing it this way is we create what is 
known as a budget tail or an expense in the outyear which we are going 
to have to pick up, and that is the point I wanted to make today in as 
factual a way as I can because it is a very big issue we are going to 
have to deal with as a Congress, and that is this: The President sent 
up a budget proposal for next year, 2007, which was essentially $32 
billion, rounded up. That request had an assumption of 1,500 new 
agents, 1,500 new agents we put in this year would be paid for, and 
then an additional assumption of another 1,500 agents, I believe, on 
top of that for next year.
  It also had in it a request that part of the money, the $32 billion, 
be paid for by raising the airline fee which people pay as a tax when 
they get on an airplane basically to fund the increase in the border 
security activity, primarily with the Border Patrol agent expansion, of 
$1.2 billion. That proposal of $1.2 billion had been sent up 2 years 
ago, and it was rejected out of hand. Why? Because the chairman of the 
authorizing committee, in what I think is a fairly legitimate view of 
the issue, said: You shouldn't be raising the tax of people getting on 
airplanes for the purpose of protecting the borders. The airplane tax 
should go to TSA and FAA and things which are used to make air 
transportation safer, but it shouldn't tax the airline transportation 
industry, specifically the passengers, to fund border activity.
  When it was sent up again this year, it was basically dead on 
arrival, which the administration knew it would be. It wasn't a 
surprise because they had gone through this before. Actually, what they 
sent up was a request for about $32 billion in spending but funding for 
about $30.8 billion in spending, which means there was a $1.2 billion 
gap. That will be difficult to fill in, in and of itself, were that the 
only problem. But in order to fill that, basically Senator Cochran, as 
chairman of the full committee, is going to have to take it from some 
other committee to give it to my Homeland Security Subcommittee to pick 
up that $1.2 billion, if he is generous to do that or believes it is 
the right policy. He will have to take it from somebody else. I assure 
you, whomever he takes it from is not going to be all that appreciative 
of having lost $1.2 billion.
  That would be a major hurdle to begin with. Now throw on top of that 
$1.2 billion shortfall the fact that in this bill, they have forward-
funded 1,000 agents plus a lot of other operational expenses, and they 
have not funded the Coast Guard costs of what is called their fast boat 
or the expansion of their coastal protection efforts. They have taken 
the $600 million we intended to use to do that and spent it on the 
National Guard. And we have created approximately--the number 
fluctuates on what one deems to be capital and doesn't deem to be 
capital. My guess is we are somewhere in the range of $1.4 billion in 
operational expenditures which are now put in the pipeline which are 
not funded for the year 2007.
  In addition, the administration tells us--and I would agree with this 
if we could do it--in the 2008 budget, they are going to ask for 3,500 
new agents so that we can ramp up as quickly as possible to the 
ultimate goal, which is 20,000 agents. It is possible by the 2008 
period that we will have the training facilities at a position where we 
can hire 3,500 agents. It is also possible that we could get 100,000 
applications or 120,000 applications or so, whatever it would take to 
get 3,500 people. So that is a possibility. But the implications of 
that are significant in the form of cost.
  What does this put at risk? All these costs have been put in the 
pipeline in a manner which is basically upfronting operational costs 
but not taking off the table capital needs. The practical implications 
of the $1.2 billion, if it is not found by Senator Cochran--and I am 
not asking him to. I think if the administration is going to take this 
position, if they are going to make their bed, they ought to be asked 
to sleep in it.
  If Senator Cochran cannot find that $1.2 billion, the practical 
effect is we could not maintain the funding for the 1,000 agents that 
have just been put in the supplemental. We also could not add the new 
1,500 agents we would need in order to fund what we expected to do in 
the 2007 bill. We would have to reduce technology and science and 
sensor technology by about $100 million. We would have to limit 
infrastructure construction, especially fence construction, by about 
$100 million. We would have to reduce detention expansion capability by 
about 6,700 beds.
  We would have to reduce fugitive operations, where we try to find 
these people and get them out of the country, by about $60 million. We 
would be unable to forward-fund the effort to get the IDENT and the 
EFIS systems to communicate with each other for the purpose of a U.S. 
visit, which is absolutely critical. That is where you come across the 
border, and they fingerprint you. They take two fingerprints of you. By 
taking 2 fingerprints of you, they can't communicate with the FBI 
database which has all the criminals in it because that database 
requires 10 fingerprints. So essentially we are limiting our capacity 
to figure out who is coming across the border as it relates to the FBI 
database. There is a protocol where they try to get the worst people 
and make it work, but the fact is, we have tens of thousands of 
fingerprints that are not able to be adequately vetted. That would have 
to be put off. The need to come up with a card with biotics attached to 
it so we could have a tamperproof identification system would probably 
have to be put off because we couldn't pay for that. That is a big one.
  These items would have to be put off, plus the Coast Guard--and this 
really frustrates me--the Coast Guard, in order to build out the fleet 
they need--and they are functioning under old boats, a lot of old 
boats, and they have helicopters which are not properly structured, 
many of them, most of them, the vast majority of them are not armed--
build out program to get things right and get positioned correctly to 
protect our coastline, instead of being completed in 2015, which was 
our goal under our supplemental request, will end up being completed in 
2023 or 2024 and cost more money to do it because of the spread out.
  So we are facing a lot of very serious issues as to what we will be 
able to fund and how much we will be able to fund under the present 
game plan or blueprint as it is set out for this year and next year as 
a result of this supplemental.
  I thought it was important to come down to the Chamber and try to lay 
out the specifics because at some point, we are going to have to face 
up to the reality that there is a disconnect between what is being 
proposed and what is being paid for. This is not going to work.
  Mr. President, as chairman of the Budget Committee, I regularly 
comment on Appropriations bills that are brought to the Senate for 
consideration and present the fiscal comparisons and budgetary data. 
Because of its importance, I will also follow that practice for the 
pending conference report.
  The conference report to accompany the Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, H.R. 4939, provides $94.430 
billion in budget authority and $24.327 billion in outlays in fiscal 
year 2006 for contingency operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the 
global war on terrorism; relief from Hurricane Katrina; other emergency 
assistance; border security; and avian flu. Of these totals, there are 
no mandatory funds included. $143 million in outlays in the conference 
report are not designated emergency; these outlays will count against 
the discretionary allocation for regular appropriations for fiscal year 
2006.
  The budget authority in the conference report is within the level of 
the President's request of February 16, 2006, when adjusted for avian 
flu. It is

[[Page 10907]]

also $14.468 billion less than the Senate-passed bill, which clearly 
demonstrates significant progress in conference with respect to 
conforming the measure to the initial request.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the 
Budget Committee's estimate of the bill be inserted in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 H.R. 4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the 
           Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006

                     [Fiscal year 2006, $ millions]

President's request:\1\
  Budget authority...............................................92,221
  Outlays........................................................23,626

        Conference report:                              General purpose
Total spending:
  Budget authority...............................................94,430
  Outlays........................................................24,327
  Emergency:
    Budget authority.............................................94,541
    Outlays......................................................24,184
  Non-emergency:
    Budget authority...............................................-111
    Outlays.........................................................143

Remaining 302(a) allocation prior to enactment of supplemental:
  Budget authority................................................9,279
  Outlays.........................................................4,365

     \1\The President's 2007 budget request included $2.3 billion 
     for avian flu; for comparison purposes the President's 
     supplemental request adjusted for avian flu totals $94.521 
     billion in budget authority.
     Note.--Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals 
     adjusted for consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the issues that have just been discussed 
by my colleague, and others as well, about fiscal discipline are very 
important issues. I would make the point that I don't think one can 
find fiscal discipline around here with a high-powered telescope. There 
is no fiscal discipline around here, unfortunately. In fact, the very 
bill we are debating at this point is appropriating something over $90 
billion, none of it paid for--none of it.
  Emergency funding for defense, emergency funding for Hurricane 
Katrina. We have done emergency funding for defense previously. We have 
done it again, we have done it again, we have done it again. We are now 
over the hundreds of billions of dollars, all in emergency funding, and 
we are pretending somehow we have some discipline. It is imperative for 
this Congress to begin thinking about what this means for our kids and 
grandkids.
  The conference report before us is a conference report that falls 
short on this very specific area about which I am concerned. Let me 
mention another area first.
  One of the things this bill does is fund a great deal of money for 
the Defense Department for money that has been consumed in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in prosecuting the war. It replenishes military accounts, 
and we are going to do that, we understand that. We have a 
responsibility. We cannot send American troops abroad and decide we are 
not going to fund that which they need to do their jobs. We understand 
that. It would be smarter if we paid for it all, by the way. It would 
make a great deal of sense if we decided to pay for this rather than 
charge it to the kids and grandkids. But here we are, once again.
  One amendment that was stuck in the bill when it left the Senate was 
very simple. It was the determination of the Senate that we were not 
going to have permanent military bases in the country of Iraq, that we 
were not going to have permanent military basing in Iraq. The Senate 
agreed with that. My expectation is that we are in Iraq because we want 
to provide freedom for the Iraqi people, we want to deal with the 
insurgency, and at some point bring our troops home.
  Saddam Hussein was found in a rat hole. He is now on trial. Perhaps 
he will be executed. The Iraqi people are rid of Saddam Hussein, who 
committed mayhem and murder on a grand scale. There are unbelievable 
numbers of skeletons of people who were murdered by Saddam Hussein who 
turned up in mass graves. So we are there. And we want the American 
troops to finish their mission and to be able to come home.
  But the Senate had previously decided on this bill that we wanted not 
to have long-term military basing in Iraq. One of the reasons for that 
decision I think is the administration asked originally for $1.1 
billion to build a U.S. embassy in Iraq, which would be the largest 
embassy in the world: 1,200 employees and $1.1 billion. So I regret 
that the provision dealing with a decision that we were not going to 
have a permanent military presence, military basing in Iraq was taken 
out in conference. That was a bipartisan decision by the Senate to put 
it in, and I regret it was taken out. Nonetheless, it was.
  Let me describe just for a moment my concern about another 
significant part of this bill. I am happy to be supportive of the 
efforts to help the people in the gulf region who were devastated by 
the worst natural disaster to ever hit this country. When Hurricane 
Katrina hit, people were displaced and people were killed, and it was 
devastating to be there, and devastating to watch, for that matter. I 
think this Congress very quickly said to those people in the gulf 
region, You are not alone and we want to help you. I come willingly and 
in an interested way to be a part of the people who say we want to help 
you.
  But this piece of legislation that is now before us with respect to 
family farming--and that is what I want to talk about specifically--
says something very unusual and very unfair. It says those farmers in 
the Gulf of Mexico who lost their crops due to a hurricane called 
Katrina are going to get some help. They are going to get some disaster 
relief. All the other farmers across this country who lost their crops: 
Sorry, you are out of luck.
  The U.S. Senate included a provision that I authored in the 
Appropriations Committee that provided $3.9 billion in disaster 
assistance for all farmers in this country who lost their crops due to 
a disaster. Let me just describe what happened around this country last 
year.
  Last year around this country we had a whole series of things happen. 
We had serious drought, the third worst year for drought purposes in 
Illinois since 1895. We had the third driest year in well over a 
century. In Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas: The worst drought since 
the 1980s. Oklahoma wildfires destroyed--burned--one out of every 100 
acres. In North Dakota, this is an example of what the fields looked 
like. We had 1 million acres that could never be planted. It was never 
planted. One million acres was planted and washed away. We had farmers 
who had just dramatic amounts of rainfall. We had one farmer who 
received one-third of all of the yearly rainfall in one day; just 
washed everything away. This farmer lost everything.
  Once again the U.S. Senate said: We are going to provide disaster 
help to farmers who lost their crops. It doesn't matter where they are. 
In the Gulf of Mexico? Yes. To a hurricane? Yes. But then when we got 
to conference, the President prevailed. The President said, I will veto 
this bill if it has disaster relief in it, and the Speaker of the House 
and the folks who march to that tune in the conference said: No, you 
can't have disaster relief; we will only allow disaster relief for gulf 
farmers who lost their crops.
  So that is the way it came out of the conference. The folks who were 
burned out, the folks who dried out, the folks who were flooded, those 
farmers were left behind, once again. And it starts at the doorstep of 
the White House.
  It was this President who came to North Dakota some long while ago 
and said to farmers: When you need me, I will be there. I will be there 
for you. Well, we needed him. He is the one who said, I will veto the 
legislation if you provide disaster relief for farmers. So he was 
successful. They stripped the Senate provision out of the bill. When it 
came out of the Senate, it was a bipartisan provision. It was supported 
by the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was 
supported by the Senate conferees upon a motion of mine, once again, in 
the conference. I sat downstairs in this building at 1 o'clock in the 
morning. We fought for

[[Page 10908]]

five hours to try to put this in conference, to keep the Senate 
provision in conference, and we lost.
  Someone once said that common sense is genius dressed in work 
clothes. The question of common sense here is this: Why should we have 
a circumstance that we are going to legislate now with this conference 
report that says if you are a farmer in one part of the country and 
lost everything, you get a little help. If you are a farmer in the rest 
of the country, Sorry, Charlie, it is over; no help for you.
  Rodney Nelson, who is a cowboy poet in North Dakota, wrote an op-ed 
piece once in the North Dakota papers, and he asked a question about 
farming. There aren't many people here who are farmers. We come wearing 
suits. We have nice, shined shoes. We do our work in white shirts. 
Nobody here is in farming. But the people out there living on the land, 
raising livestock, planting a seed, hoping they will grow a crop, 
hoping they will be able to harvest and go to the grain elevator, and 
perhaps make some money, and be able to carry over for spring planting 
the next year, those are America's heroes. Those family farmers 
struggle.
  Rodney Nelson asked this question: What is it worth to a country to 
have a kid that knows how to plant a crop? What is it worth to a 
country to have a kid that knows how to fix machinery, how to hang a 
door, how to weld a seam, how to grease a combine, how to butcher a 
hog? What is it worth to a country to have a kid know how to feed a 
newborn calf out of a pail? What is it worth to a country to have kids 
that know all of these things? What is it worth to a country to have a 
kid know how to go out and work in bitter cold winters or hot summer 
sun? What is that worth to a country?
  The only university that teaches all of those things is American 
family farming. It is out under the yard light on the family farm 
someplace. That is where they teach these courses. Carpentry, welding, 
mechanics, and horticulture, all of these things you learn on the 
family farms--agriculture, livestock.
  Once again, the farmers who have had these fields and ended up having 
no crop, some of whom are now out of business, they will lose those 
farms because they can't go a year without income. The bank doesn't 
say, We are sorry about that. I will tell you what. We won't need our 
money from you. You just don't need to pay us.
  Some of these farmers will have been gone by now. But we were trying 
to say to them, You are not alone. We know you got hit really hard with 
torrential rain in North Dakota and drought in Missouri and Illinois. 
That is what the Senate was saying. The Republicans and Democrats here 
said that. And then we got to conference and the President and the 
House conferees led by the Speaker said: No way; we don't intend to do 
that.
  We are not asking for the moon. This was just a little bit spilling 
from the barrel. We have talked about all of this money, billions and 
tens of billions and now hundreds of billions of dollars, all of which 
have gone through an Appropriations Committee, none of which has been 
paid for to deal with wars and all of these issues. I understand why we 
have to do this. What I don't understand is why we are not willing to 
do what we should do as a Nation to farmers last year who got hit with 
natural disasters and who lost everything.
  I don't come to the floor to say that the people in the gulf 
shouldn't be helped. Of course they should. I don't come to the floor 
to say farmers who lost their crops in the gulf shouldn't be helped. Of 
course they should. I am the first to support them. But I do come to 
the floor of the Senate to say it is fundamentally unfair to decide 
there are a couple of classes of farmers who lost everything, and the 
first is a class that lost it to a natural event, a weather event that 
has a named called a hurricane.
  My colleague, Senator Durbin, suggested maybe our problem was that--
since we had a weather event in June of last year that provided one-
third annual rainfall in 24 hours and washed every seed out of the 
ground--maybe our problem was we didn't name it. They name hurricanes. 
They didn't name that torrential rain. Maybe if they had named it, then 
we would have a circumstance where the President and others would say, 
Let's treat everybody the same. If you got hurt, if you lost 
everything, we are here to help. That should have been the refrain from 
this Congress and should have been the refrain from the White House. 
Regrettably, it wasn't.
  So, after working for months, after beginning in the Senate 
Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis, with the chairman of 
the committee and others, Senator Burns from Montana and many others, 
after doing that, after coming from the floor of the Senate and 
defending it, getting it through the Senate and going to conference, we 
got stiffed. When I say ``we,'' I am talking about people who lost 
everything out there that fully expected this Congress to do the right 
thing.
  Regrettably, this conference report, while it does the right thing in 
some areas, in my judgment shortchanges a lot of farm families who had 
high hopes that this Congress would do the right thing for them.
  So we will live to fight another day for fairness, but this 
conference report with respect to the way it treats family farmers who 
suffered disasters last year certainly cannot be linked under the 
category of fairness, in my judgment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The Senator from Louisiana is 
recognized.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand in strong support of this 
supplemental appropriations bill. There are many, many very important 
reasons to support it, and certainly one is because of the essential 
support it gives all of our Armed Forces around the world, particularly 
with regard to the crucial fight in Iraq. That is an essential reason 
to support it. Certainly the important money it puts toward border 
security, and we must do so much more with regard to border security.
  I stand first and foremost and primarily with a focus on the crucial 
challenge of hurricane recovery all along the gulf coast, including in 
my home State of Louisiana. I strongly and proudly support this bill 
because it is an enormous help, an enormous commitment at the Federal 
level of keeping true to President Bush's Jackson Square pledge to make 
sure we have a full and robust recovery on the gulf coast.
  This hurricane experience has been surreal for so many, literally 
millions who lived through it, including me. And it hasn't just been 
Hurricane Katrina which, of course, devastated southeast Louisiana as 
well as Mississippi and parts of Alabama. It has been Hurricane Rita, 
too, which damaged, devastated south Acadiana and southwest Louisiana 
just a few weeks after Hurricane Katrina.
  It has been quite an experience in terms of introducing me to my work 
in the Senate. I will never forget so many of the experiences I lived 
through and saw firsthand, obviously Hurricane Katrina hitting on 
August 29 and seeing the aftermath of that, the unbelievable 
devastation, particularly because of the levee breaches in the New 
Orleans area. After living there on the ground, working on those issues 
day in and day out, I finally returned to the Senate on September 13 
and stood here on the floor and tried to communicate exactly what I 
saw, but it was difficult because, again, so many of those images were 
just so surreal, so outside the realm of anything I had experienced 
before.
  Then, just a few weeks later, September 24, it was almost 
unbelievable, but it happened. We were socked by a second devastating 
Hurricane Rita that went into the Texas-Louisiana border area, but 
really affected the entire Louisiana coast because it came in at an 
angle from the southeast to the northwest, in that direction, pushing 
flood waters all up and down, east and west of the Louisiana coast, but 
of course particularly devastating southwest Louisiana and south 
Acadiana.
  I remember in that entire period thinking many times, and I will be 
happy to admit this, none too proudly,

[[Page 10909]]

that this was heavy, heavy lifting in terms of my new job in the U.S. 
Senate. I remember on more than one occasion e-mailing my wife Wendy 
that this just seemed so tough a haul in terms of what we needed to do, 
including through Federal legislation, particularly as it was hitting 
when understandable concerns about spending at the Federal level were 
at an all-time high. I noted in several of those e-mails that it just 
seemed like a very, very tough haul.
  After months and months of work and joining with so many others in 
the gulf coast and outside the gulf coast and all around the country, I 
am so delighted that we are really getting that job done in terms of 
this Federal support. What seemed like such an uphill battle so many 
months ago is finally coming together, in terms of very aggressive, 
very robust Federal help.
  Let me make clear, that is not primarily because of my effort. That 
is not primarily because of the effort of the rest of the Louisiana 
delegation--which has been completely united and which has worked very 
hard, yes--but that is primarily because of the leadership of others 
and their efforts. So I primarily come to the floor today to say thank 
you to those leaders.
  Of course, we have to start with President Bush, the President of the 
United States. On September 15 he stood in Jackson Square and addressed 
the Nation. I was there personally. I will never forget that moment. It 
was surreal, in some ways, because the entirety of the French Quarter 
was dark, uninhabited, but there we were in Jackson Square and the 
President was speaking to the Nation, making a firm commitment that New 
Orleans and Louisiana and the gulf coast wouldn't just come back but 
would be rebuilt smarter, better, stronger than ever.
  This legislation keeps that pledge. It makes good on that promise, 
and it only is happening because of the President's strong leadership 
in this regard. So in all my thanks--and we have many people to thank--
I want to start first and foremost with President Bush. He stated it 
unequivocally, boldly, strongly on September 15 in Jackson Square, and 
he has made good on that pledge and that promise. This legislation 
helps do exactly that.
  I also want to specifically thank all my fellow Senators, 
particularly leaders in this regard such as Senator Cochran, the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In the months following the 
tragedies of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, some of the most 
important work I participated in was getting fellow Senators, fellow 
Members of Congress, down to the devastated regions, allowing them to 
see the scope of the devastation firsthand. So many came and so many 
responded in terms of really getting it, really understanding exactly 
the unprecedented scope of this devastation. So I thank all my 
colleagues who did that, all my colleagues who joined together in this 
enormously important boost for the gulf coast and for Louisiana.
  Again, there are very many folks who worked hard on it, but none 
harder than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Cochran, himself, of course, from a devastated State. So I deeply and 
sincerely thank all those fellow Members of the Senate.
  What is it that we have accomplished? It really is a lot from the 
Federal level: passing the funding, the support, the help we need on 
the gulf coast for our full recovery. I am proud and happy to say in 
all of this the Senate has led the way through the leadership of 
Senator Cochran and others, in terms of passing the levels of support 
we need. The Senate led the way, the Senate bill led the way in the 
conference committee.
  Several categories are enormously important. First, in this bill $4.2 
billion for Louisiana of community development block grant funding. 
That is enormously important. It will complete a $12 billion package 
for Louisiana primarily dedicated to homeowners, many of whom lost 
everything, and to housing needs. That is crucial in terms of 
revitalizing and rebuilding our community for the better.
  Another absolutely crucial issue as a threshold concept is rebuilding 
the levees far better than before to give everyone in the region peace 
of mind that we will have adequate protection in the future. Again, in 
this bill, $3.7 billion will go to the Corps of Engineers for their 
ongoing emergency levee repairs and reconstruction. Just as important 
is crucial authorization language that is necessary to allow them to 
get that work done immediately. Again, a crucial threshold issue. 
Nothing will happen in terms of a robust recovery in the New Orleans 
area without knowing that we will have the levees we need to give 
individuals, families, businesses real security in the future.
  Other important categories--$500 million for agricultural relief, 
focused on the gulf coast region where the devastation from Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita happened. Again, I acknowledge Chairman Cochran, who 
kept that package in the bill--slimmed down, yes, but vitally important 
nonetheless--and preserved it in the conference committee negotiations. 
That was enormously important.
  Similarly, fisheries, $118 million for fisheries that were decimated 
all along the gulf coast, particularly in Louisiana and Mississippi, is 
another crucial component in the bill.
  This is so important and is vital particularly when coupled with our 
earlier legislation, a big bill in December where we passed billions in 
December also in CDBG funds, in levee money, in health care--Medicare 
and Medicaid--in education, passing money that followed the evacuee 
child wherever that child went so we can pay for those extraordinary 
needs, and in higher education, in extraordinary help for local 
government where the tax base was decimated for the foreseeable future, 
jurisdictions such as Saint Bernard's, the sheriff's office, local 
government, the city of New Orleans, and others.
  Also, crucial legislation in December on the tax side of the 
equation--GO Zone legislation--to provide powerful incentives for 
businesses, families, and individuals to come back and rebuild and 
bring the jobs with them to revitalize our economy because that is at 
the core of our recovery as well.
  I say thank you to the President of the United States, to all of my 
Senate colleagues, to all who worked on this crucially important 
legislation. I say it with every piece of sincerity and heartfeltness 
in my body because this has just been a matter of survival, of life and 
death for all of us in Louisiana.
  The most important way I can say thank you is in continuing to work 
with folks on the ground in Louisiana to assure all of you, to assure 
the President of the United States, to assure the American people, that 
this money gets spent right on the ground; that it is not just thrown 
at a problem but actually helps fund positive change and reform on the 
ground in Louisiana because that is exactly the leadership we need to 
move in the direction we need to take.
  As we turn our attention to how that money is spent on the ground, I 
assure you I will be an active participant in that work, an active 
player in that debate. I will continue to use all of my leadership 
skills, everything I can muster, to make sure, again, that this 
enormous Federal support that everyone here--the President and others--
has made possible goes to fund positive change and reform on the ground 
in Louisiana. We certainly need it in a whole host of categories: 
political reform, levee board reform, health care restructuring, 
educational improvement through charter schools, and the like, and on 
and on.
  That is my pledge to my colleagues. That is, perhaps, the best way I 
can continue to say thank you for this vitally important help that will 
mean New Orleans, LA, including southwest Louisiana, decimated so hard 
by Rita, the entire gulf coast comes back--but also comes back better, 
stronger than ever.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to try to bring 
a sense of urgency to the Senate about getting this conference report 
finally approved. The House has approved it. The conference report has 
been duly

[[Page 10910]]

approved by a majority of the Appropriations Committee. The 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Thad 
Cochran, is here now. I, as chairman of the Defense Subcommittee, want 
to point out that this supplemental was received by the Senate on 
February 17, and it is now June 13.
  The Army has notified us of the need, and we have approved 
reprogramming of $1.4 billion to carry the Army through June. The 
difficulty is that we are now informed, despite the circumstances of 
the reprogramming, the Army, at the end of June, will have only $300 
million left in its O&M account. The O&M account is the money to pay 
bills for any of the departments, and I think as we look at this, 
Members of the Senate should realize all over the country there are 
actions being taken now to the detriment of many of our bases, our 
ports, and various installations even here at home, here in the United 
States.
  But the main thing is that the Chief of Staff of the Army, GEN Peter 
Schoomaker, has asked Chairman Cochran, on May 17, to do his best to 
accelerate the approval of this bill because almost half of the money 
that is in this supplemental appropriations bill is for the Army. I 
don't think there are many Senators who realize that every time there 
is a reprogramming it involves a real change in the overall structure 
of the Army. They must take money from various accounts and reprogram 
it into the operation and maintenance account in order to meet current 
bills--not only current bills here at home but in the war zone.
  Very clearly, the impact of this is being felt, as I said, all over 
the country. For instance, I received notice from Fort Greely, in 
Alaska--that is the national missile defense base--that there have been 
a series of layoffs now at that small fort due to the program that the 
Army has had to undertake. I have before me the instructions that were 
given by GEN Dick Cody, the Vice Chief of Staff. He gave it to all 
general officers on May 26; that is, he has given instructions--really 
a command to the Army--to reduce spending while ensuring that life, 
health, and safety issues are covered. The priority is to continue 
critical support to ongoing operations and readiness activities for 
units and personnel identified--and that meant with regard to rotation 
concepts. But with the exception of those concepts, General Cody has 
commanded that the bases--and this was beginning May 26--not order 
noncritical spare parts or supplies.
  He advised the Army Materiel Command to reduce the purchases and to 
postpone and cancel all nonessential travel and training conferences 
and to stop the shipments of goods unless necessary to support deployed 
forces and units with identified deployment dates.
  What I am trying to tell the Senate is that right now, beginning on 
June 15, here are the orders starting 2 days from now: Release all 
temporary civilian employees funded with O&M accounts or performing O&M 
fund work. That includes depot operations. Freeze all contract awards 
and new task orders on existing contracts. Process solicitation of new 
contracts only up to the point of award. Suspend the use of all 
Government purchase cards. And if this bill is not approved by June 26, 
beginning June 26 release service-contracted employees to include 
recruiters, if doing so will not carry penalties and termination costs.
  General Cody has advised there may be other painful actions necessary 
if they don't get these funds.
  I think this is a critical situation right now. The impact of not 
getting these funds now really causes duplicate actions. They not only 
have to seek reprogramming for transfer of the funds from other 
accounts to O&M, but then when they get these funds they will have to 
have authority to reprogram the funds from this account back into the 
accounts from which they are taken. This really causes enormous 
manpower problems in the Department of the Army handling situations 
like this.
  I have come to plead with the Senate, let's settle the disputes on 
this bill. The bill is final now, in terms of the conference report. It 
is not subject to amendment. I can tell every Member of the Senate, the 
longer this bill is delayed the more people are going to be laid off in 
every State of the Union. It doesn't make any sense at all to delay 
getting this bill to the President. It is ready, it is overdue, and it 
is time we realized there are substantial costs to the military, when 
we know they have a crisis that requires supplemental appropriations, 
not to get the bill approved and to the President as soon as possible.
  I plead with the leadership, I plead with both sides, let's approve 
this conference report and get it to the President tomorrow. In doing 
so, it will prevent that list of items I just mentioned that will occur 
starting June 15 because I am assured the President will sign the bill 
as quickly as possible after Congress has approved it and the Senate 
will take final action on this bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska for his comments. He is insightful. He is experienced. He 
understands the implications that would flow from the failure of the 
Senate to act promptly in approving this conference report. He is 
chairman of the Defense appropriations subcommittee. He has previously 
served as chairman of the full committee. He has had a wide range of 
experience in the military service himself during World War II. I think 
we should listen to him and we should act in accordance with his 
suggestions and recommendations. I hope the Senate will not prolong 
this debate unnecessarily.
  Everybody has a right to be heard. Everybody has a right to express 
their views. But the opportunity is now. Let's finish talking about 
this bill this evening and let's vote on it the first thing in the 
morning--whenever it is the pleasure of the leader for us to do so. I 
commend him and thank him for his strong leadership.
  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. SALAZAR. 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. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to state that I will vote 
for the emergency supplemental conference report that is before us, and 
I will do so without hesitation. I expect that most of my colleagues 
will also join in that vote. We will vote in that way because we know 
our brave men and women in uniform are currently in harm's way. They 
are in harm's way, and they need the resources this bill provides for 
them to move forward.
  I also strongly support the hurricane relief and the reconstruction 
element of this conference report. Those funds are very much needed to 
address the urgent issues we are facing in the gulf coast and the 
reconstruction of that area from the disaster which was caused by 
Hurricane Katrina.
  I appreciate the leadership of Chairman Cochran and the rest of the 
delegation from the Gulf Coast States that has brought this matter to 
the urgent attention of the American Nation. But I also rise to express 
my disappointment in what is not in this conference report and to help 
give voice with my colleagues to the millions of farmers, ranchers, and 
rural communities where needs have not been met in this report.
  I am disappointed with the prevailing attitude in our Nation's 
Capital for the men and women who produce an abundant supply of the 
safest and highest quality food in the world. This bill is literally 
leaving them out to dry.
  Last year, a bipartisan group of Senators recognized the dire 
situation that was facing our Nation's farmers and ranchers. We 
introduced the Emergency Agricultural Disaster Assistance Act of 2006. 
That bill would provide $3.9 billion in emergency disaster assistance 
for farmers and ranchers who suffered losses due to natural disasters. 
This was an excellent piece of legislation which could have only been 
written by a consensus, hard work, and a

[[Page 10911]]

bipartisan approach. We are all extremely proud that the Senate 
included both provisions in the emergency supplemental but in part 
because it included this assistance for farmers and ranchers. And there 
was a Presidential veto that came on the bill we passed out of the 
Senate. Because these provisions were stripped from the supplemental 
bill, our rural communities will suffer an unnecessary wrong.
  I stand with the farmers and ranchers of rural America today because 
I recognize that this problem we face today in rural America will not 
go away. It will not simply disappear when the Senate stands adjourned 
until the final vote on this emergency supplemental.
  As I travel across Colorado, I hear from farmers and ranchers who 
have been consistently hit by disaster emergency after disaster 
emergency. With the rising cost of fuel and other interest costs, this 
problem can and will only get worse.
  The 2005 winter wheat crop in Colorado was the fifth below-average 
crop in 6 years, with potential losses for producers of $50 million in 
my State alone in 2005. Corn producers are reporting that their crops 
will be 20 percent below average. Sugar beet growers in my State of 
Colorado will see a decline of almost 50 percent. Farm fuel has 
increased 79 percent from where it was in September of 2004. It cost 
$2.60 a gallon in September 2005. It was $1.40 in December 2004, and we 
expect it will probably be higher this September of 2006. One of my 
constituents, a farmer in Kit Carson County, a very rural and very 
remote place in the eastern plains of Colorado, estimated that he will 
need an additional $46,000 to cover the increased cost of fuel alone 
this year.
  I have often heard here on this Senate floor that rural America is 
``the forgotten America.'' I very much agree with that characterization 
of rural America. The conference committee, faced with the looming 
threat of a Presidential veto and pushed by House leadership which is 
out of touch with rural constituencies, abandoned this opportunity for 
a renewed commitment to rural America.
  I will join with my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, in 
making sure we do not abandon rural America. I will continue to stand 
with the hard-working folks of rural America and with my colleagues who 
understand the hardships that are faced in more than 50 percent of the 
counties of our great State.
  The drought in my State of Colorado has not miraculously ended in 
2006. It continues. Flooding and other natural disasters are still 
affecting producers across the country. Therefore, my colleagues and I 
will be back, and again we will push for agricultural disaster 
assistance to ensure that our farmers and ranchers in rural communities 
have a real voice here in Washington, DC.
  I am also deeply disappointed that a small but very important 
amendment I authored--an amendment that was accepted by the Senate--was 
stripped in conference. That provision would have increased the funds 
available to deal with the wildfire season which is upon us right now 
and particularly to address the hazards presented by the massive 
infestation of beetles that has turned vast swaths of our forests into 
swaths of dry fuel for wildfires.
  There was never any doubt in my mind or in the minds of the people of 
the West that this was, in fact, an emergency situation we face. There 
was never any doubt that these resources were needed--and they are 
needed at this time.
  Try to imagine how painful it is for communities to brace themselves 
for the worst when they have approved mitigation plans that are simply 
sitting on the shelf just waiting for resources so they can be 
implemented and wood fuel can be safely removed. We had an opportunity 
to help ease this pain and to do it in this supplemental. Now that 
opportunity has passed us by.
  I was heartened when my Senate colleagues joined in support of the 
amendment, just as I am so disappointed that it is not finally included 
in the conference report before us. When across our State the fires 
start burning during this summer, I will again remind my colleagues 
that we had a chance to avert this disaster and to address this 
emergency we know exists, and again we were not able to do so. But on 
this point, too, I will not give up. I do not believe our Senate should 
give up. We should keep fighting to address the urgent threat and the 
underlying causes of the tremendously dangerous wildfire situation in 
which Colorado communities and communities across America find 
themselves. That truly is a disaster emergency we face.
  Finally, I regret that almost $650 million in funding for important 
port security programs included in the Senate-passed version was left 
out of this conference report. Those funds would have been used to pay 
for new imaging machines to allow inspectors to look inside cargo 
containers as they arrive in American ports, to add Customs inspectors 
at dozens of foreign ports, and to place more U.S. Coast Guard 
inspectors at foreign and domestic ports. These should be high 
priorities, especially given the bipartisan concern about foreign 
ownership of U.S. ports and the fact that port inspectors currently 
check less than 5 percent--that is less than 5 percent--of the more 
than 11 million containers that enter American ports every year. As a 
cosponsor of the Greenlane Maritime Cargo Act, a bipartisan bill to 
shore up our port security system, I regret the action that has been 
produced by this conference report, stripping it of the $650 million we 
included in the bill for port security.
  In conclusion, I will vote for the emergency supplemental because it 
is before the Senate and we must make sure we are reconstructing the 
gulf coast and supporting our men and women in uniform. However, the 
supplemental emergency conference report is flawed because it does not 
do what it should be doing for farmers and ranchers who have been 
dealing with disaster emergencies, and it does not take care of the 
looming fire emergency we will face across America over the summer 
months.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are happy to have an indication of 
support for the conference report from the distinguished Senator from 
Colorado.
  I, too, join him in regretting we could not do more for the 
agricultural producers who sustained setbacks all around the country 
because of unfortunate weather conditions and other problems earlier 
this year.
  We had, as the Senate remembers, an amendment in the markup of this 
bill in this Senate Committee on Appropriations adding about $4 billion 
for a wide range of needs in the agricultural sector. I regret, too, we 
were not able to sustain that provision in negotiations with the House 
counterparts on the Committee on Appropriations.
  We did have difficulty in expanding the provisions beyond the narrow 
request the President made for funding for the Departments of Defense 
and State to continue to wage a successful war against terror and to 
provide needed assistance in the gulf region for further recovery 
efforts and rebuilding efforts as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Those 
were the limitations.
  The President had threatened to veto the bill if it contained any 
more than had been requested by the administration for urgent 
supplemental funding. We were over the barrel, as they say. In 
negotiations with the House, this is the best we could do.
  The conference agreement is the result of a lot of hard work and 
compromise, as well, between the House and the Senate. The bill 
provides critically needed funding to our troops and helps continue the 
recovery as a result of the damages sustained in Hurricane Katrina. The 
funding level meets the requests of the administration. We will look at 
the other needs in agriculture and other areas in the regular fiscal 
year 2007 funding cycle.
  We are having hearings now throughout our Committee on Appropriations 
and the subcommittees that have jurisdiction over these different areas 
of responsibilities. I am assured we are going to do our best to 
continue to meet the needs of production agriculture around the 
country. It is a

[[Page 10912]]

vital industry. It is the most important industry in my State, surely. 
More people are involved in agriculture and in processing agricultural 
commodities than any other economic activity.
  I share the Senator's concerns and assure him we will work to 
identify the needs in his State and around the country as we go through 
the appropriations process during this next fiscal year. I thank the 
Senator for his comments.
  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 (Mr. Thune). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume consideration of the pending conference report on Wednesday 
immediately following morning business. I further ask consent that 
there be 25 minutes of debate controlled by the chairman and 75 minutes 
controlled by the ranking member. I further ask consent that following 
the use or yielding back of time, the conference report be set aside, 
and further that at 10 o'clock a.m. on Thursday, June 15, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on the adoption of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill, with no 
further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________