Safety Net Inpatient Drug Affordability Act

I object. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask to speak for as much time as I may consume. I understand there will be other amendments that may be offered. We are trying to debate and pass the Defense appropriations bill. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from Hawaii for their good work in trying to move this bill through because they have done an outstanding job.

I find myself in a very unusual position because, of course, I voted for cloture because I want to pass this bill. We absolutely have to pass a Defense appropriations bill. Unfortunately, we have had 48 soldiers from Louisiana die, many more wounded. Families are still mourning those losses and we have to figure out a way to get the job done over there, and get it done right and get our soldiers home.

We need to move on with this bill. As my colleagues know, at about 4:30 this morning this bill will pass under the cloture rules and we are going to go on. But I have decided to take some time until 4:30 this morning to talk about a war that is going on at home and that is a war we are fighting on the gulf coast to stay alive, to protect our way of life, to keep the American flag flying over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Yes.

Mr. President, I probably will not take all 94 minutes at this moment, but I will probably take that and even some more as we move through the evening trying to get some closure on a subject we have now been talking about, unfortunately, it seems, with no end in sight, or no resolution on the horizon to try to get some real money-- not photo ops, not promises, not press conferences, not visits, but some real money to some real people in Louisiana who need help, our cities that were devastated, our parishes that have been crippled, our law enforcement that has been set back on its heels. Three hospitals stayed open the entire time in the New Orleans metropolitan area to provide desperately needed emergency health care in a region of almost 1.5 million people. Heroically, they stayed up, and because they did, one of those hospitals cannot claim insurance because the only way they can claim it is if they closed down. They stayed open so they may lose their hospital if we do not try to get some money.

The reason I do not feel the least bit guilty standing here asking for it on this bill is because the underlying Defense bill--if the staff will bring me the final numbers of this bill--has a tremendous amount of money we are spending in Iraq for our defense and for the standing up of Iraq. While I have questions about some of the things we are doing, some of the things we have done, and how we are going to get ourselves back home after stabilizing it, I have to say when I went on the Web site today, it was hard to actually read. The people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are going to be quite surprised if they go on this U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Web site and pull up this gulf region division because they might think this is about the gulf region right here in the United States. But it is not. It is about the gulf region in Iraq.

In the underlying bill we are passing, and we need to pass, I am trying to get the administration--the leadership here to at least agree to take $1 billion of the FEMA money we have already allocated, $62 billion, and send to Louisiana to begin some construction projects and some standing up of some critical programs to keep cities, parishes, and law enforcement whole as we begin our rebuilding program from the largest natural disaster that ever occurred. That is all we are trying to do is give $1 billion to the cities and parishes so they can hold heart and soul together, so as we pass additional help, whether it comes from levee construction, or whether it comes from small business, or whether it comes from health care, the entities of the government, the parish presidents, the cities, the sheriffs, the police officers, and the fire departments are there to help us build a region.

I was surprised to see on the Web page that this is the goal we have in Iraq: to establish a government, provide security, enhance basic services to the Government of Iraq. It sounds like something we are trying to do in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--provide security, enhance basic services, and keep our cities, our police forces, our fire departments operating through the worst and largest natural disaster in the history of the United States.

We are getting ready to send billions of dollars to Iraq, finance billions of tax cuts for other people, finance billions for programs. We have already given $62 billion to FEMA that everyone says does not work, and I can personally testify to that, having been in the State now almost every day since this hurricane. We cannot seem to get an agreement to get $1 billion for the people of the gulf coast to keep their security open, their basic services operating, their electricity running, and their water turned on.

We have been working for weeks diligently on these 815 projects in Iraq for ports of entry, military facilities, police facilities, fire facilities, prisons, and courts. The last time I checked the New Orleans court system, we did not even have a court operating. The last time I checked, the supreme court had moved to Zachary. The supreme court used to be operating in New Orleans until Katrina came. The whole supreme court went to Zachary, LA. They do not even have a court building to operate in.

I am all for this bill. To my knowledge, I have never voted against a Defense appropriations bill and do not intend to tonight, but because Senator Vitter and I have been asking for some money directly, not even new money, not even money out of this bill, for the House of Representatives to send us a commitment, for the President to send us a commitment of $1 billion to our sheriffs, to our police force, to our firefighters for 3 months, to keep them operating, is it any surprise that I cannot sit in my chair and smile while we are sending all of this money to stand up public works in Iraq--354 planned projects in water treatment, sewer projects, buildings for health and education; 1,091 projects, including schools, primary health care centers, hospitals, and public buildings?

This is what my city looks like. Actually, this is not New Orleans. This is probably Waveland or Bay St. Louis, but it could be New Orleans. It could be Slidell.

This is what the gulf coast of the United States looks like today. Most of it is gone. These are the cities Senator Vitter and I and our delegation have been trying to get help to. I do not see any houses here, but maybe someone does. I do not know how we collect ad valorem taxes to pay for police and fire protection. There are no stores people can shop in to generate the sales tax necessary to keep the mayor and city hall functioning. When we pass tax credits, which we might want to do and have already done to entice businesses to come back, where would they go to get a permit? When they file their plans for construction, who would review them? When they have to file their plan to meet the EPA standards that would be required before they could build here, who would be there to take their application?

This photo is what my constituents look like. I wouldn't be surprised if this man was in the Army or the Navy. Maybe he is a Reserve officer. I wouldn't be surprised at all because I have thousands of them who put the uniform on and went to Iraq and came back, and this is what they have come back to. I have an administration that is going to pass this Defense bill to put electricity in Baghdad, build schools in Baghdad, and will not give the Louisiana delegation $1 billion--out of $62 billion that has already been allocated so it wouldn't cost anybody a penny--to help keep the lights on in the cities that were destroyed.

This is what my people look like. I don't know how many times they have to cry. I am sorry she doesn't have a lobbyist to send to Washington. I happen to be her lobbyist.

Here is one for the books. ``Here lies Vera. God help us.'' I think this grave is in New Orleans. I am not certain. But neighbors in the middle of the flood, when no one would come to get them, took this 65- year-old woman who was killed in the flood and built a grave for her and wrote ``Here lies Vera. God help us,'' before they left.

This is a picture of a woman who the news media does not think a lot of--not all of them, but a lot of them don't think she is self-reliant. We don't have self-reliant people in Louisiana because we have the nerve to come up here and ask for money. That is our money that we put in the Treasury. We don't have self-reliant people, one of the newspapers said, in Louisiana.

Our people put money in the Federal Treasury thinking they belonged to the United States of America, so when one county or one parish or one State is hurt, the other 49 might come to their aid. That is what the United States is about.

This woman looks pretty self-reliant to me. She does not have much, but you know what. She has her two children in her arms. And if she had three, I am sure she would have figured out how to bring the other one on her back. She brought them to safety.

This woman may be complaining, but I can tell you I have seen a lot of people who have been through a lot of stuff, and they still come up to me and say: Senator, we appreciate everything everybody is doing for us. I just wish you would hurry up.

Not everybody is complaining. But let me put it down right now: I am complaining. This Senator is complaining about the treatment that our people have received.

I tried to be patient. I tried to say: Fine, FEMA is not working. I understand it. We all made a mistake. We all messed up. We put it where it can't work. We put someone in charge who didn't know what he was doing. We gave them money, they can't spend it, so let me just have $1 billion of the $62 billion that they have. There is $43 billion sitting there they cannot even use. Let me just please get it to my firemen, to my police officers, to the mayors to let them operate for 3 more months.

I have to be told: Senator, I am sorry. We want to go home on a break. You know what. We are not leaving until 4:30 in the morning. We might go home on a break, but it will be 4:30 tonight.

Right after the storm, a lot of people didn't have electricity. After hurricanes you don't have a lot of electricity, so people are used to it. After about a week or 2 weeks, the electricity comes on, but of course a lot of things are ruined in your house. But I still have places with no electricity. How do you get businesses to come back if they don't have electricity? I still have places that don't have running water.

Please stop sending us bottled water. We have enough. It is not the bottles we need, it is the faucets that need to get turned on. But we are going to stand here and pass a bill delivering on power for Iraq.

A total of 2,760 megawatts of power have been added to the grid in Iraq to service more than 5 million Iraqi homes, and I can't get $1 billion to help keep electrical workers on the ground in New Orleans turning on the power in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama.

We never have any money for anything, but here in the Corps of Engineers budget here is $4.3 billion allocated from supplemental appropriations for general system improvements for electricity. The World Bank estimates the total necessity to be $12 billion, so I am sure we are going to come up with the other $8 billion to turn the lights on in Iraq. But the people who produce the electricity in the United States of America to turn on lights everywhere in the country, from Chicago to New York to California, can't get the lights turned on in their own backyard because nobody around here can find $1 billion to give to us.

They say: Senator, how do you know FEMA is not working? I have been home just about every day and have been to most of the shelters, talked to most of my mayors, talked to my sheriffs, talked to everybody at home, trying to be patient, understanding they are working little kinks out. But let me tell you what comes into our office on a daily basis.

Phone calls to my office:

The attached pages are records of some [underline some] of

the calls received in the last few days. Nearly all of them

from constituents who have not received any assistance from

the Federal Government or Red Cross.

Some of the first calls were for search and rescue, and in

the 35 days since Hurricane Katrina made landfall, countless

Louisianans are in no better shape than they were on the day

the hurricane hit.

I am sure Senator Vitter has a stack at least this thick, if not thicker, as has every member of our congressional delegation, and even some of our neighbors from the neighboring States. They have calls recorded--names, phone numbers.

When people say, Senator, how do you know FEMA is not working, I do have an idea it might not be working very well. So we could take $1 billion from FEMA, send it through an already existing program called the Community Disaster Loan Program that worked in New York, that worked in Puerto Rico, that has worked everywhere in the country when disasters strike, and transfer some of that money there and just give it to our cities, our sheriffs, our law enforcement, and the three hospitals that stood up. Not the 21 other hospitals that are closed, not all the other needs that we have, from levees to environment to housing to education to health care--none of that. We can wait for that until we get back. Just keep us operating while we are on vacation.

We have yet to hear from the White House, from the House of Representatives. I know the Senate would pass such a proposal, but the reason I cannot accept the passage from the Senate is because all that would be is a Senate-passed bill.

I am sure the Senate would pass it unanimously, but it would pass and it

would sit and no one in Louisiana or Mississippi would get help because until the House of Representatives acts, until the President says that he will do this, it cannot be done.

I know the President wants to help. He has been down to the State. He recognizes that FEMA is having some problems. He has said he wants to help. But we just cannot keep waiting. So I am going to stay here through the evening. I am going to continue to negotiate. I am going to continue to talk with the Senators handling this bill. I am going to continue to have telephone calls and meetings with anybody who would like to talk about this subject and see what we can do to get this money committed, in real dollars, in any bill in any way for this one community disaster assistance program.

Then we need a commitment when we get back to have a vote on Grassley-Baucus, a bill that gives emergency health care that this Senate has already approved in a bipartisan way, and three amendments to that bill. They would cover some emergency education for elementary and secondary grades and emergency education for our universities that are teetering on the brink of collapse--all of them, public and private, and historically black colleges included. If we can have a vote when we come back--the Senate can vote no, the House can vote no, or you know what--the President can veto the bills. But at least I will think I did everything I could to try to get people help. If the President wants to veto the bills, fine. If the Senate wants to vote them down, fine. If the House wants to vote them down, fine. But at least we can get a commitment to get votes on those bills, get the $1 billion now, and we will come back.

I assure you we will be working on this not for weeks but for months, for perhaps years--until we stand up this region.

I am not one who doesn't believe in nation building. Some people don't think we should be engaged in it. I happen to be inspired by the idea that maybe the United States has some things we could share in a positive way and help countries to achieve what we have achieved, which is remarkable in the history of the world. But I have to tell you, the first nation we need to be building is our own. We have had the largest natural disaster in the history of the country, Katrina, followed by Rita, which was a vicious and very tough storm, and in between those things a disastrous collapsing of a levee system that put the Nation's energy coast underwater--or a large segment of it. It put 10 feet of water in a major American city and virtually has shut it down and shut down the surrounding areas.

I have to walk around the Senate for 31 days pretending. Are people saying to me, What can we do to help? We have laid down many things that can help. Many committees have responded. Yet the only thing that has happened for 31 days is that we have given FEMA money, and they can't seem to get it out. So we need to try something a little different. We need to try something a little different.

I wish FEMA was the way it used to be, and maybe it will be again. But it is not today, and it won't be next week, and it won't be next month. We can't keep waiting for FEMA to organize itself. We are the Congress of the United States. We are Senators. We understand these things. We have been through them before. And to just keep doing the same old thing and expecting different results is crazy. It doesn't make any sense. It is not right.

Let us figure out a way to take $1 billion out of FEMA, transfer it either through this bill or through another vehicle, and send the money to our parishes, to our cities, to our police, to our fire for 3 months of operation, which is already authorized in the law. But the reason it can't be done administratively is because there is a legislative cap of $5 million. The budget for the city of New Orleans alone, salaries only, is $20 million a month. Why would anybody think that a program that only allows you to borrow $5 million would help them? We have to find $1 billion, approximately, to keep these entities up and running, or by the time we get back in 10 days they might have already had to lay off police, fire, and critical personnel. How do you start building up again once you have closed down your city hall, shut down your fire department, shut down your police department, and people have had to go out and search for jobs elsewhere? How do you recruit them to come back? How do you get them back after you have broken their spirits and laid them off is beyond me.

Let me correct myself. No matter what Congress does, having represented this State for a long time, I want to say that you are not going to break our spirit. It has been around a long time. We are a pretty old place. We were here before the country and are worth saving. We will figure it out.

But people in Louisiana are having a hard time figuring out how we can spend weeks on the Defense appropriations bill, which is doing more than supporting our troops, which is building up Iraq, actually, with a gulf coast region. I want to repeat, gulf region division. We don't even have a gulf region division of the Corps of Engineers in the United States of America today. We have a New Orleans district which covers the southern part of Louisiana. We don't even have a gulf coast region. That would be an advancement. But we have one in Iraq. Meanwhile, the gulf coast of this United States, the heart of the energy industry, looks something like this with the water down.

As I said many times, while there is a lot of vacationing that goes on in the gulf coast, particularly along the coast of Mississippi, we have enjoyed that beautiful coastline for years, and we have enjoyed the beautiful sandy beaches in Alabama. Most of the people in the coast of Louisiana and many in Mississippi and Alabama work at the ports. They work at shipbuilding. They are shipbuilders or they are commercial fishermen who put food on the table that everybody in America eats, and around the world. They light up Chicago, and they are proud of it.

Do you know what the National Geographic said about it? I think this is a very reputable publication, and it is written, I am very proud to say, with the help of the Times-Picayune, our newspaper which has been in the city I think as long as the city has been there, evacuated itself. They are writing the paper in Baton Rouge and printing it in Houma. We don't even have a newspaper in the city of New Orleans, not the major newspaper. We have several other good publications, and they are all struggling to stay in business. But with nobody in the city, where would you deliver your paper and to whom would you sell the advertising? There are no businesses in the city that are operating very well. But our newspaper, thank goodness, is still working. They collaborated with the National Geographic and the Dallas Morning News and put together this amazing report on Hurricane Katrina, ``Why It Became a Manmade Disaster and Where It Could Happen Next.'' I highly recommend it for reading here and around the country.

On page 49, it talks about an economic powerhouse brought to its knees. We are not a charity case in Louisiana. We are an economic powerhouse, and we have been so for over 350 years. I reminded my colleagues today, thank God for President's like Thomas Jefferson who understood borrowing money and what you borrow it for. He borrowed money from the Treasury and bought the Louisiana Purchase for 3 cents an acre because he knew that this country could not grow and meet its destiny, that western expansion and getting to the West was impossible without the Mississippi River.

Andrew Jackson went down there after he fought one war and defended it again. Why? Because after he won the first war, the British tried to come and take New Orleans because if they could take New Orleans, we could never be the country we are. Thank God Andrew Jackson knew about it, and thank goodness the storm didn't topple his statue, which is still in Jackson Square.

An economic powerhouse brought to its knees. Eight hundred manned and thousands of unmanned platforms are in the Gulf of Mexico. The largest platform, Mars, is teetering on its side. They cannot produce oil and gas. We are trying to get it stood up again.

If anybody wants to know why the price is going up, it is because this monster hurricane hit the heart of the oil and gas industry. Despite our best efforts to protect these infrastructures, despite begging for decades--decade after decade after decade--to restore

our marsh, to protect the investment this country has made, for 200 years we have been turned down time and time again. So now it is time to pay the piper. And I am sorry if it is going to cost $40 billion. I am sorry that is what it is going to cost over the next 10 to 20 years to stand this powerhouse up again. If anybody wants to check the figures, just come to the Hart Building on the 7th floor, and I will go over every single dollar with you.

Do you know what the biggest ports are in America? It is not New York, it is not Seattle, and it is not Houston. It is the Port of South Louisiana, the Port of New Orleans and the Port of Baton Rouge. We dwarf the other ports. We dwarf them. Our port comes up here and asks for some money, and they get told they are a charity case. They have been taking grain out of Kansas for 200 years. We have been draining the whole continental United States for 200 years. We have been shipping everything--goods--all over the world for 200 years. And I have to hear that when our port comes here for help, maybe not even a grant, just a loan to get them through the next 3 or 4 months until they can get back up on their feet, that there is something un-American about them, they need to be more self-reliant.

Over 9,000 miles of pipeline connect the gulf with the Eastern United States. We have laid pipelines. No one in America wants them, but we have been laying them down for a long time. Why? Because we have oil and gas. We believe in energy, energy independence. We don't think we should get everything from Saudi Arabia. We would like America to be more independent, so we produce some oil and gas, and we make no apologies for it. But when you lay these pipelines and do not invest in the marsh in which you lay them down and you let it erode and the saltwater comes in and you levee your rivers for channelization and you don't invest in the technology and science that we know would protect our marsh, catastrophes happen.

Unfortunately, as in every case, the poor have suffered the worst. But they are not the only ones who have suffered. Middle-class families, very successful, money in the bank, house paid for, children through college, looking forward to the next 10 or 15 years, 20 years maybe, and they deserve it; they have worked hard all of their lives, they have paid their taxes, they have kept up with their interests, they go to church every week, and this is what they look like today. They are told to be more self-reliant? I do not know how much more self-reliant people can be.

I will continue to explain why our region is an economic powerhouse, why it needs to be so again, why we need to rebuild it, and why, unfortunately, it is going be more expensive than it should have been because of the things we should have been doing for the last 40 years and haven't, the investments the Federal Government should have made and didn't, even when they knew that this was inevitable. Yet there are some things that we didn't do at our State level. And yes, there are some things we didn't do at our city level.

But again, this river does not serve only the 4.5 million people who live in Louisiana, it serves the 300 million people who live in this Nation and the billions of people who live in this world and depend on trade for prosperity and for commerce and for peace, because the more we trade with each other, the more we know each other, the more we can rely on each other in a mutually respectful way, the greatest chance we have for peace.

These levees do not just protect the people who live in the neighborhoods around them. They protect billions and billions of dollars in investment made by this country over a long period of time. And a levee system failed. We have struggled to keep the levees up. We have spent a lot of money keeping them up. But we needed more help from the Federal Government. We could have been more efficient on our end as well. We could have taxed our people more. But it gets hard on all of those fronts. People want tax relief. They don't really want to face the expense of what we have to do. We are not always disciplined about the way we build.

But again, it is not impossible if we make some decisions now to get some emergency money to our cities, to our sheriffs, to our law enforcement officers, and to our very basic health care in the region. This is not just New Orleans, this is all through south Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama. This would cover all of them. Under current law, that is no help to them right now--or very little help. We can cover some places in Texas if they need help. I don't know if they need as much help as we do in Louisiana or as we do along the gulf coast in Mississippi which I am more familiar with than I am the coast of Texas, although of course I have been there. I really grew up on the coast of Mississippi, as well as on the coast of Louisiana, so I am more familiar with it. But I can tell you that these cities that look a lot like this throughout the gulf coast are going to have a hard time meeting payroll.

Some cities have money in the bank, but the needs are so great and so overwhelming and FEMA has not been, as I said, very efficient. If we can't get them just a bridge loan, if you will, for 3 months a lot of our cities won't operate.

Now, I understand--and this is a Mississippi coast. You can tell because they have white beaches. We don't have beaches. Our coastline is marshy. I am pretty sure this is Mississippi. In Mississippi, I understand their legislature has borrowed $500 million so their cities could get some money, and that might be a solution for them. The problem with Louisiana is that our Constitution prevents us from borrowing money for operating expenses. And that is, in my view as a former State treasurer and current Appropriations Committee member, not a bad rule, if you will. You don't want to borrow money for operating expenses. If you are going to borrow money and have people have to pay it back, you want to invest it in that which will return to you something in the future. So you borrow money to build ports, to build highways, for capital improvements. So our State cannot borrow money at the legislative level to give out to our cities for operating expenses or to our firefighters and police. The FEMA law today only allows the payment of overtime. So while we can get overtime paid, we can't get straight time paid. We can't get regular time paid. Even if we would, they can't lend them more than $5 million. And as I said, the operating budget in the city of New Orleans is $20 million a month, so $5 million will not do us very much good. If I thought we could organize a constitutional amendment in 30 days and have a vote, I might suggest that. But the polling places have been washed away, and I am not sure how we would find all of our people to vote since there are people in all 50 States, and we have no mechanism right now to do that, to my knowledge.

So we cannot borrow money at the State level to help them. The cities can't go to the capital market. We are restricted by the Constitution. FEMA has $63 billion, with $43 billion sitting there, and Senator Vitter and I and our delegation have asked for $1 billion to keep the lifeline until we get back from our vacation, and we are told we can't afford it, but we are going to stay here and pass a bill to stand up the country of Iraq by building schools, health care facilities, electric grid, sewer and water, water treatment plants.

Well, I can understand, you all can understand why the people of my State would want me to stand here and try to make this case. So we will be standing here, I will be standing here until 4:30 in the morning until we get a resolution on what we are asking for. I am asking for $1 billion of real money anyway, outside of FEMA or take the $1 billion from FEMA. Let us keep our lifeline going until we get back, and when we get back have a vote on Grassley-Baucus, which this Senate has put together in a bipartisan way, with three amendments for emergency funding for our schools and our universities, for health care, and housing.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, because we are at this point postcloture, I want to speak on a subject unrelated to the bill. I ask unanimous consent to do that.

Mr. President, I want to speak about the price of oil and gasoline. I know there are a lot of discussions around this country about many issues of public interest. The American people are concerned and interested about a lot of challenges we face. We have the biggest budget deficit in the history of this country. I know people say it is getting better. The fact is, it is not. They show a little smaller budget deficit by using the Social Security surpluses to make it look smaller. We also have the largest trade deficit in the history of the country. The trade deficit and the budget deficit combined are over $1 trillion this year. We have challenges there.

We have challenges in Iraq dealing with foreign policy. We have our men and women wearing America's uniform in harm's way. Our hearts go out to them and our prayers are with them.

We have a lot of issues. The gulf coast was hit by a devastating natural disaster, by Hurricane Katrina followed by Hurricane Rita. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their homes. Many of them have lost everything, living still today in shelters with a bleak prospect ahead. And our country is coming together to try to say to them, You are not alone. We face some challenges.

Let me speak about one other challenge; that is, the challenge of the people who drive up to the gas pump this afternoon and buy 15, 16, or 18 gallons of gas, put it in their tanks, and discover it costs over $50. There are a whole lot of families in this country who cannot afford that. While people drive to the gas pump and put in 15 or 18 gallons and have a $50 bill to pay, the major integrated oil companies in the country have reaped the highest profits in their history. These major integrated oil companies are bigger, stronger, more powerful and muscular than they have ever been.

Thanks to megamergers that have occurred in recent years, all these oil companies fell in love with each other, started dating, got hitched, and now, instead of two companies, it is one company. It is ExxonMobil. It used to be Exxon and Mobil, but it is now ExxonMobil. The list goes on. So we have bigger, stronger, and more powerful companies that have more impact in the marketplace, and they are more profitable than ever in their history.

Let me use a few statistics.

In January of last year, the average price of oil was $34.5 a barrel in this country. At that rate, the major integrated oil companies made the largest profits in their history--Exxon earned $25 billion. What did they do with it? Nearly $10 billion went to buy back their stock another story I will talk about in a moment. At $34.5 a barrel, the integrated oil companies had the highest profits in their history. Add $30 a barrel to that. Then ask yourself, What are the profits going to be this year? You have the answer. Profits are windfall, excess profits far above anything justified.

We use 21 million barrels of oil a day in this country. The world uses 84 million barrels of oil every single day. We use a fourth of it. Think about that. We use a fourth of the oil pumped out of the ground every day in this country. Sixty percent of it we buy from other countries, and 40 percent we produce in this country.

People say--well, those who support the oil industry; there are plenty of them here--it is fine for them to be making $60 or $65 or $70 a barrel. That gives them a chance to invest in more production and refineries. Let me show you what was printed in Business Week in June of last year entitled ``Why Isn't Big Oil Drilling More?''

Rather than developing new fields, oil giants have

preferred to buy rivals--``drilling for oil on Wall Street.''

There ain't no oil on Wall Street. Wall Street is about big finance, high finance, buying and selling. There is no oil.

``Why Isn't Big Oil Drilling More?''

Oil has been over $20 a barrel almost continuously since

mid-1999. That should have been ample incentive for companies

to open new fields, since new projects are designed to be

profitable with prices as low as the mid-teens. Nevertheless,

drilling has lagged.

This is Business Week. This isn't some liberal rag. This is Business Week, a conservative business journal.

Far from raising money to pursue opportunities, oil

companies are paying down debt, buying back shares, and

hoarding cash.

While the American people pull up to the gas pumps to pay $50 for gas, where

it is going? Is it going into the ground to look for more oil or build refineries? No, it is not. The pain of the person at the gas pump is the gain of the treasury of the major integrated oil companies. It is a fat treasury on the one hand and enormous pain on the other.

Katrina and Rita hit this country, and we have people here who say that is what is causing this angst about the price of gasoline and oil. Not true. The fact is, oil was in the mid-60s a barrel before Hurricane Katrina was bearing down on the gulf coast. The price of oil was well above $60 a barrel. This isn't about the hurricane.

Others of my colleagues say this is a free market in oil.

I was on one television program--I think a CNBC segment--and the moderator, a real thoughtful gentleman he was, said: You are a socialist because you want to take the windfall profits that exist and tax them and use that money to give a rebate to consumers. This is socialism, he said. I was tempted to say: Grow up. But he was a television commentator, so I didn't do that. But the point is, there is no free market in oil. There is no free market. Some OPEC oil officials that sit around the table and make decisions about supply and price to some extent can influence it.

Then what you have are the now giant integrated oil companies that have been made larger by blockbuster mergers in recent years. In addition to that, you have the futures market which is supposed to provide liquidity for trading which has become an unbelievable bazaar of speculation. So those are the elements that tell me there is no free market here.

You have a market in which the price of a gallon of gasoline is delivered. In fact, nobody ever sees it. It shows up at the gasoline pumps, you pump it into the tank of your car, and the money goes from your wallet. There are a lot of hard-working families in this country and low-income people who can't afford it--from their wallet into the treasury of the major integrated oil companies.

Then the question is, Why isn't big oil drilling more? I made a proposition. I introduced a piece of legislation, along with my colleague, Senator Dodd, and others, to say anything above $40 a barrel--incidentally, $40 a barrel is the price at which the oil companies had the largest profits in their history by far--if you are not using it to drill for more oil or build more refineries, you get hit with a 50-percent excise tax on those windfall profits, and all of that money is used to give rebates to consumers. It is not money for the Federal Treasury. It takes the money back from the oil companies that are soaking people at the gas pump and returns it to consumers. There is a huge cry about that--interfering with the market, we are told.

Let me refer to this article from the New York Times. This is February of this year. This goes back 8 months or so.

. . . the worlds 10 biggest oil companies earned more than

$100 billion in 2004, a windfall greater than the economic

output of Malaysia. . . .Their sales are expected to exceed

$1 trillion for 2004, which is more than Canada's gross

domestic product.

Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil

company, earned more than $25 billion last year and spent

$9.95 billion to buy back its own stock; Royal Dutch/Shell

Group . . . pledged to hand out at least $10 billion as

dividends to shareholders this year.

Last year, the largest integrated oil companies spent 24

percent of their cash on dividends, 12 percent on share buy-

backs, and 12 percent on paring debt . . . As a share of

exploration and production expenses, spending on exploration

has declined over the last decade, and now accounts for 20

percent of the total.

There was an interesting piece in a newspaper just days ago. Most people know what AAA is, the American Automobile Association--headline:

Finger-pointing Begins After Gas Prices Jump 24 Cents in 24

Hours; Exxon Dealers--

These are the gas station dealers--

--Say They Are Chafing Under Higher Prices Decreed From Atop.

A growing chorus of Exxon dealers in the Washington metro

area are raising their voices and accusing the world's

largest oil company, Exxon Mobil, of profiting from the

exorbitant prices at the pump in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina . . . In candid conversations with AAA Mid-Atlantic,

a handful of local dealers accused the oil giant of raising

their wholesale price to service stations by 24 cents in a

24-hour period.

The disgruntled dealers say the steep price increases put

them on the horns of a dilemma . . . By raising their prices,

they risk losing their loyal customer base, which has taken

them years to build. By raising their voices against Exxon

Mobil's practices, they risk losing their contracts.

Question: What is happening here? What is going on? It is really an interesting dilemma. The inclination, I suspect, of most people here in the Congress is to do nothing. Go to ``parade rest'' is the most comfortable position for politicians. It has always been and perhaps always will be. But we not only see prices at the gas pumps coming from the price of a barrel of oil, now $30 above last year's prices and record profits, we are now heading into a winter season where folks from my home State, the State of North Dakota, folks from the home State of the Presiding Officer, the State of Minnesota, and others will be paying 70 percent more for natural gas.

We had a vote yesterday on the low-income home heating assistance program. We lost that vote. We will come back and have it again. We will eventually have that vote. We don't have a choice. Low-income folks have to heat their homes, and heating a home in winter is not a luxury.

But this is not just about them. What about the other folks, the folks who are in the middle-income ranges who are still trying to figure out how to make ends meet? How do we buy school clothes for our kids and pay for gas for our car and pay our mortgage, buy the groceries each week, and do all the things we need to do for our family, and then pay a 70-percent increase in the cost of heating our homes for winter? What about those people? Does anybody here care, or are we just content to thumb our suspenders and light our cigar under the glare of klieg lights? God bless the free market. Let it all go. What utter, sheer nonsense.

There is no free market in oil. I know people with suits that cost a whole lot more than mine are going to be cranky about this statement. There is no free market. They will say: Of course there is a free spot market. There are people trading right now as you speak, Senator Dorgan. There are people trading back and forth, and of course there is a market.

Totally absurd. There are the OPEC ministers, there are the larger and more powerful through blockbuster mergers integrated oil companies, and then there is rampant speculation in the futures market. They are combined to make a pretty interesting dance, but there is no free market.

There is substantial pain in this country at the price of gasoline, substantial pain that will occur this winter with a 70-percent increase in natural gas prices, a 40-percent increase in home heating fuel prices, and people are going to ask the question, Why is this happening? Who is on my side? Why do we have a circumstance where the biggest in this country, the largest economic enterprises, make record profits and smile all the way to the bank while all the rest of the folks are bearing the pain?

I have often spoken about the Texas Playboys, a band from the 1930s that had the refrain in their song, ``Little bees suck the blossom, but the big bee gets the honey. The little guy picks the cotton, and the big guy gets the money.'' If ever those lyrics meant something, it means something now in this circumstance with respect to the pain and the gain in this energy policy.

So I introduced a piece of legislation. It is very simple. It says that at oil prices above $40 a barrel, if the windfall profits accrued from those prices are not being used to explore for more oil and natural gas and if they are not being used to build refineries and add capacity, then they shall be taxed at 50 percent, and all of the proceeds will be used to provide rebates to American consumers. It is a form of revenue sharing from the oil companies that are experiencing windfall profits to the folks who are pulling up to the gas pumps and the folks who are going to try to pay a heating bill that is exorbitant.

I don't have any idea whether this Senate will act on this legislation. It is more likely the Senate will do what it usually does in areas of controversy: it will stand with those who have the most economic clout. The question of whose side are you on, regrettably, at least in recent years, the Senate has

demonstrated that it is not on your side. It is not on the side of the little guy, that is for sure. We can pretend and act as if we have our hands over our eyes for some months and say it just didn't work out that we could do anything, really. So the market system works. If it costs $50 to fill your tank, that is the way the market is. God bless you. See you tomorrow. Good luck, by the way.

Or when you find the 70-percent increase in your home heating fuel and it is 30 below zero and the wind is blowing 40 miles per hour--and yes, it does in some parts of our country--and you are cranking up the furnace to make sure there is enough heat in the house for you, the family, and the kids, so you can go to bed and not freeze, and those who say this is just the free market, good for you, God bless you, keep that furnace high, but you have to make it a priority to pay the heating bill. It is not our fault the heating bill is so high. Congress decided not to do anything.

By the way, now it is December and the Congress is not in session anymore, and it is, you know, good luck to you. God bless you. Go back and forth to the post office and visit a little bit about how high the prices are, but nobody is going to help you much.

I don't believe we are a country that can do without oil. We produce oil in my State. I support the oil industry in many areas. I believe we ought to produce more in this country. I believe we are dangerously addicted to foreign oil. It is unusual, to say the least, that one- fourth of the world's oil is consumed in this country every day. We share this globe with 6.5 billion people, and in this country alone we have a claim on one-fourth of all the oil that is consumed.

It is a peculiar thing that somehow given how this planet is put together, there is this little area halfway around the world covered with sand where most of the oil deposits exist, and the largest deposits are in countries called Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq. That is a curious and strange thing and one that is also dangerous for us.

We have become so dependent on that supply of oil--and now I am not talking about the price and windfall profits of domestic companies; I am talking about the dangerous addiction we have to foreign oil. If we do not as a country decide we will try to find a way to break this addiction--I am not suggesting we will not always dig and drill--but if our energy policy is just digging and drilling, that is a ``yesterday forever'' policy and it is one that is destined for failure.

We have to become independent in terms of our energy needs, particularly of those troubled countries in the Middle East. I find it fascinating we have such a relationship with the Saudis. The Saudis have the largest reserves of oil in the world. Under their sands exist the world's largest oil reserves. Because of that, even our foreign policy is altered.

I have spoken in the Senate many times about the 28 redacted pages in the 2002 December report about the September 11 terrorist attack in this country. Fifteen of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens. The combined Intelligence Committees of the House and the Senate did this first investigation of September 11. They sent it to the White House. The White House published the book, but 28 pages were redacted. What were they? Twenty-eight pages, according to published reports and according to my colleague Senator Graham, in his book, had to do with the Saudis. Why? Because all that we do with the Saudis, all we do with them in foreign policy, even with respect to this issue of terrorist attacks, has to do with our incredible dependence on Saudi oil and on Middle East oil.

This is dangerous for our country. We have to remove ourselves from that, remove that addiction. How do we do that? There is a wide range of things. We passed energy legislation in this Congress. It is not great, but it is not bad. I voted for it. It moves us in the right direction. That is the immediate term. In the short term, we are confronted with this unusual price for a barrel of oil which converts to an unusual price for a gallon of gasoline. Every American driving up to the gas pump today understands the shock value of having to pay these prices. Every American trying to heat their home this winter will understand the same shock value.

They will and should ask the question, Is anybody doing anything about this, or is this an appropriate form of a new market system we do not understand? The answer is, the Congress should do something about it. Again, let me say there are all kinds of reasons and excuses and especially distortions that are moved around on these subjects. Let me give an example of one.

We have people who say, look, the reason we did not have more oil flowing, which would relate to supply and demand, with the supply- demand curve, if you have more supply going in against a fixed demand or an increasing demand, a greater supply means lower price. The reason we do not have that is because of the eggheaded environmentalists, they would claim. They have prevented oil companies from building refineries, so shame on them, that is the problem today. We do not have enough refineries.

We hear that in the Senate and the House and all political debate, over and over. It is a branding technique, the notion if you say it often enough, people will start believing it: 150 refineries have been closed in the past 25 years and no new refineries have been sited in the same period.

The fact is most of the evidence points to the oil companies themselves as making the decisions about closing refineries. They have decided to shut down existing refineries and decrease output as a business matter. They do that following big mergers and also restructuring. The big integrated oil companies control a majority of the Nation's refined oil and gas products. In many cases, they control this process from the point of pulling oil from the ground to pumping it into your gas tank.

The fact is, there is an interesting amount of evidence about this issue of refineries. We had an Energy Committee hearing about this. We had three experts who knew about all this. Why are there not more refineries being built? Because the margins are not higher, is why. That is from the experts. It has nothing do with environmentalists. The margins are not higher. So when oil companies restructure and merge, they close refineries because they want to. The fact is there is a wealth of information about this refinery issue that suggests this is not about environmentalists; it is about the oil companies deciding in their own interests how much refining capacity they want and what kind of margins they want from refining.

My point is very simple. We have a serious problem in this country with an energy crisis. It is not getting better. We have a dislocation, terrible pain, for a lot of working folks, a lot of low-income people, not just to drive their cars but also to heat their homes as we approach this winter. And they will ask the question, and should, is anyone going to care about this? Will somebody do something about it? Will someone be on our side and stand for us?

We will have some people say this is the free market and if you do not like it, tough luck, we do not intend to intervene in a free market.

Then there are others, such as me, who say that is nonsense, this is not a free market, this is not fair competition. A free market economy is about competition. Easy entry, easy exit, competition around price. There is no free market here. We have OPEC, oil companies, and rampant speculation. They have created a distortion of so-called market prices.

The American people deserve a Senate that will stand in at times when oil prices reach $60 and $70 a barrel and we have profits that represent the biggest profits in the history of corporate America. The American people deserve a Senate that will stand up and say, We are on your side and we will do something about it when the market system does not work.

America can do better. The fact is we can do better on energy policy. We can do better on policy I just described. We owe it to people to intervene in circumstances where we must intervene. The Senate should make it a priority to consider this kind of legislation.

We have meandered our way through this year. There has been no discernible pattern, no discernible journey that makes much sense to me. But in this Congress we have wandered

around, place to place. We did not pass our appropriations bills, intervened in a whole range of issues, including the Terri Schiavo case. I could go on and on and on. We intervened in all the other issues.

The key things most people are concerned about in their daily lives, that they talk about at the supper table when they sit around and have something to eat together--this is one of those key issues. What is the price of energy? Can we afford it? If not, what do we do?

The proposal I have offered with some of my colleagues for a windfall profits recapture would not injure any major integrated oil company under any set of circumstances because they would not have to pay it. They would choose not to pay it if, in fact, they are using their windfall profit to explore for more oil and build more refineries; and if not, they would choose to repay part of that profit in a form of rebate back to their consumers.

My hope remains in these coming days as the Congress lurches toward the end of this year, that Congress and the Senate, particularly, will find time to do what is the bull's eye, the agenda the American people want, to deal with things that affect them every day in a very significant way.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Last Friday I was in the Senate briefly and indicated we were introducing legislation that repeals the law that was passed in the emergency response to Hurricane Katrina that took the limitation on the credit cards carried by Federal employees from $2,500 to $250,000. That is right, the bill that responded with emergency funding for Katrina also included a provision that increased the limit on Federal credit cards that are carried by some 300,000 Federal workers, increased the top limit from $2,500 per purchase for $250,000 per purchase.

When I discovered that, I thought, that is not right, that cannot be believable. It, in fact, was. I discovered the White House had requested that increase in the limit on Federal credit cards be provided.

In fact, the person who came down to brief the Congress on that was Mr. Safavian, top procurement officer at the Office of Management and Budget, who was arrested 2 weeks later by the FBI and now has been indicted. But all this happened some weeks ago. The credit card limit went from $2,500 to $250,000 on the credit card that is carried by a Federal worker, and there are 390,000 or so around.

I introduced with my colleague Senator Wyden a bill that would restore it back to the $2,500 limit. My point was, this is nuts. It is goofy to put a $250,000 limit on a credit card. It is unbelievable. I pointed out the Inspector General's reports and also the GAO reports about abuse of credit cards by some Federal employees.

One Federal employee put breast enlargements for his girlfriend on a Federal credit card. Buying liquor, trips, guns, unbelievable expenditures in the abuse found by the GAO, and we will increase the top limit on the credit cards to $250,000?

I introduced that legislation and I am pleased to say on Monday of this week the Office of Management and Budget and the White House announced they support the legislation to take this back to $2,500. So it is actually $2,500 plus an emergency $15,000 post September 11, that happened after September 11, which is what we would take this back to. The White House has said they want to rescind the $250,000 and take it back to $2,500.

That is the legislation I have introduced with my colleague Senator Wyden. My hope is at the first opportunity, given the support of the White House, that I can offer this as an amendment, perhaps not to this bill, because I think we are limited in amendments and we are probably on auto pilot with respect to the amendments. The very next piece of legislation, it would be my intention to offer that.

As I said, that will have the support of the White House. Without it, of course, the law still exists. It was put in law at the request of the White House to take the top limit from $2,500 to $250,000. I want to take it back. The White House says they want it back. So let's decide here in the Senate to put it on a bill and get it to conference and get this sort of thing done.

Let me also say to OMB and the White House, I appreciate their candor and their willingness to do the right thing. Everyone understood what was requested was a mistake. It should not have been requested. The decision now is to change the law and to make it where it ought to be, a $2,500 limit on the credit cards.

Yes, we have to respond in a significant way to Hurricane Katrina. Sometimes that might encourage somebody or require somebody in certain circumstances to have a larger purchase, but there are plenty of ways to accommodate that without risking the waste, fraud, and abuse that will go with having credit cards with $250,000 limits.

Our legislation is pending. I make the point I appreciate the administration deciding to do a U-turn on this policy. We will offer this legislation in the Senate as soon as we are eligible to offer it on perhaps the next piece of legislation brought to the floor.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, over the past several weeks, in the wake of two hurricanes, we have felt the heartbreak of Americans forced from their homes with no return in sight. Safe and affordable housing is not something we should take for granted.

Today I am introducing the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005. I am proud to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Paul Sarbanes and Mark Dayton. This bill provides federal matching funds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing federally-assisted or - insured affordable housing properties that are in danger of being lost from the affordable housing inventory.

There is a great need for affordable housing. All across the country, housing is becoming less attainable for more and more families. In my own State of Vermont, renting--let alone owning--a home is becoming difficult if not impossible for many families. The minimum wage in Vermont is seven dollars. However, a family must earn almost $28,000 in yearly income to afford a two-bedroom apartment, which requires a wage of over $13 per hour. For example, in Vermont, a two-bedroom apartment costs about $698 per month, and a minimum wage earner can afford no more than $364 for rent. This trend is not unique to Vermont. Nationwide, the wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment is over $15 an hour. Approximately one-quarter of the U.S. earns less than $10 per hour. There are some communities where affordable housing was never a concern before, but are now facing a shortage growing ever more severe. I ask unanimous consent to have a chart compiled by the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), ``State Ranks Based on Two Bedroom Housing Wage'', inserted in the Record. As my colleagues read this chart, I encourage them to refer to the NLIHC report issued last year, ``Out of Reach'', for a more comprehensive overview of housing prices and diminishing affordability. I found this report particularly alarming and eye-opening.

There are several strategies to consider in combating the affordable housing crisis. A comprehensive plan of economic and community development and revitalization--from public and private sector sources--is one strategy that has proved successful. Some of the increasing need for affordable housing is met with the construction of new units. But in many communities, a stock of affordable housing already exists, and there is a desire among local leaders to preserve it. My bill helps States, localities, and other entities do just that.

The bill I am introducing today, the Affordable Housing Preservation Act of 2005, represents an effort to complement the good work being done throughout the country on Section 8 initiatives, and it strives to preserve existing affordable housing. Specifically, this legislation would conserve federally-subsidized housing units by providing matching grants to states and localities, who then may work with other housing entities, seeking to preserve privately owned, affordable housing.

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, would make determinations for the grants based on a number of factors, including the number of affordable housing units at risk of being lost and the local market conditions in which displaced residents would have to find comparable new housing options. States and localities could use the funds to acquire or rehabilitate housing, which may be done by working with established not-for-profit organizations that specialize in providing affordable housing. They could use the funds, in part, for administrative and operating expenses. Properties with mortgages insured by HUD, Section 8 project-based assisted housing, and properties that are being purchased by residents would all be eligible for the matching grant funds. I believe that flexibility with the funding would make this program more efficient and cost effective, and, most importantly, more helpful to the recipients themselves.

What's more important to a family than a place to call home? Affordable, quality, and safe housing is the foundation, literally and figuratively, that communities are built upon. As the Senate crafts a comprehensive federal response to the housing crisis, including emergency housing assistance for those affected by the hurricanes Katrina and Rita, I am eager to work with my colleagues to integrate the principles of housing preservation into affordable housing, economic and community development and revitalization initiatives.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 on behalf of the minority side of the EPW Committee. We have introduced three bi- partisan bills to date in our committee's jurisdiction. One of them even passed the Senate last week. Those bills, which I would characterize as tweaks to existing authorities, were good first steps and are included in the package we introduce today.

But, we feel that the breadth and the magnitude of the damage after Hurricane Katrina demands a more significant response. As I look at the pictures of the damage in the areas hit hardest by Hurricane Katrina, I think of the visitors from Terrebonne Parish that visited me in my office to seek support for flood control projects in Louisiana. At the time, I was struck by the vulnerability of this community to the effects of nature. Today, we are seeing those effects firsthand. I have thought

often in the past month of the strong spirit shown by those who visited my office, and I know, that while it is almost unimaginable today, in a few years, there will be thriving communities in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama once again.

The bill I am introducing today is not intended to address every need of every person in the Katrina-affected area. It is a bill that seeks to take action for those agencies within the jurisdiction of the EPW Committee to ensure that they have the authority and the direction they need. I am a big believer in a single coordinated Federal disaster response process through the Stafford Act. Our bill complements the single, coordinated approach, yet recognizes the unique conditions in this case.

FEMA has shown itself to be ineffective, in my opinion, largely due to the bureaucracy of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA's lack of independence. At the time of the creation of DHS, I said: I cannot understand why, after years of frustration and failure, we would jeopardize the Federal government's effective response to natural disasters by dissolving FEMA into this monolithic Homeland Security Department. I fear that FEMA will no longer be able to adequately respond to hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes, begging the question, who will? (November 20, 2002)

Today, unfortunately, we know the answer--no one.

The Federal aid provided for Katrina must be coordinated in a wise, targeted manner. To perform this task, our bill creates a Federal infrastructure Task Force to make spending decisions and establish Federal investment standards.

There have been large storms before--in 1965 Hurricane Betsy hit almost this same area. There will be large storms again. This bill recognizes that and establishes National Preparedness Grants and several readiness studies to update emergency response plans, resolve inadequacies, and identify infrastructure vulnerabilities.

To speed economic recovery, the bill provides 200M to both the Economic Development Administration and the Delta Regional Authority.

Part of the long-term recovery of the region will be the clean-up of the environmental damage. Our bill provides direction to EPA to ensure that adequate sampling is performed, that the public knows the results, that drinking water and wastewater services are restored, and that cleanups are prioritized.

The Army Corps of Engineers has a lot of explaining to do after the levee failure in New Orleans. The Corps also has a lot of clean up to do and a lot of rebuilding to do. The flood control system in place today was built in the wake of the damage caused by Hurricane Betsy in 1965. I believe it is critical that we fully evaluate the entire Corps process to determine what changes should be made. This bill takes only a first step to be sure that we don't simply rebuild what was already in New Orleans without thinking. The bill requires the Corps to assess all projects in the area and repair or modify them with one comprehensive approach.

We establish a National Levee Safety Program in this bill, similar to the Dam Safety Program to be sure our nation's levees can be counted on.

Finally, our bill allows communities that provide incentives for the use of public transportation or ridesharing after a disaster to seek Federal reimbursement.

What doesn't our bill do? Our bill does not waive environmental statutes. Since the Stafford Act was passed in 1974, there have been thousands of declared disasters. Never before have we faced a proposal to haphazardly waive environmental statutes across the Nation in the name of economic recovery in one devastated area. In the last few weeks several proposals have been introduced to give the President or EPA broad waiver authority in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. These proposals put human health and the environment at risk throughout the Nation by allowing permanent waivers to environmental or other laws, anywhere in the Nation, to be granted with few or no criteria, and no public involvement.

The consequences of such an action could be significant. For example, new refineries or power generating facilities could be built while exempt from the Clean Air Act, causing long-term air quality impacts. Congressional offshore drilling bans could be waived to alleviate a fuel shortage. Safe Drinking Water Act regulations could be changed to waive limits on pollutant levels in an effort to speed reoccupancy of hurricane-affected areas, putting public health at risk. Protections for minorities or low-income people such as OSHA safety regulations or the minimum wage could be waived.

I want to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. The people of my home State of Vermont are appalled at the state of affairs there and want to help. But, I cannot accept a proposal this broad which will put human health and the environment throughout the Nation at the mercy of one President or appointed official with no time limits, no consideration of human health or the environment, no public participation, and no guidance. Such as effort will only hurt the people of an already devastated region in the long run, not help them.

We must not just act to help the victims of Katrina. We must act in a thoughtful, meaningful, positive way.

The Gulf Coast Infrastructure Redevelopment and Recovery Act of 2005 meets that test. I urge my colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation.

If I could.

Mr. President, I rise with a heavy heart to announce the untimely passing of one of the Senate's own, our long-time staffer and former colleague, Shawn Bentley.

What can you say about a 41-year-old man who died: That he was brilliant and talented; that he was a loving family man, a wonderful father to Katie and Samantha, and a devoted husband to his wife, Becky; That he loved James Joyce and William Shakespeare and Elton John; and the law; and the Senate; and life.

Shawn worked for the Judiciary Committee for a decade, from 1993 to 2003. Starting as my counsel, in the minority, Shawn worked on a variety of legal issues, from healthcare antitrust, to radiation compensation, to the balanced budget amendment. He rose through the ranks, ending his Senate tenure as the majority's chief intellectual property counsel and deputy chief counsel to the committee, one of the top jobs in the Senate.

Although we were sad to see him leave the Senate, I was so proud of him when he joined Time Warner as vice president of intellectual property and global public policy.

In the Senate, the major bills Shawn helped write are among the most important laws in the intellectual property world: the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the American Inventors Protection Act, the Patent Fee Integrity and Innovation Protection Act, the Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act, and the Trademark Dilution Act, just to name a few.

Shawn was so bright and so accomplished a lawyer, that we did not hesitate to assign him any subject. And it was such a joy to work with him, because all knew he was a model of decency, humility, and spirituality. As the Elders' Quorum President of his church congregation, and man of remarkably strong faith, Shawn lived a life of service to his fellow man and woman. In whatever he did, Shawn handled the matter with both talent and a remarkable good humor.

In all the years that Shawn worked for me, I cannot recall one time when he was not warm and engaging. Even when he was a little frustrated, as all of us are sometimes, Shawn still had a smile on his face. In fact, Shawn had a calmness about him that was almost serene. Yet, he had a very sharp sense of humor that made him a delight to be around.

Shawn was among the brightest and most informed. Yet, he was never arrogant, a rare quality in one so talented, especially on Capitol Hill!

Shawn was more than the chief intellectual property counsel to the Judiciary Committee, he was our in-house professor of arts and humanities. Visiting Shawn's office was not like visiting a typical counsel's office on the Hill. Visiting Shawn was more like visiting your favorite classics professor at his desk with his exquisite fountain pen in hand.

To be fair, Shawn's lair in the Hart Building had the requisite congressional directories, codes and public laws. But he also had a vast book collection of classics, poetry, Shakespeare anthologies, first edition novels, and British history books. And did I mention the miniature busts of philosophers and great thinkers?

Then, there was the collection of CDs ranging from Creed and Metallica to Beethoven to Brahms to Mozart and Bach. While his book collection in the office was impressive, we knew there had to be a much more extensive collection at home.

Pressed about his office supply of nonlegal books, Shawn admitted that it was growing because his wife Becky had imposed a moratorium on bringing any more books to their home, so the overflow ended up in the office. When Shawn found out that a colleague lived near the used book store in Bethesda where he often located some treasures, he enlisted her to pick us some volumes from time to time, thus saving him the trip and the explanation of a voyage to Bethesda. That was probably Shawn's closest thing to a vice: sneaking a volume of poetry into his collection.

Shawn was the only heavy metal enthusiast I know who also loved to read Shakespeare and could discuss both topics with equal enthusiasm and knowledge. Indeed, it was this respect for the importance of creativity in helping shape culture that may have attracted Shawn to IP--intellectual property--law and policy. He helped me with so many important IP issues, many of which I listed before, it is hard to single out Shawn's most important work.

One event does stand out in my mind. In 2000, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I scheduled a hearing on peer-to-peer copyright infringement. Shawn arranged to have witnesses from Metallica, Lars Ulrich, the Recording Industry Association of America, and several Internet company executives testify on the same panel. To demonstrate how P-2-P services worked, Shawn suggested I download from the Internet the rock band Creed's then-hit ``With Arms Wide Open.''

Just then, the bells rang for a vote and committee members started to

leave. I'll never forget looking back as I left Hart 216 and seeing the almost surreal scene of Senators mixing with media and staff, talking to Internet pirates and heavy metal band rock stars with rock music playing in the background. It was a scene that only Shawn could have pulled off.

Shawn did all this--he succeeded at all he undertook--without boasting or calling attention to himself. He knew there were more important things in life than a battle of wills and, as a result, he won the respect and trust of people on both sides of the aisle.

There is not one person on the Hill or in business who would call Shawn an adversary or enemy. Those who worked with Shawn learned a lot more from him than the other way around.

Two other fond memories of Shawn from early in his career come to mind. When the Senate was debating the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget, the BBA, I asked Shawn to develop some materials supporting the need for the amendment.

With customary good staffing, Shawn put together a very impressive set of volumes which he drove out to my home the weekend before the debate. I was astounded by the depth, and to be truthful, the volume of the materials. ``Shawn,'' I said, ``I'm just overwhelmed by the amount of material you developed. You didn't need to do all that.'' Shawn thought a moment, paused, and said, ``With all due respect, Senator, could you have told me that yesterday?'' That was the wit of Shawn Bentley. Quickly recovering, I replied, ``Shawn, I don't need all those materials if I have you sitting by my side. That's good enough.''

And I meant it. I could always count on Shawn to be well-prepared, succinct, and oh-so-witty. But Shawn was Shawn. So, then we got to the floor with the BBA.

As chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I was managing this constitutional amendment's debate on the floor with Shawn right there beside me. One of the most contentious issues was over how the amendment would affect the Social Security fund.

Senator Fritz Hollings, then the junior Senator from South Carolina, for some 40 years I might add, was recognized by the Chair to speak in opposition. Knowing his remarks were long, I took that opportunity to go to the cloakroom and make a phone call. I asked Shawn and another capable staffer, Larry Block, to please take notes and write down five points to respond to Senator Hollings.

The trouble was that with his deep South Carolinian accent, neither Shawn nor Larry had absolutely any idea what Senator Hollings said. After about five minutes, my two staffers were getting pretty nervous on the floor anticipating my return. Suddenly, Shawn gave a big smile. ``I've got it,'' he said. ``All we need to do is write down five points supporting the BBA and why its enactment would not have a negative impact on Social Security.''

I soon returned and read the talking points, adding several points of my own. All went well. Only later did I realize what Shawn had intuitively grasped. If we could not understand Senator Hollings, no one else could either!

The moral of this story: As President Andrew Jackson opined many years ago, ``Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in.''

Shawn was probably one of the most deliberate lawyers ever to have worked on the Judiciary Committee. On Capitol Hill, where the emphasis too often seems to be on getting there first, Shawn's primary concern was always getting it right first. I could count on him to have the right answer to my questions, and if he did not know the answer, he wouldn't guess--he would do the work and get it right and then make his recommendation to me.

I cannot say enough good things about Shawn Bentley. Indeed, his loss is a loss to the Senate family, to his family, and indeed the Nation.

As we head into this season of Autumn, as the leaves change colors and the temperature turns, some verses from Ecclesiastes 3 seem so appropriate:

There is a time for everything,

And a season for every activity under heaven:

A time to be born and a time to die,

A time to plant and a time to uproot,

A time to tear down and a time to build,

A time to weep and a time to laugh,

A time to mourn and a time to dance,

A time to embrace and a time to refrain,

A time to search and a time to give up,

A time to tear and a time to mend,

A time to be silent and a time to speak, and

A time to love and a time to hate.

Let us take comfort in those words, knowing that it was God's will that this be Shawn Bentley's time. But we can still rejoice in his life, and embrace all that was good about Shawn Bentley, the son, husband, father and friend we all loved so dearly. And may his family find comfort in the lasting memory of this great man, Shawn Marion Bentley, who indeed lived his life by the words of ``With Arms Wide Open'':

``If I had just one wish

Only one demand

I hope he understands

That he can take his life

And hold it by the hand

And he can greet the world

With arms wide open . . .''

Shawn Bentley's untimely passing is this Nation's loss.

On behalf of the Senate, let me say that our hearts go out to the Bentley family--to his loving wife Becky, their beautiful daughters Katie and Samantha, his parents DeAnna and Marion, and his five brothers Jared, Derek, Justin, Christopher and Gavin.

Mr. President, I am grateful to my distinguished colleague from Vermont for the kindness that he has shown here today and the friendship that he has shown to me and to the family of Shawn Bentley. I am very grateful to him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, wishes to continue her speech. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak briefly for not to exceed 10 minutes and that she then be recognized to continue her speech.

I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, last night, in a closely divided vote, the Senate rejected an attempt to add much of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. Each of these bills is vitally important to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces but for different reasons. Inasmuch as I am a member of both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the importance of each of these bills is very clear to me.

The Defense appropriations bill contains the funds that are needed to keep our military running. This bill contains $440 billion that is required to, among other things, pay, train, and equip our troops for the next 12 months. It is often said that our troops are the best trained, the best equipped, and the most capable military force in the world. In large part, this is true because Congress has appropriated the moneys that are needed to create this outstanding fighting force. That, in a nutshell, is the importance of the Defense appropriations bill.

The Defense authorization bill also has an important purpose. That bill is intended to establish in law critical defense policies. The Defense authorization bill contains provisions that relate, among other things, to the setting forth of the number of military personnel that the United States is to maintain; expanding health care options for our troops and their families; and increasing pay and compensation for active-duty, National Guard, and retired servicemembers. The bill also includes many complex technical provisions, such as changes to military acquisitions policy. The authorization bill is important to our troops, but it is a very different bill from the Defense appropriations bill.

Last night, I opposed the effort to fuse these two bills into one. That move, had it been approved, would have resulted in a delay in our troops getting the appropriations that they require. It also would have resulted in less attention to the policy matters in the authorization bill that affect our troops in so many ways.

The Senate owes our troops and their families a conscientious, well- informed debate on such important authorization matters as improving health care benefits for the National Guard, among other things. The American people need to know what their elected representatives in Washington are doing when it comes to defense policy. The American people have given their sons and daughters to fight for their country. Can't the Senate give a few days to them? Can't the Senate give them a few days of debate to inform them about what the Congress proposes to make the law of the land concerning defense policy?

Many believe that the Senate could debate, amend, and approve the Defense authorization bill within a week, plus or minus a few days, if it were brought before the Senate for open debate and amendment. Passing the authorization bill in that way would serve our troops far better than keeping that legislation on the shelf, where it has been for several months now.

The Senate will pass the Defense appropriations bill later today. Surely--surely--Senators can spare the time required to finish action on the Defense authorization bill. Our troops are overseas. They are serving in harm's way and need both of these bills to be debated, passed, and signed into law.

The Senate has spent all too much time conjuring up complex parliamentary procedures instead of facing the real issues confronting our military servicemembers. The Senate should call up the Defense authorization bill and let the sun shine on our deliberations and debate.

We are the servants of the people. We are the servants of the people, not their masters. We owe the people a public accounting of decisions on such important matters, instead of a fast shuffle that avoids difficult issues and difficult votes.

Iraq

Mr. President, on another matter, next week, the people of Iraq will go to the polls and cast a critical ballot. They will decide whether to endorse the constitution as drafted by their political leaders. It is an important day, and I pray that it goes well.

No matter how well the vote goes, whether or not the constitution is ratified, it appears that the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces will be in Iraq for a long time to come.

I applaud those men and women. Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, our National Guard, our Reserves--our troops--have displayed unique courage in the face of great trials. My support for them has never--and will never--waiver. They have earned the respect and thanks of this Nation.

But even more than laudatory words, our troops deserve a plan for Iraq from their Commander in Chief. The American people deserve the same. We must have a plan with measurable goals and objectives, a plan that gives some surety to our military as well as to the people of this Nation.

Today, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, the President talked a great deal of why we have forces in Iraq, but the President did little to provide any plan for success.

The American people want to know how we will measure progress. In response, the President said:

We never back down, never give in and never accept anything

less than complete victory.

No specifics, no plans, no way to measure success.

Maybe the President did not offer specifics because the specifics are not very encouraging.

Consider the Iraqi troops. For a new American soldier, basic training takes 9 weeks to complete--9 weeks. The United States has, for more than 2\1/2\ years, been training a new Iraqi military. Basic training for all Iraqis, and specialized training after that--2\1/2\ years.

In June, the Senate was told by the Department of Defense that 3 of 100 Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped, and capable of operating independently--what the Defense Department calls ``level one trained.'' Two and a half years: three battalions--three battalions.

Between June and the end of September, one would assume that we would be growing that number. Yes, one would assume that we would be growing that number. We are training more Iraqi forces, so more Iraqis should be ready to stand up and defend themselves.

Yet, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29--just a few days ago--GEN John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, poured cold water--cold water--on hopes for progress. Between June and September,

the number of ``level one trained'' battalions went from three to one. How about that? Instead of moving forward, we are going backward.

Perhaps the reason that the President did not tell the American people how to gauge success is because he does not have success to report. I must admit, I listen to every address--every address--about Iraq with great skepticism. And it is because of the track record of this administration. Don't just take my word for it. The record is replete with examples that cause one to look askance at the White House claims.

One example is from this past May. Vice President Cheney was asked about progress against the insurgency by CNN. He responded:

I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the

insurgency.

The Vice President was confident. The Vice President was unwavering. The Vice President was wrong.

Again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday, GEN George Casey, the Commanding General of the Multinational Force in Iraq, explained that the ``last throes'' was a rosy scenario.

The average counterinsurgency in the 20th century has

lasted nine years. Fighting insurgencies is a long-term

proposition, and there's no reason that we should believe the

insurgency in Iraq will take any less time to deal with.

Now, those are the words not of Robert C. Byrd, but they are the words of General Casey.

Whom should the American people believe? What should the American people believe? It is time for the deceptions and the distortions and the misrepresentations to end. The American people deserve the truth.

Instead of broad platitudes, the American people deserve the facts. Most importantly, the American people deserve a plan. When will the Iraqi people be able to defend themselves? When will the Iraqi military be able to fight the insurgency without the American forces? When will the Iraqi police forces be able to control the streets? What is the timetable for reconstruction? What is the target for constant electrical power in the major cities? For communications? For safe transportation? What is our strategy for preparing the Iraqi people to be able to defend themselves?

We seem to have no strategy--no strategy--with benchmarks for success, no plan for progress. How will we know victory if we cannot even define it? What is the plan for our heroes in Iraq? What is the plan to stabilize that nation? The American people and the Iraqi people deserve to know the answers.

The people of the United States must know not only how

their country became involved, but where we are heading.

That is the end of the quotation. I agree with those words. But they are not mine. Those words belong to a Congressman from the State of Illinois in August 1965. Those words belong to our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. And they echo as true today as they did in that summer 40 years ago.

I urge the Bush administration to level with the American people. Moreover, I urge the White House to level with itself. Face the facts. Stop the spinning. Get a grip on the situation. Then please, please, oh, please, explain to us all where we are heading in Iraq.

Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.