Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2006

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, if I understand the chairman's request, it is to get 4 minutes of additional time on their side. I ask unanimous consent, then, for an additional 4 minutes on our side for comment only.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3677

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3819

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3860

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3592

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3729

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3761

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3805

Mr. President, as we gather this morning, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan need our support, families on the gulf coast need help rebuilding their lives, and communities all across this country need help moving forward. And now it is down to us. Will we provide that support? Will we provide that critical help? Or will we leave our troops unfunded, our gulf coast in ruins, and our communities stalled? This is the bill that determines whether we move forward as a country or whether we make it harder for our troops, for hurricane victims, and for American families to make progress. That is the choice before us.

I am on the floor this morning--as I have been all week--saying we need to move our country forward by passing this emergency supplemental bill. I do want to address some of the concerns that have been raised about this bill.

For years, this White House has been playing games to hide the cost of war. We know we have tremendous expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone knows that. But when it's time to write the budget--suddenly this White House develops amnesia. It somehow ``forgets'' to include the cost of war in the regular budget process. On the day the administration sends us its budget--the ongoing cost of war is somehow unknowable. But a few weeks later--when it sends up an emergency supplemental--suddenly we have got this huge document that lists the costs of war. It is a fiction, a sham, a game. And for too long--this Congress has been going along with it. We don't include the war in the budget. We don't fund the war through the Defense Appropriations bill, we just expect to pay for it through emergency supplementals, and that is not honest. Moreover, it means that real emergencies--unanticipated natural disasters and our own homeland security needs--are pushed aside and rendered ``less important'' than ongoing war costs.

All year I have been on the floor saying that if we are not realistic with our budgets, we are going to have to make up the difference in emergency spending--and that is where we find ourselves today.

Mr. President, I want to walk through how the size of the supplemental has changed to remind my colleagues that it didn't just grow mysteriously. Members of both parties added critical priorities to the supplemental, and members have stood up for those critical investments.

When the Senate Appropriations Committee gathered in early April to mark up this bill, several amendments were adopted that added to the cost of the bill. They included bipartisan amendments to address the agricultural disasters that we have witnessed across the country. That amendment was championed by Senator Dorgan and Senator Burns.

Senator Harkin added an amendment to make sure that there will be adequate funds to finance the administration's preparations to deal with a pandemic flu outbreak.

With the support of Senator Bond, I added an amendment to address the backlog of claims for highway emergency relief that still haven't been paid for recent declared disasters across the country; including: Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Dennis, the San Simeon Earthquake, Hurricane Ophelia, Tropical Storm Gaston, and the tragic

floods in Hawaii that we debated yesterday evening.

The gulf coast Senators on the committee, including Senators Hutchison, Shelby, Landrieu, and, of course, Chairman Cochran, also presented amendments to better address the needs of the gulf coast region in its efforts to recover from Hurricane Katrina and the other gulf coast hurricanes.

These amendments were all offered to address the real needs of our communities here at home.

The Appropriations Committee reported this bill to the Senate Floor by a vote of 27 to 1. When we brought the bill to the floor, we received a statement of administration policy from the Bush white house. That statement said that the President would veto any bill that exceeded the level of $94.5 billion. Soon after, the Senate was given an opportunity to vote on the President's position.

My friend, Senator Thomas of Wyoming, offered an amendment to delete all of the provisions that were not in the administration's original request--thus bringing the size of the bill down to the level acceptable to the President. That amendment failed overwhelmingly, by a veto-proof margin of 72 to 26.

Just hours later, my friend from Nevada, Senator Ensign, made a motion to recommit the bill back to the Appropriations Committee with instructions that it be cut back to the level President Bush said he would support. That amendment also failed by a veto-proof margin of 68 to 28.

Why did those amendments fail, even in the face of the President's veto threat? Because Senators from across the country on both sides of the aisle recognized that the investments that this bill makes here in America are needed.

Indeed, in the face of those embarrassing votes, the Senate Republican leaders frantically scurried around to get enough signatures on a letter to the President saying they would uphold the President's veto. They were desperate to get that letter out to the media because it was clear from the votes on the Senate floor that the Members of the Senate--Republican and Democrat alike--were not prepared to ignore our needs here at home, even if President Bush is prepared to do so.

That is how this supplemental developed--one amendment at a time-- Senators from both parties voted to address critical needs. Senators have stood by those investments, and now it is time to pass this bill.

Mr. President, we have critical needs in our war effort and here at home that we must address. Those needs have not been addressed through the regular budget, so we must address them through this bill. Let's pass this supplemental and make sure our troops and our communities have the support they need. And as we move forward--let's get real about the budget process--let's get real about the cost of war--or we are going to find ourselves back here time and again passing emergency spending.

We have heard a lot about the size of the bill, and I want to address that. This supplemental is big because the budgets we have passed over the years have been unrealistically small.

Let me say that again: This bill is big because the budgets we have passed have been unrealistically small. Time and again, the White House has proposed budgets that do not come close to meeting our domestic needs--and that completely ignore the costs of war. Those budgets have been works of fiction. And if we are not going to be realistic in the regular budget process--if we are not going to include the cost of war in the regular budget, we are going to have to face reality during this supplemental.

That is where we find ourselves today. So any Member who is troubled by the size of this bill should tell the White House it is time to get real and send us budgets that include the cost of war and that address our domestic needs--or we are going to find ourselves dealing with emergency spending time and time again.

But we can't miss the big picture--either we pass this bill and help our troops an our country, or we make it harder for America to move forward. Let's have the wisdom to make the right choice.

Before I go any further, I want to acknowledge the tremendous leadership that Senator Byrd has provided throughput this process. He knows this body better than anyone. And, more importantly, he brings with him a deep commitment to doing the right things not only for the Senate, but for the country, and for the families we all represent.

I also want to thank Chairman Cochran for his leadership and hard work on this bill. He has shown extraordinary patience throughout this debate, and I appreciate how he has worked with all of us to keep this bill on track.

Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. President, we have no objections on this side.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, is the amendment that has been sent to the desk the modified amendment?

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, I wanted to take a minute to express my deep gratitude to Chairman Cochran who, as I stated earlier, has demonstrated extraordinary patience over the past 2 weeks we have been debating this supplemental bill.

I also want to express my thanks to the ranking member, Senator Byrd, who has continued to demonstrate his strong and resolute leadership on this bill.

I also want to thank the many members of our Appropriations Committee staff who have worked very hard.

First and foremost, I thank our staff director and deputy staff director on our side, Terry Sauvain and Chuck Kieffer.

I also thank the majority staff director, Keith Kennedy, and his staff, Clayton Heil and Les Spivey.

I want to make special mention of the extraordinary hard work of B.G. Wright, Kate Fitzpatrick, and Rachael Taylor. They have been keeping us all on track on this side as to which of the hundreds of filed amendments have been cleared and which have not.

Finally, I thank Peter Rogoff who has dedicated his life on the Senate floor for the last 2 weeks above and beyond the call.

I thank all our staff and floor staff for being here many long hours for the completion of this bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend and colleague Senator Daniel Inouye, to introduce the Senate companion to H.R. 1105, the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act, which was introduced by Representative Sue Kelly and co-sponsored by my colleagues from the State of Hawaii, Representatives Neil Abercrombie and Ed Case.

The Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act will improve the safety of our Nation's dams by establishing a Federal program to assist Hawaii and other states in rehabilitating publicly owned dams that pose a risk to public safety.

Storms that struck Hawaii in recent weeks remind us that the devastation wrought by the collapse of a dam can be severe and tragic. All too often, these catastrophic collapses come with little or no warning, leaving those in the path of flooding with no time to avoid danger.

Dam safety is a neglected aspect of our homeland security. While we plan for the possibility that terrorists may attack our infrastructure, we fail to fully recognize that critical infrastructure is also subject to the forces of nature and, therefore, prone to wear and tear. Just as we must guard against attacks on our critical infrastructure, we must also be attentive to its maintenance.

Our Nation has thousands of dams. The homes and businesses of millions of Americans are in the path of potentially catastrophic flooding that could result from dam failures. Some of our great cities are at risk, as are vast tracts of our most productive agricultural land. Although dams are often out of sight and given little regard in everyday life, we put lives and property at peril when we fail to properly maintain them.

The Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act takes an important step forward by allocating Federal funds for the repair and rehabilitation of publicly owned dams that are deemed to be unsafe. Specifically, this bill will: Mandate the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a program providing grant assistance to states for the repair of dams that pose a public safety risk; require the FEMA Director to determine appropriate procedures for awarding grants and allocating funds; establish a risk-based priority system to identify dams in need of repair; and establish a cost sharing arrangement between the Federal Government and States.

In addition, I am working to ensure that both public and private dams receive the maintenance they need for the public's safety, and I appreciate the technical assistance that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given me on this critical problem. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass legislation that augments the National Dam Safety Program and provides states with the necessary assistance to protect the public.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record at this point a letter from the Dam Safety Coalition endorsing this legislation and that text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation with Senator Durbin that will increase educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and foreign languages for all students.

Last month, I shared with my colleagues the need to expand educational opportunities in these areas so that the youth of today can meet the challenges of tomorrow. The President, in his State of the Union address, said that America's ability to compete in global markets and to defend the nation against foreign threats depends on the strength of our educational system. On this point, he and I agree. Our future national and economic security are tied directly to our mathematical, scientific, and linguistic acumen.

For example, prior to 9/11, the Intelligence Community was not prepared

to handle the challenge of translating the volumes of foreign language counter-terrorism intelligence it had collected. The Intelligence Community faced backlogs in material awaiting translation, a shortage of language specialists and language-qualified field officers, and a readiness level of only 30 percent in the most critical foreign languages. This news, however, was not new. In 2000, Ellen Laipson, Vice Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, reported similar problems and said that thousands of technical papers providing details on foreign research and development in scientific or technical areas were not being translated because of the lack of personnel to interpret the material, which could lead to the possibility of ``a technological surprise.''

It is clear that our national security relies on having a workforce skilled in the areas of science, technology, engineering, math, and foreign languages. We need to take action to strengthen education in these areas so that the United States can compete, prosper, and be secure in the 21st Century. A major investment in America's education system is necessary to ensure that we can communicate with and understand the cultures of our world partners and competitors. In the words of the Committee for Economic Development, ``we must redefine, as each generation has done, what it means to be an educated American in a changing world.'' Enactment of the Homeland Security Education Act provides the framework to enhance our education system to ensure that our nation's youth will have the skills needed for success.

Our education system must be reenergized and reinvigorated to meet the needs of our nation by preparing students to be proficient in foreign languages and leaders in the scientific and engineering fields. Our schools need the equipment and the materials to teach the critical STEM and foreign language courses and bring these subjects to life. To address these issues our bill would: encourage public private partnerships to improve science and math curricula; upgrade laboratory facilities; provide scholarships for students to study math, science, or engineering at the university level; and establish internship and mentoring opportunities for students in grades K through 12; develop cultural awareness and immersion programs in colleges and universities that combine science, technology, and engineering instruction with foreign language to expand international understanding and scientific collaboration; and create language learning pathways to facilitate proficiency in critical foreign languages from Kindergarten through graduate school.

However, no amount of funding or new programs will address the problem if there are not enough teachers trained in these subjects. To address the shortage of STEM and foreign language teachers, our bill includes provisions to award scholarships in the amount of $15,000 to language-proficient individuals and practicing scientists and engineers to return to school and earn their degrees and become certified to teach these critical skills to students in high-need, low income schools. Our bill would also allow National Security Education Program scholarship and fellowship recipients to meet their service requirements by teaching in these critical areas if they cannot find a national security position in the Federal Government.

A key provision in the Homeland Security Education Act focuses on foreign language teacher training by awarding grants to facilitate partnerships between K through 12 schools and institutions of higher education to build professional development programs, summer workshops or institutes, and foreign language distance learning programs for elementary and secondary school teachers.

In addition to providing new programs and teachers, we must encourage students to study these subjects. The U.S. currently lags far behind other countries in the number of students majoring in these critical areas. We must reverse this trend if we are to ensure an adequate supply of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics expertise in the years ahead. For example, only 32 percent of undergraduates in the United States receive their degrees in science and engineering, compared to 59 percent in China and 66 percent in Japan. The statistics are even worse for foreign language education, where fewer than one in 10 college students enroll in a foreign language class. Our bill would provide financial incentives for students to take the tough classes, earn their degrees, and be trained in the skills that will help America succeed by providing them with $5,000 scholarships to earn degrees in STEM or a foreign language.

I am proud of my home State of Hawaii, which appreciates the importance of learning other languages and understanding other cultures and where high school seniors take Advanced Placement (AP) exams in calculus, chemistry, physics, and science at rates that are higher than, and in some cases nearly double, the national average. Still, there definitely is room for more students to take AP exams and excel in these important areas.

The Homeland Security Education Act would help make this a reality by complementing efforts such as the PACE bills, Senator Kennedy's legislation, and the President's education initiatives--all of which I support because they are positive steps to increasing educational opportunities in critical STEM and foreign language studies.

Professor Richard Schmidt, Director of the National Foreign Language Resource Center at the University of Hawaii, said that ``this legislation has strong potential to produce the kind of close articulation between K through 12 and higher education programs that has been very difficult in the past.''

I wish to thank Professor Schmidt, the University of Hawaii College of Education, and the National Council for Languages and International Studies for supporting this bill. I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record

Education serves as the catalyst to ensure our Nation's long-term security. To remain a world leader we need Americans who are well- educated and who can communicate in the global marketplace. The bill we introduce today will help us meet these essential requirements.

I urge my colleagues to support the Homeland Security Education Act, and I look forward to working with them to strengthen our national security through enactment of our bill.

Mr. President. I rise today to introduce two energy bills: the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006; and the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006.

All of us know that we face a challenging energy situation in this country in both the short term and the long term. The world market price of crude oil is above $72 per barrel. We have seen gasoline prices above $3 per gallon in many parts of the country. In my home State of New Mexico, these prices are a real hardship to the many New Mexicans who are forced to drive long-distances to work, without the prospect of car pooling or public transportation. The steep rise in the price of gas at the pump is putting a nearly unbearable squeeze on family budgets in New Mexico and all across America.

So, we have a major national problem and not much time left in this Congress to make progress on it. The question is, what can we do in the remaining weeks of this Congress that would be bipartisan, that could be signed into law by the President, and that would hold out the prospect of eventually helping to moderate the price of gasoline at the pump?

I have thought for some time that the most effective way of approaching the real issues driving the high prices that consumers find unacceptable is through a four-part strategy focusing on 1. increasing consumer protection, 2. increasing supply, 3. increasing efficiency of oil and gas use, and 4. providing incentives for forward-looking energy choices in the market.

A fair number of bills have already been introduced that deal with the first two parts of that strategy. What has been lacking is a bipartisan path forward to consensus on increasing energy efficiency and on stimulating forward-looking investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies.

Today's bills are intended to fill that gap. Each of these two bills is designed to go to a single committee with jurisdiction over most, if not all, of its contents.

The first bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Act of 2006, is comprised of provisions that generally fall in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The second bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006, is comprised solely of provisions in the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee.

Some of the provisions in these two bills have been drawn from other bills, including S. 2025, the Vehicles and Fuels Choices for American Security Act, which was introduced last year by Senators Bayh, Coleman, Lieberman and Brownback along with others. I appreciate their leadership and their support for this effort. What is newsworthy here today is that we are putting a large body of good policy ideas in a form that will facilitate committee action here in the Senate.

Relying on the Energy and the Finance committees to do the necessary homework to come up with bipartisan solutions to our energy challenges is the best way for us to make progress in this Congress. Both committees have leaders, in Senators Domenici and Senator Grassley, who demonstrated their commitment to bipartisan engagement on energy issues during the enactment of last year's Energy Policy Act of 2005. I am looking forward to working with both Committee Chairs to move forward with the ideas in these bills on a bipartisan basis.

The basic idea behind the first bill, which is coming to the Energy Committee, is that if we want, in the long term, to moderate the prices that consumers are seeing in today's markets from oil and natural gas, we need to focus more strongly on increasing energy efficiency, and particularly increased efficiency of our use of oil and natural gas.

That's an area where we were unable to do much in the last Energy bill. But, there is a lot that needs to be done.

Among the most important provisions we are taking from S. 2025 and putting in the new bill, is an emphasis on an expanded plan for economy-wide oil savings. The President is to come up with a plan that will cut our oil use, from projected levels, by 2.5 million barrels of oil per day by 2016, 7 million barrels of oil per day by 2026, and 10 million barrels of oil per day by 2031.

The new bill, also like S. 2025, includes a number of initiatives designed to reduce our nearly total reliance on petroleum products in the transportation sector. These include: programs that will speed the development of new vehicle technologies such as ``plug-in hybrids'' and the use of advanced light weight materials in vehicles; expanding the authority of the Secretary of Energy to provide loan guarantees and competitive grants to auto manufacturers and parts manufacturers for converting existing facilities or building new facilities for manufacturing fuel-efficient vehicles and vehicle components; increasing the availability of alternative fuels, such as E85, across the country by providing funding for alternative fuel fueling stations; and providing incentives for the production of cellulosic ethanol-- including loan guarantees and a reverse auction for production payments.

The new bill will also include a number of provisions aimed at relieving demand and price pressure on natural gas. These include: strengthening the Federal purchase requirement for renewable energy; the 10 percent renewable portfolio standard that has passed the full Senate 3 times in the past 4 years; encouraging States to strengthen their programs on demand-side management; and better educating consumers about energy efficiency measures that they can take.

The basic idea behind the second bill, the Enhanced Energy Security Tax Incentives Act of 2006, is to create fiscal incentives that help forward-looking energy technologies to enter the market. As is often the case with technological advancements, many of the energy technology alternatives that are poised to enter the marketplace will not be able to successfully compete without some transitional help.

The first set of provisions in the bill extends, through 2010, the various alternative fuel, efficiency and renewable energy tax provisions we passed last year. These existing tax incentives will work best if investors, manufacturers and consumers know that the government is committed and that they can plan for these tax incentives being there for a few years. The tax provisions we are extending include provisions to encourage the purchase of energy efficient housing and office materials, as well as the generation of electricity from alternative sources such

as biomass, fuel cells, the wind and the sun. It will be nearly impossible for Congress to create a comprehensive national energy policy if important energy tax incentives such as these are in a perpetual state of uncertainty over the long term. If we extend these tax incentives through 2010 now, we will see a great increase in their usefulness in an industry that needs a few years lead-time to plan and build major energy projects.

The second set of provisions in the new tax bill will create new incentives to encourage our country to move towards more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrids. It accomplishes this in several ways.

First, as the President has suggested, we lift the current cap on the number of vehicles per manufacturer that are eligible for a consumer tax credit. This proposal was also part of the package unveiled last week by Senators Domenici and Frist. Under the bill I will be introducing, this modified version of the tax credit will be also extended until 2010.

Next, we create a 35 percent tax credit for manufacturers on the expenses involved in retrofitting or setting up manufacturing facilities to make these fuel efficient vehicles.

To encourage businesses with fleets of vehicles, we create a 15 percent tax credit for the purchase of more than 10 fuel efficient vehicles in a year.

In order to encourage alternative fueling stations, we expand the current 30 percent tax credit to 50 percent and allow it to be operative until the end of 2010.

Finally, we create a 25 percent tax credit for the purchase of qualified idling reduction equipment so that vehicles currently on the road are not running their engines any more than necessary.

While this is a rather large expansion of the currently available tax incentives for fuel efficient vehicles, it is what is going to be necessary to get our vehicle policy headed in the right direction.

The legislation also contains new provisions to encourage the purchase of fuel efficient technologies for residences and businesses. It creates a 10 percent tax credit for the purchase of energy efficient combined heat and power units as well as provides for three year depreciation on the purchase price for ``smart meters.'' These provisions have broad support in the Senate but were regrettably dropped in last year's conference on the Energy Bill. I think is important that we look at these provisions anew.

A question that usually arises when you talk about expanding tax incentives is whether they are going to be paid for. Many of us here in the Senate are worried about the deficit, so the tax bill that I am describing contains several revenue offsets, such as the provisions contained in last year's reconciliation tax bill that get rid of tax benefits in the oil and gas industry that are unnecessary and a waste of taxpayer dollars. This legislation would also close the SUV tax loophole that provides a windfall for the purchasers of inefficient cars at a time when the nation needs to be discouraging this activity.

I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee on both these new tax incentives but also on ways of paying for them, so that we are acting in a way that is fiscally responsible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to Senator Thune's amendment and to set the record straight on my ongoing and passionate support for AmeriCorps and the National Civilian Community Corps, NCCC. The Senator from South Dakota said that I described the overall AmeriCorps program as, ``It's like Enron's gone nonprofit.'' Senator Thune was absolutely wrong to say that is the way I describe AmeriCorps. I love AmeriCorps. I love what they do for communities. I love what they do for America.

Senator Thune took that quote totally out of context. I made that statement back in 2002 when a bureaucratic boondoggle led to the overenrollment of 20,000 volunteers. When that happened, I led the efforts to organize the national service groups and to strengthen AmeriCorps. Along with Senator Bond, I introduced and passed the ``Strengthen AmeriCorps Program Act of 2003'' which established new accounting procedures for AmeriCorps. I urged the President to appoint a new CEO for the Corporation of National Service--a CEO with the management skills necessary to restore confidence in the Corporation's abilities to make a real difference to our volunteers--and in our communities. I also asked for a reinvigorated Board of Directors that would take greater oversight and responsibility and I have consistently called for increased funding so that AmeriCorps could support 75,000 volunteers each year.

AmeriCorps is stronger than ever. Since its creation, over 300,000 volunteers have served in communities and earned education awards to go to college or to pay off student debt. To date, 7,500 Maryland residents have earned education awards. The NCCC program, which has a campus in Perry Point, MD, is a full-time residential program for 18 to 24 year olds designed to strengthen communities and develop leaders through team-based service projects. Each year, approximately 1,100 participants reside in its five campuses nationwide. The Perry Point campus houses 200 AmeriCorps members every year, and since 1994 its residents have logged more than 350,000 service hours. Most recently, NCCC members have provided more than 250,000 service hours valued at $3.8 million to projects in the Gulf Coast region, which reflects their critical service during every American natural disaster since the program started.

The funds that Senator Thune wants to cut are specifically dedicated to support volunteer recovery activities in the gulf and would pay for 800 NCCC members who will provide more than 1.2 million hours of service in the gulf coast hurricane recovery effort. These teams will rebuild schools and community centers, remove debris, and help senior citizens rebuild their homes and lives. This funding demonstrates the Senate's commitment to keeping this valuable program alive, despite President Bush's efforts to cut the Federal funds it needs to survive.

I fought to create AmeriCorps, I fought to strengthen AmeriCorps, and I will fight to save AmeriCorps. Today's Federal investment, like these fine volunteers, are needed now more than ever. I strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to make sure this money is included as a part of this emergency spending package, and I urge them to oppose Senator Thune's amendment which would divert these critical funds away from NCCC.

Mr. President, I support our troops and their families. I am behind them 100 percent. They deserve our gratitude, not just with words but with deeds. We must do right by our troops and their families. This strong emergency supplemental appropriations bill helps us do just that. This supplemental also provides needed funds to the victims of the devastating hurricanes that hit our gulf coast last summer.

In this bill we have provided $15.6 billion to fix or replace equipment that has been damaged during combat operations and to buy additional force protection equipment desperately needed by our brave men and women on the battlefield.

To help protect our troops from deadly improvised explosive devices, IEDs, this bill creates the joint improvised explosive device defeat fund and provides the fund with nearly $2 billion to develop and field the necessary tactics, equipment, and training to defeat these deadly weapons.

Another way we can support our troops is to make our intentions in Iraq clear to the Iraqis and the international community. To this end, I supported the amendment introduced by Senator Biden that prohibits the building of any permanent military bases in Iraq. This will send a clear message to the Iraqi people--we are committed to withdrawing our troops once their mission is accomplished.

To ensure that we do all we can to care for soldiers when they are injured, this bill includes an additional $1.15 billion for the defense health program. This money ensures that we can continue to provide world-class services including rapid aero-medical evacuation to our most severely wounded soldiers.

The veterans health care system is stretched to the limit at a time when more and more veterans are turning to VA. That is why I cosponsored an amendment by Senator Akaka to increase veterans funding by $430 million to meet the health care needs of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and other war veterans.

The rank-and-file employees of the Federal Government are the unsung heroes of this country. Unfortunately, they are often required to work in substandard or often hazardous conditions. It was recently reported that employees within this very building are forced to enter tunnels full of asbestos and on the verge of collapse. That is why I cosponsored an amendment by Senator Allard that provides over $27 million for critical emergency structural repairs to the Capitol Complex utilities tunnels. I will continue to fight for our Federal workforce to ensure they have safe working environments and proper safety equipment.

We know that nearly 40 percent of the soldiers deployed today in Iraq and Afghanistan are citizen soldiers who come from the National Guard and Reserves. More than half of these will suffer a loss of income when they are mobilized, because their military pay is less than the pay from their civilian job.

Many patriotic employers and State governments eliminate this pay gap by continuing to pay them the difference between their civilian and military pay. The reservist pay security amendment, which I worked on with Senator Durbin, will ensure that the U.S. Government also makes up for this pay gap for Federal employees who are activated in the Guard and Reserves.

Mr. President, last year, we provided emergency relief for the victims of the horrible tsunami in Asia. Today with this bill, we are providing over $27 billion in support to our own citizens so badly hurt by the devastating hurricanes that hit the gulf coast last year. This money will not only help with the rebuilding of New Orleans, but will provide a host of economic incentives and subsidies to help the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Alabama get back to work and rebuild their lives following the destruction of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Additionally, this bill provides emergency funding to help immediately rebuild the levees and install flood control equipment that will help prevent another terrible tragedy from occurring when this year's hurricane season arrives in less than 4 weeks.

After 9/11 we realized that our borders were not secure. Since then, we have waged the war on terror and made great strides at protecting our homeland. We have made significant investments in law enforcement and security; however, the infrastructure that supports our border security has been allowed to crumble. To counter this, I supported an amendment proposed by Senator Gregg which adds $2 billion for border security initiatives to include buying additional vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, and ships. It also builds state of the art facilities for use in ensuring the security of our borders.

We have all seen the devastating effects of natural disasters and terrorism and are working hard to prevent future occurrences from affecting our Nation and the world. We have recently learned of another potential threat: a worldwide flu epidemic that could cost millions of lives if we are unprepared. In response to this threat, this bill provides $2.3 billion to prepare for and respond to an influenza pandemic. Making this money available now will help expand the domestic production capacity of influenza vaccine, and will help develop and stockpile the right vaccines, antivirals, and other medical supplies necessary to protect and preserve lives in the event of an outbreak.

Because it is just as important to support our communities at home as it is to support our troops in the field, I will continue to fight for responsible military budgets. For that reason, I joined Senator Byrd's call for the President to fund our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the regular budget and appropriations process. After 4 years in Afghanistan and 3 years in Iraq, we should not be funding these operations as if they were surprise emergencies.

Mr. President, this bill is a Federal investment in supporting our troops and their families and providing relief for those impacted by the devastating hurricanes.

We support our troops by getting them the best equipment and the best protection we can provide. We support them by making it easier for our citizen soldiers in the National Guard and Reserves to serve their country. And we support them by ensuring they are cared for with the best possible medical system when they are injured or ill.

With this bill, we are also helping our neighbors rebuild their homes, their communities, and their lives, and I am proud to give it my support.

Mr. President, over the March recess, I joined the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner of Virginia and Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, on a trip to Iraq to hear the on-the-ground perspective of our military leaders, our troops in the field, and Iraqi officials. I returned to the United States as always overwhelmed by my pride and admiration for our service men and women, who continue to work with commitment and professionalism even in the most difficult circumstances. I cast my vote in support of this supplemental package before us because I am completely committed to providing our men and women in uniform with the support they need to continue their excellent work. Toward that end, I am very pleased that an amendment I authored calling for regular reports on the Pentagon's efforts to train our troops in methods of detecting and defeating improvised explosive devices has been added to this bill.

I also cast this vote today because when it comes to funding our service men and women, right now this supplemental is the only game in town. And because the administration refuses, year after year, to incorporate the costs of ongoing operations in Iraq into the regular budget, we have no choice but to fund these efforts through these emergency supplementals--essentially putting hundreds of billions on our national tab. The Senate voted overwhelmingly in support of Senator Byrd's amendment urging the administration to stop these irresponsible budget games. I hope the President heeds that message.

In addition to reaffirming my admiration for our military, my recent trip to Iraq also gave me a deeper understanding of the importance of success in Iraq and the truly daunting nature of the challenges ahead.

In addition to the extremely serious fiscal issues confronting us, we have the even more serious policy issue to consider--how should U.S. policy proceed in Iraq?

A failed Iraqi state would threaten our national interests, destabilizing an already volatile region and creating a lasting haven for terrorists. Our national security imperatives mandate our commitment to Iraq's success.

Success in Iraq is dependent on several factors: controlling violence, creating a stable government of national unity, delivering basic services and the promise of economic development to the Iraqi people, and establishing strong and supportive relations between Iraq and its neighbors in the region. If any of these pillars are missing, Iraq's future becomes uncertain and unstable.

America can help, but ultimately the Iraqis must achieve these goals on their own. The Iraqi people and Iraqi security forces have made significant strides, but much more remains before Iraq can govern and protect Iraqis. And Iraq's neighbors, who know the region best and will suffer most from a failed state in their midst, must step up to the plate to help end the political deadlock in Iraq.

We all recognize that U.S. forces cannot and should not remain in Iraq indefinitely. The U.S. military presence in Iraq should depend upon Iraqi leaders promptly making the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based, sustainable, political settlement necessary to form a government of national unity and defeat the insurgency. We need partners within Iraq and outside its borders who are committed to stability and sharing power in order to achieve the mission of a truly democratic Iraq, and to share in that success with Iraq's people.

We also need to ensure that the magnitude of the challenge before us in Iraq does not distract all our attention from the vitally important, ongoing mission in Afghanistan. This bill also provides much needed support for that mission. We have made tremendous progress, working with the Afghan people, in helping to turn Afghanistan from a state sponsor of terrorism to a stable, responsible member of the international community. But our work is by no means complete, and the American troops and Afghani leaders I met with in Kabul just weeks ago underscored how important it is that we continue our strong support for the stabilizing mission.

This bill also provides support for the communities devastated by last year's hurricane season. I am afraid that, thus far, the story of the Government's response to Katrina has been a story of failure not only in the preparations for the storm and in the midst of the crisis but also in the recovery effort. Too many promises have not been kept, and too many American families continue to live in an atmosphere of uncertainty. The provisions in this bill will help, but our commitment does not end here. Congress needs to make sure that the gulf region has the necessary resources to recover from last year's hurricanes and respond to future storms, but it must also make sure that the administration has fixed the incompetence at FEMA and DHS which disturbed so many Americans. I look forward to continuing to work on these important issues in the upcoming months.

Over the past 6 years, Colorado has suffered from ongoing natural disasters including drought. Unfortunately,

many areas in Colorado continue to suffer from ongoing extreme weather conditions including drought, hail, and frost. In particular, Colorado wheat producers are estimating that this will be the fifth below- average wheat crop in 6 years.

In addition, many Colorado farmers and ranchers are suffering from economic losses due to continually rising gas prices. And what is true in Colorado is true in many other States across the country. That is why I am an original cosponsor of Senator Conrad's emergency agriculture disaster assistance package, and I am so pleased that it was included as part of this supplemental bill. Toward that end, I especially thank Senators Conrad and Cochran, who worked very hard on these important provisions. I am so pleased that the Senate has voted to provide immediate assistance to producers across the country who have been devastated by a variety of natural disasters.

While, overall, we are lucky in Colorado that this has been a better year for many of our farmers and ranchers who have suffered from continuing natural disasters over the past several years, many producers in southern and eastern Colorado have been hit by drought conditions once again.

It has been downhill for the 2005 Colorado winter wheat crop since last May. In fact, estimates show that it will be the fifth below- average winter wheat crop in 6 years--with potential losses to producers of over $60 million.

In addition, increasing gas prices have hit our rural communities hard, making it virtually impossible for many producers to cover the unexpected additional costs. During harvest, agricultural producers are some of the largest fuel consumers in the United States and producers are facing enormous fuel costs. Farm fuel has increased by 79 percent from $1.40 per gallon in September of 2004 to around $2.60 per gallon in September 2005. Colorado wheat producers have told me that it would take a 40-bushel average yield per acre and an average price of $4.00 per bushel to cover all of these additional costs and break even. Unfortunately, the average yield in 2005 was 24 bushels per acre, and the average price is projected at $3.34 per bushel.

Finally, Mr. President, I wish to express again how pleased I am that the Senate adopted my amendment to provide an additional $30 million to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires and mitigate the effects of widespread insect infestations throughout the entire National Forest System. In the West, the seasonal wildfire potential outlook map shows above-normal fire danger across the Western United States and several Southern States, too, have increased fire dangers. One of the most alarming factors in the wildfire outlook this year is insect infestation. For example, my State of Colorado has over 1.5 million acres that have been infested by bark beetles. After these infestations come through a forest, they leave behind entire stands of trees-- sometimes thousands of acres--that are more susceptible to fire due to the dried-out conditions and increased fuel loads in those forests. Just today, I learned from the U.S. Forest Service that Colorado has 280,000 acres of approved hazardous fuel reduction projects that are awaiting treatment, with Forest Service funding only sufficient to conduct about a quarter of those projects under the best circumstances. This situation represents a true emergency, and I am relieved that we were able to address it in this bill.

Mr. President, in the past week, the Senate has voted to reduce the overall cost of H.R. 4939, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, now totaling nearly $110 billion by a mere $15 million. I am delighted that President Bush has pledged to veto this bill because Congress has, once again, been unable to resist the temptation to load up a must-pass bill with pork.

I offered several amendments to eliminate nonemergency items in this bill. I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I am very pleased and encouraged that this body is increasingly willing to depart from our business-as-usual practices.

That is good because the American people are paying attention to this process. In a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, the American people said that ending earmarks should be the No. 1 priority for Congress this session. Thirty-nine percent said that members should be prohibited from ``directing federal funds to specific projects benefiting only certain constituents.'' It is interesting to note that ending earmarks was ranked ahead of immigration reform, which was cited as the No. 1 priority by 32 percent of Americans.

I hope that these results, combined with polls showing a 22-percent approval rating for Congress, will encourage conferees to avoid a confrontation with President Bush over spending. I would hope that when conferees look for items to remove from this bill they take a close look at my amendments that lost by a narrow margin as well as those I withdrew.

I believe that in this time of war and disaster recovery the American people expect us to make hard choices about spending. Taxpayers want us to be serving in a spirit of service and sacrifice, not searching for new ways to raid the public Treasury.

Congress is raiding the Treasury in two ways with this bill. First, many of the items in this bill should be considered in the regular appropriations process and through the regular order. The war on terror is no longer a surprise. We are entering our fifth year of this war. It shouldn't come as a surprise to Congress that we have needs related to this effort. We have also developed a good understanding about many of the priorities in the gulf coast that could have been addressed in the regular budget process.

Congress has also added billions of dollars for items that have no connection to the war on terror and the gulf coast recovery. Again, few of these items are true emergencies. The American people deserve to understand what defines a true emergency. According to the budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 all of the following five criteria must be met to be considered an emergency: necessary, essential, or vital; sudden, quickly coming into being, and not building up over time; an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and not permanent, temporary in nature.

Designating a project as an ``emergency'' excuses Congress from paying for a project. The result of abusing the ``emergency'' designation is an even greater emergency. Our Nation's debt is nearly $8.4 trillion. Each American's share of this debt is $27,964.86. Our national debt is increasing by an average of $1.95 billion per day. Social Security, Medicare and the standard of living of future generations of Americans are in jeopardy as a result of decades of fiscal irresponsibility and rationalizations for spending more money today without considering the consequences tomorrow.

The Social Security trustees reported this week the program will exhaust its trust fund and begin running annual cash deficits in 2040. A year ago, that prediction was 2041, effectively meaning 2 years have been lost by a refusal to act. The trustees reported Social Security's unfunded liability is $13.4 trillion.

Of course, the real problem with Social Security and Medicare is much worse because the Federal Government uses an Enron-style accounting scheme. We habitually borrow or, more accurately, steal money from these trust funds to pay for more spending today.

When the 77 million baby boomers begin to retire in 2011, our Nation will be faced with the greatest economic challenge in our history. If we continue to indulge in earmarks, the gateway drug to spending addictions, we will never address these complex challenges, particularly if we can't resist the urge to abuse the earmark process on a bill designed to address the emergency needs of our troops and displaced people in the gulf coast.

Another reason we must act today to rein in wasteful spending is because our ability to influence world events is diminished by our debt to other nations. We now have the distinction of being the world's largest debtor nation, and this bill will add to that debt. Many serious economists are warning that our excessive borrowing from foreign sources could cause the value of the dollar to collapse, which would lead to a disaster for our economy. It is incredibly shortsighted for this body to sell Treasury bills to countries such as China so we can finance economic development programs and other pet projects while, at the same time, we hope to encourage China to be more aggressive in terms of discouraging Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This is not just a numbers game. The future

vitality of our nation is at stake. We are slowly but surely whittling away our national power and ability to leverage other nations away by our refusal to make hard choices about spending.

Many of the items in this bill are obviously not emergencies, which is why this bill will be vetoed by President Bush if it is sent to him in its current form. Again, I hope conferees do not force the President to take this step. I am confident the President will veto this bill. He understands that it is more important to secure the next generation rather than the next election.

Past Presidents and Congresses have made hard choices during difficult times. Between 1939 and 1942, Congress and FDR cut spending for nondefense programs by 22 percent. In 1950, President Truman and Congress cut nonmilitary spending by 28 percent. I suggest to my colleagues that if we want to be here past 2006, we better do the same.

Still, I agree with my colleagues who say that the President's priorities don't come down from heaven. I suggest, however, that we are all subject to the judgment that comes down from the taxpayers. If we flippantly disregard the President's insistence that we make hard choices, the judgment of the taxpayers will not be kind to any of us.

Families across this country are faced with hard choices every day in order to live within their budget. They have elected us to make hard choices. Our refusal to do this only reinforces the perception that we are disconnected from the priority-setting reality that governs the rest of the country.

It is wrong, for example, for this body to fund pork projects such as grape research in the State of California force the taxpayers in my State and every other State to pay for a so-called emergency project that has been ongoing for the last 46 years and has already received more than $130 million from the American taxpayer. Where this body sees an emergency the taxpayers often see a series of misplaced priorities.

The State of California received 549 Federal earmarks this year totaling $733 million. That included $10 million in Federal resources alone for museums. Is it more important to protect the residents at risk from flooding by the Sacramento River or to fund grape research? Congress is spending over $3.6 million on a grape research center in California this year. We are spending another $1 million on a pedestrian walkway project in Calimesa and a half million on pedestrian/bike improvements on Tower Bridge in Sacramento? What is more important for Sacramento? Why can't we prioritize today so future generations are not forced to make even tougher choices between massive tax hikes, drastic cuts to Medicare and Social Security, or the defense of our Nation?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, ``Cowardice asks the question--is it safe? Expediency asks the question--is it popular? Vanity asks the question--is it popular? But conscience asks the question--is it right?''

I plead with my colleagues. Do what is right. Our Nation is on an unsustainable course, and that course correction must begin today, not when it is too late.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide compensation for civilian veterans of the Cold War who contracted cancer as a result of their work at our nuclear weapons facilities, The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 will ensure that employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site during the years of above and below ground nuclear weapons testing and suffer from radiation-induced cancers as a result of that work finally receive the compensation they deserve. These Cold War veterans sacrificed their health and wellbeing for their county. We can wait no longer to acknowledge those sacrifices and to try, in some small way, to compensate for the cancers they have suffered as a result of their service to their country.

United States citizens have served their country working in facilities producing and testing nuclear weapons and engaging in other atomic energy defense activities that served as a deterrent during the Cold War. Many of these workers were exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation and placed in harm's way by the Department of Energy and contractors, subcontractors, and vendors of the Department without the knowledge and consent of the workers, without adequate radiation monitoring, and without necessary protections from internal or external occupational radiation exposures.

Six years ago, I worked with President Clinton to pass The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 7384 et seq.) (EEOICPA) to ensure fairness and equity for the men and women who performed duties uniquely related to the nuclear weapons production and testing programs by establishing a program that would provide timely, uniform, and adequate compensation for 22 specified radiation-related cancers.

Research by the Department of Energy, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), NIOSH's contractors, the President's Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, and congressional committees indicates that workers were not adequately monitored for internal or external exposures to ionizing radiation to which the workers were exposed and records were not maintained, are not reliable, are incomplete, or fail to indicate the radioactive isotopes to which workers were exposed.

Because of the inequities posed by the factors described above and the resulting harm to the workers, EEOICPA has an expedited process for groups of workers whose radiation dose cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or whose dose cannot be estimated in a timely manner. These workers are placed into a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). Workers in an SEC do not have to go through the dose reconstruction process, which can take years and be extremely difficult as these workers are often unable to produce information because it was or is classified.

Congress has already legislatively designated classes of atomic energy veterans at the Paducah, Kentucky, Portsmouth, Ohio, Oak Ridge K-25, Tennessee, and the Amchitka Island, Alaska, sites as members of the Special Exposure Cohort under EEOICPA. Amchitka Island was designated because three underground nuclear tests were conducted on the Island.

Nevada Test Site workers deserve the same designation.

I and many other Nevadans remember watching explosions at the Nevada Test Site. We were struck with awe and wonder at the power and strength of these explosions. Little did we know that there was another side to those atomic tests--the exposure of men and women working at the site to cancer-causing substances. Now, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these Cold War veterans face deadly cancers. Many have already passed away.

The contribution of the State of Nevada to the security ofthe United States throughout the Cold War and since has been unparalleled. In 1950, President Harry S. Truman designated what would later be called the Nevada Test Site as the Nation's nuclear proving grounds and, a month later, the first atmospheric test at the Nevada Test Site was detonated. The United States conducted 100 aboveground and 828 underground nuclear tests at the Nevada Test Site from 1951-1992. Out of the 1054 nuclear tests conducted in the United States, 928, or 88 percent, were conducted at the Nevada Test Site.

Unfortunately, Nevada Test Site workers, despite having worked with significant amounts of radioactive materials and having known exposures leading to serious health effects, have been denied compensation under EEOICPA as a result of flawed calculations based on records that are incomplete or in error as well as the use of faulty assumptions and incorrect models.

It has become evident that it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose received by employees at the Department of Energy facility in Nevada known as Nevada Test Site at all in some cases and in other in a timely manner. There are many reasons for this, including inadequate monitoring, incomplete radionuclide lists, and DOE's ignoring nearly a dozen tests conducted at the site that vented. Because of these problems, Nevada Test Site workers have been denied compensation under the Act, some of which have waited for decades for their government to acknowledge the sacrifices they made for their country and compensate them.

Unfortunately, 6 years since the passage of EEOICPA and in some cases decades after their service to their country, very few of those Nevada Test Site Cold War veterans who have cancer have received compensation. In fact, Nevada Test Site workers are receiving compensation at a rate lower than the national average and many who have waited decades are being told that they have to wait longer. And many have already died while waiting for their compensation.

Last November, I sent a letter to President Bush asking him to initiate this process himself. He still has not responded. However, his Administration is trying to re-write the law via regulation and cut funding to this program in order to delay compensation further and halt it for some workers altogether.

This is unacceptable. That is why I am committed to ensuring that Nevada Test Site workers through 1993 are designated as a ``Special Exposure Cohort.'' This will streamline and speed up the recovery process for those workers.

The Nevada Test Site Veteran's Compensation Act of 2006 would ensure employees and survivors of employees who worked at the Nevada Test Site through 1993 that they receive compensation. They helped this country win the cold war, sacrificing their personal health in the process and after decades of waiting and suffering, it is time the government honored these sacrifices

This bill would include within the Special Exposure Cohort, Nevada Test Site workers employed at the site from 1950-1993 who were: (1) Present during an atmospheric or underground nuclear test or performed drillbacks, re-entry, or clean up work following such test; (2) present at an episodic event involving radiation releases; or (3) employed at Nevada Test Site for at least 250 work days and in a job activity that was monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation or worked in a job activity that is or was comparable to a job that is, was or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Nevada Test Site has served, and continues to serve, as the premier research, testing, and development site for our nuclear defense capabilities. The Nevada Test Site and its workers have been, and are, an essential and irreplaceable part of our Nation's defense capabilities. This bill would honor the service of our Atomic Energy veterans

and provide them with the compensation they deserve.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Kerry, and Wyden. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was passed shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound--the largest spill in US. history. OPA 90 revolutionized oil spill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank for improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response.

However, in a report and testimony recently provided to Congress, the U.S. Coast Guard identified serious shortcomings in our oil spill management system. First, in a report transmitted to Congress on May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard noted that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was in danger of being depleted. And they noted that every state or U.S. territory has received money from the Fund for oil spills. Without the Fund, states would have to provide funds for these emergency events.

Through legislation that I cosponsored last year with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, which became law as part of the Energy Policy Act, we solved part of this problem by reinstating OPA 90's per-barrel fee on oil, in order to replenish the Fund, and raising the total level of principal from $1 billion to $2.7 billion. However, the Coast Guard also noted that the costs of oil spills increasingly exceed the liability limits for responsible parties that were set back in 1990. Under OPA 90, responsible parties can be reimbursed for costs above their liability limit from the Fund--and this practice continues to deplete the Fund. This

issue also was highlighted at a field hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard that I chaired last August in Seattle, where the Coast Guard testified that the current limits are too low. The bill I introduce today will increase these caps so that we return to the ``polluter pays'' principle enshrined in OPA 90.

The devastating hurricane Katrina also led to an historic number of oil spills. The Coast Guard has estimated that such spills could amount to close to $1 billion. If these claims are made against the Fund, the Fund will be quickly wiped out. That's why the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would ensure that such claims would be covered through the Stafford Act process and supplemental funding, and not through the regular claims process of OPA 90. Finally, this bill would require improved accountability of how monies from the Fund are expended by Federal agencies.

The Coast Guard also testified in our hearing that we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent oil spills. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oil spills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In fact, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil in 1992, while in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons. Significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. And even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating, as the recent Athos I incident in the Delaware River and Bay demonstrates.

The bill I introduce today addresses a number of key areas to improve prevention and response. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oil spills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oil spills from vessels and ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high-risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 also would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oil spills from oil transfers. It would also make companies who knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts.

Of particular importance to my state, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay rescue tug, a central element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington state's outer coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make the westerly boundary begin at the entry to the Strait. This change would require oil spill response equipment to be stationed along the entire Strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Finally, the bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the Oil Spill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Daleo Passage Oil Spill. My bill would provide $1 million annually to support the Council's important work.

The slow response to the oil spill in Dalco Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would reinvigorate a federal research program on oil spill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.

The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oil spills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations.

Oil spill prevention and response is timely for Congress' consideration because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, and non-tank vessels.

One thing we've learned from these spills is that it is more cost- effective to prevent oil spills than it is to clean-up oil once it is released into the environment. We've also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oil spills.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oil spills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006. Joining me as original cosponsors are Senators Kyl and Hutchison. I would like to extend my thanks to both of my colleagues and their staff for their assistance and guidance on many of the provisions in the bill.

The original Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 saw the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia--specifically, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan--as a distinct region bound by history and common interests with a shared potential that was of critical importance to the United States.

The goals of that legislation were as follows: to promote independent, democratic government; to promote the protection of human rights, tolerance, and pluralism; to aid in the resolution of conflicts and support political, economic, and security cooperation in order to foster regional stability and economic interdependence; to promote financial and economic development based on market principles; to aid in the development of communications, transportation, health and human services infrastructure; to promote and protect the interests of U.S. businesses and investments.

These basic policy goals have not changed; however, historic events since 1999 have had a significant impact on the region's political systems, economic conditions, and security situation which affect U.S. perceptions of and interests in the region. These changes include: the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States, which clarified the nature and source of the key threats facing this country; the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban regime; the series of ``colored revolutions'' in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan; Deteriorating relations between the U.S. and certain regional leaders, especially Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, and the closure of the U.S. base in that country; the growing influence of regional powers, namely Russia and China; greater U.S. oil and gas interests in the Caspian region; and the threat posed by Iran, which is seeking to develop a nuclear potential.

In light of these changes, the Silk Road Act needs to be updated and revised to better address some of the new challenges the U.S. faces in its relations with Central Asia and the Caucasus.

The U.S.'s vital interests in the Caspian region include: ensuring the independence and security of Azerbaijan and Georgia, through which critical oil and gas pipelines transit; containing Iran; ensuring access to oil and gas reserves; maintaining good relations with Kazakhstan; promoting peaceful resolution of conflicts; and keeping Russian geopolitical ambitions in check.

Further East, U.S. interests include: helping Kyrgyzstan to make its Tulip Revolution a success; the political stabilization of Afghanistan and enhancement of its security by defeating the Taliban and Al Qaeda and its satellite organizations; political reform and liberalization in the countries of Central Asia to neutralize radical Islamic movements, such as Hizb-ut- Tahrir al-Islami, HUT--Islamic Army of Liberation; reduction of drug production and exports; creation and/or support of the U.S. military base network; and social and economic development in the states of Central Asia.

To these ends, among other priorities, this bill emphasizes the importance of East-West gas and oil pipelines, such as the Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, BTC. BTC ensures Azerbaijan's security and economic future, and binds the country with neighboring Georgia and Turkey, anchoring Azerbaijan in the network of Western states and institutions.

The bill also includes Afghanistan as a Silk Road country and promotes the integration of Afghanistan with neighboring Central Asian states in terms of security, trade, infrastructure and energy grids.

In all the states of Central Asia and the Caucasus, it is critical to promote democratic development. Among this bill's initiatives are calls for supporting independent media outlets, especially electronic media, and also for satellite TV programming, to provide authoritative news and more diverse opinions than are otherwise available. Specifically, it supports satellite TV broadcasting into Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Iran and the activities of their diasporas in the United States. Furthermore, the bill offers assistance for the establishment of civil service institutes to train civil servants at all levels in the rule of law, conduct of elections, respect for citizens' rights, and the needs of a market economy.

No less important is the need to accelerate and broaden economic reform and modernization in the Silk Road countries. Accordingly, this bill provides assistance in the privatization of state enterprises and deregulation of the economy.

The bill also calls for assistance with the establishment of the Caspian Bank of Reconstruction and Development, CBRD, to help Silk Road states address problems caused by increased revenues from energy exports, and dangers to macroeconomic stability and overheating of the economy infrastructure, as well as promote development in the region.

In light of Trans-Caspian Oil and Gas Pipelines, this bill encourages the governments of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and especially Turkmenistan to improve their business climate and investor confidence by fully disclosing their internationally audited hydrocarbon reserve.

The bill strongly supports activities that promote the participation of U.S. companies and investors in the planning, financing, and construction of infrastructure for communications, transportation, including air transportation, and energy and trade including highways, railroads, port facilities, shipping, banking, insurance, telecommunications networks, and gas and oil pipelines.

Furthermore, the bill would assist in the removal of legal and institutional barriers to continental and regional trade and the harmonization of border and tariff regimes, including improved mechanisms for transit through Pakistan to Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia.

With respect to the World Trade Organization, the bill offers support to Silk Road countries seeking WTO accession, providing assistance in reform as needed. Recognizing that PNTR status, through graduation from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 Trade Act, and WTO membership have been extended to Armenia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, the bill calls for extending the same status to the other two most advanced economies of the region, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, by graduating them from the Jackson-Vanik Amendment, extending PNTR status and aiding in WTO accession. But before that support is offered, it is important for the two countries to demonstrate that they are capable of dealing with the demands of a vibrant economy in a democratic setting.

A detailed examination of this bill will reveal many more initiatives. But as you can see, Mr. President, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 takes a comprehensive approach to the region, encompassing security, economic development, democratic governance and human rights. I believe it targets the key issues that U.S. policymakers must address in our ever more important effort to establish solid, long-lasting relationships with the countries of the Silk Road. I hope my colleagues will support this bill and I look forward to discussing it with them.

Mr. President, today I am introducing the reauthorization of the Automated Defibrillators in Adam's Memory Act, or the ADAM Act. This bill is modeled after the successful Project ADAM that originally began in Wisconsin, and will reauthorize a program to establish a national clearing house to provide schools with the ``how- to'' and technical advice to set up a public access defibrillation program.

Every 2 minutes, someone in America falls into sudden cardiac arrest. By improving access to AEDs, we can improve the survival rates of cardiac arrest in our communities.

In my home State of Wisconsin, as in many other States, heart disease is the number one killer. Ninety-five sudden deaths from cardiac arrest occur each day in Wisconsin alone. Overall, heart disease kills more Americans than AIDS, cancer and diabetes combined.

Cardiac arrest can strike anyone. Cardiac victims are in a race against time, and unfortunately, for too many of those in rural areas, Emergency Medical Services are unable to reach people in need, and time runs out for victims of cardiac arrest. It's simply not possible to have EMS units next to every farm and small town across the Nation.

Fortunately, recent technological advances have made the newest generation of AEDs inexpensive and simple to operate. Because of these advancements in AED technology, it is now practical to train and equip police officers, teachers, and members of other community organizations.

An estimated 163,221 Americans experience out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrests each year. Immediate CPR and early defibrillation using an automated external defibrillator, AED, can more than double a victim's chance of survival. By taking some relatively simple steps, we can give victims of cardiac arrest a better chance of survival.

Over the past 6 years, I have worked with Senator Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on a number of initiatives to empower communities to improve cardiac arrest survival rates. We have pushed Congress to support rural first responders--local police and fire and rescue services--in their efforts to provide early defibrillation. Congress heard our call, and responded by enacting two of our bills, the Rural Access to Emergency Devices Act and the ADAM Act.

The Rural Access to Emergency Devices program allows community partnerships across the country to receive a grant enabling them to purchase defibrillators, and receive the training needed to use these devices. This program is entering its second year of helping rural communities purchase defibrillators and train first responders, and I'm pleased to say that grants have already put defibrillators in rural communities in 49 States, helping those communities be better prepared when cardiac arrest strikes.

Approximately 95 percent of sudden cardiac arrest victims die before reaching the hospital. Every minute that passes before a cardiac arrest victim is defibrillated, the chance of survival falls by as much as 10 percent. After only 8 minutes, the victim's survival rate drops by 60 percent. This is why early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and use of AEDs can save lives.

If we give people in rural communities a chance, they may be able to reverse a cardiac arrest before it takes another life. Unfortunately, the President zeroed out the funding for the Rural AED program in fiscal year 2007 after the program was cut by 83 percent last year. I am very disappointed that this program has been eliminated in the President's budget, and I will do everything in my power to restore funding to this program.

Heart disease is not only a problem among adults. A few years ago I learned the story of Adam Lemel, a 17-year-old high school student and a star basketball and tennis player in Wisconsin. Tragically, during a timeout while playing basketball at a neighboring Milwaukee high school, Adam suffered sudden cardiac arrest, and died before the paramedics arrived.

This story is incredibly tragic. Adam had his whole life ahead of him, and could quite possibly have been saved with appropriate early intervention. In fact, we have seen a number of examples in Wisconsin where early CPR and access to defibrillation have saved lives.

Seventy miles away from Milwaukee, a 14-year-old boy collapsed while playing basketball. Within 3 minutes, the emergency team arrived and began CPR. Within 5 minutes of his collapse, the paramedics used an AED to jump start his heart. Not only has this young man survived, doctors have identified his father and brother as having the same heart condition and have begun preventative treatments.

These stories help to underscore some important issues. First, although cardiac arrest is most common among adults, it can occur at any age--even in apparently healthy children and adolescents. Second, early intervention is essential--a combination of CPR and the use of AEDs can save lives. Third, some individuals who are at risk for sudden cardiac arrest can be identified to prevent cardiac arrest.

After Adam Lemel suffered his cardiac arrest, his friend David Ellis joined forces with Children's Hospital of Wisconsin to initiate Project ADAM to bring CPR training and public access defibrillation into schools, educate communities about preventing sudden cardiac deaths and save lives.

Today, Project ADAM has introduced AEDs into several Wisconsin schools, and has been a model for programs in

Washington, Florida, Michigan and elsewhere. Project ADAM provides a model for the Nation, and now, with the enactment of this new law, more schools will have access to the information they seek to launch similar programs.

The ADAM Act was passed into law in 2003, but has yet to be funded. Should funding be enacted, the program will help to put life-saving defibrillators in the hands of people in schools around the country. I have been very proud to play a part in having this bill signed into law, and it is my hope that the reauthorization of the Act will quickly pass through the Congress and into law, and that funding will follow. It would not take much money to fund this program and save lives across the country.

The ADAM Act is one way we can honor the life of children like Adam Lemel, and give tomorrow's pediatric cardiac arrest victims a fighting chance at life.

This act exists because a family experienced the tragic loss of their son, but they were determined to spare other families that same loss. I thank Adam's parents, Joe and Patty, for their courageous efforts and I thank them for everything they have done to help the ADAM Act become law. Their actions take incredible bravery, and I commend them for their efforts.

By making sure that AEDs are available in our Nation's rural areas, schools and throughout our communities we can help those in a race against time have a fighting chance of survival when they fall victim to cardiac arrest. I urge Congress to pass this reauthorization, and to fund the ADAM Act and the Rural AED program at their full levels. We have the power to prevent death--all we must do is act.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would establish the ``National Integrated Drought Information System'' (NIDIS) within the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for purposes of improving drought monitoring and forecasting capabilities.

Over the last decade, several severe and long-term droughts have occurred in the United States. Recent severe drought conditions across the Nation and in particular in the West have created life-threatening situations, as well as financial burdens for both government and individuals.

Extremely dry conditions have led to numerous forest and rangeland fires, burning hundreds of thousands of acres of land, destroying homes and communities, and eliminating critical habitats for wildlife and grazing lands for livestock. The subsequent ash and sediment loading threatens the health of our streams. In addition to the millions of board-feet of timber lost, these fires have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to fight and have put thousands of lives at risk.

The droughts have caused shortages of grain and other agricultural products resulting in soaring prices that will be passed on to consumers. In addition, deteriorating soil conditions and lack of forage are devastating the farm and ranching communities. The droughts have negatively affected livestock market prices and caused the premature selloffs of herds.

The droughts have threatened municipal water supplies, causing many communities to develop new water management plans which institute water restrictions and other water conservation measures. Drought causes social, economic and environmental consequences including negative effects on commerce and industry, tourism, air, water and other natural resources, and quality of life for our citizens, ranging from limits on recreational opportunities to loss of employment.

The fiscal impacts of drought on individuals and governments are significant. According to NOAA, the federal government spends on average $6-8 billion per year on drought. The most devastating of these was the 1988 drought in the central and eastern U.S. which caused severe losses to agriculture and related industries totaling $40 billion and an estimated 5,000-10,000 deaths.

The issue of drought is one I have been involved with for many years. Fortunately, drought conditions are improving in Nebraska, but we have endured a number of very difficult years struggling with the impact drought has had on our economy and environment and the social implications that go along with a disaster like this.

One of my biggest frustrations the past few years as an elected official, trying to help the areas of my State devastated by drought, has been making people understand that this drought really was a disaster--as much as a hurricane, or an earthquake, or a tornado.

I even named the drought in Nebraska--Drought David--in an effort to crystallize it so people could see that it is the same kind of experience as any other natural disaster.

Unlike other natural disasters, however, droughts are much more difficult to identify. It is hard to miss an oncoming flood or tornado--or their immediate aftermath. Drought, and its effects, is much harder to quantify. It develops slowly; it doesn't necessarily have a beginning point or an ending point but it spans over an extended period of time.

Because it is difficult to forecast and plan for droughts, it is especially important that we have programs in place such as the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln. The Drought Mitigation Center, among other things, maintains a web-based information clearinghouse, provides drought monitoring, prepares the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor which covers all 50 States, and develops drought policy and planning techniques. I believe it is crucial to encourage more investment in research programs such as the Drought Mitigation Center.

The research done upfront in monitoring drought trends will help our capabilities to mitigate and respond to its effects in a much more effective manner. It is cost effective to support programs such as the National Drought Mitigation Center and I advocate for continued support for this important program.

The National Drought Policy Commission stated in their May 2000 report to Congress that ``Drought is the most obstinate and pernicious of the dramatic events that Nature conjures up. It can last longer and extend across larger areas than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and earthquakes . . . causing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and dashing hopes and dreams.'' Among its recommendations to move the country toward a more proactive approach to drought preparedness and response, the Commission called for improved ``collaboration among scientists and managers to enhance the effectiveness of observation networks, monitoring, prediction, information delivery, and applied research and to foster public understanding of and preparedness for drought.''

The call for improved drought monitoring and forecasting has also been advocated by the Western Governors' Association (WGA). In the WGA policy resolution adopted in June 2005, ``Future Management of Drought,'' the Governors state that NIDIS ``would provide water users across the board--farmers, ranchers, utilities, tribes, land managers, business owners, recreationalists, wildlife managers, and decision- makers at all levels of government--with the ability to assess their drought risk in real time and before the onset of drought, in order to make informed and timely decisions that may mitigate a drought's impacts. The Governors urge Congress and the President to authorize NIDIS and provide funding for its implementation.''

NIDIS has also become a key component of the multi-national effort to create the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), a mechanism for linking the individual networks of satellites, ocean buoys, weather stations and other instruments scattered across the globe. The U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS), the U.S. contribution to GEOSS, has identified NIDIS as one of six ``near-term opportunities'' in their Strategic Plan.

Finally, the Administration supports this program. Funding for NIDIS is included in the President's FY 2007 budget request.

The National Integrated Drought Information System Act of 2006 that Senator Domenici and I are introducing today would authorize the much needed drought early warning system envisioned by the National Drought Policy Commission, the Western Governors' Association, and the Integrated Earth Observation System. If enacted, this bill will allow our Nation to become much more proactive in mitigating and avoiding the costly impacts and contentious conflicts that so often happen today when water shortages and droughts occur.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.