Floor Statements

Mr. President, I see Senator Dayton is here. The yeas and nays have not been ordered. There have been discussions during the evening about this amendment. I wonder whether the Senator wants the yeas and nays. I would say the Jeffords amendment, which under the previous order is the next pending business, will be withdrawn.

Amendment No. 1796 withdrawn

I ask unanimous consent that it be withdrawn, after conferring with Senator Jeffords and his staff.

We are now on the Dayton amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

The Senator from Iowa and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, as well as member of the subcommittee of jurisdiction over this bill, raises some important points about funding in the bill. I will work with Senator Harkin in conference to address this issue.

Madam President, all other amendments having been withdrawn or disposed of, we are now to final passage. To accommodate those who need to leave, I reserve any remarks about the bill until after final passage and urge we move to the vote.

Madam President, I yield for the Senator from Alaska.

Change of Vote

Madam President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, at this time I would like to thank those who worked so hard to help us with the bill, particularly Dave Schiappa and Laura Dove here on the floor, along with Bill Hoagland of the leader's staff and Chairman Chambliss and his staff, all of whom have been tremendously helpful. We also thank David Tinsley, Kathie Alvarez, Lula Davis, the Parliamentarians, and the cloakroom staff. These marathon activities are not the best kind of situations for some of these folks whom we take for granted around here. I want to acknowledge their help and their support.

I, of course, want to acknowledge the staff of the subcommittee, and I will list their names as a single staff, even though technically they are divided between majority and minority, but in this subcommittee we work together as if we are one staff: John Ziolkowski, Fitz Elder, Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, Stacy McBride, Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, Bill Simpson, and Tom Gonzales.

All of these people have my very deep and sincere thanks for the work in getting this done.

Now, Madam President, I understand we have to appoint conferees.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. today, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2528. I further ask consent that the committee- reported substitute be agreed to as original text for the purposes of further amendment, with no points of order waived by virtue of this agreement.

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that there be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain's legislative fellow, Navy CDR Shawn Grenier, be granted floor privileges during consideration of H.R. 2528.

Mr. President, I understand that under the order, we now go to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I have a few housekeeping details I would like to take care of on behalf of the leader, and then I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Massachusetts be granted half an hour in which he may speak in morning business, with the understanding that we will then go back to the Agriculture appropriations bill without any other requests for morning business being honored.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 245 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution and preamble be agreed to en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S. 1713, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the measure be printed in the Record.

I thank the Chair. I now yield the floor so that the Senator from Massachusetts can make his statement.

Mr. President, I shall not object, but the junior Senator from Massachusetts is looking for time and we are anxious to get on to the bill. I will not object to the request for an additional 5 minutes, but I hope the Senator could, in fact, finish in that 5- minute time.

Mr. President, the order now is that we go to the Agriculture appropriations bill. I ask unanimous consent the junior Senator from Massachusetts be allowed to speak for 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, we are on the Agriculture bill, but the morning has been taken up with discussion of Judge Roberts. I think that is appropriate given the decision of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to support Judge Roberts and to announce that here this morning. That was perhaps unexpected by some of the commentators and, therefore, deserved a little time.

I will take the opportunity, having listened to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, to respond to some of the things he said, not with the understanding that it is going to change anything anywhere but for the satisfaction of getting a few things off my chest.

The Senator complained bitterly, as he and others have done with respect to other nominees, that the memos given to the Solicitor General are not being made public. He did not tell us that every Solicitor General--regardless of party, regardless of administration-- who is currently living has agreed with Judge Roberts, with Miguel Estrada, with others who worked in the Office of the Solicitor General, that those memos should, in fact, not be made public.

They are, in fact, covered by the attorney-client privilege. Some say, ``Well, the American people are the client, not the Solicitor General.'' The Solicitor General is the attorney for the American people and has a right to attorney-client privilege within his own staff, as any attorney has for material within that attorney's own office, as if they are representing a private client.

This keeps coming up. It keeps being repeated in the hope that it catches on. We need to always remember that every single Solicitor General who is living--regardless of their party--says that is the bad thing to do. That is the wrong interpretation of the law. The Senator from Massachusetts did not point that out. I think it needs to be pointed out.

He made a reference to the bureaucrats who were involved here who, as he said, have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution as we Senators have. I have been a bureaucrat. I have taken an oath as a bureaucrat to defend the Constitution. Those who serve the United States in these positions are sworn in with the same oath Senators take. It should be made clear those people who took that position and were in that position were, in fact, under oath to defend the Constitution. It demeans them to suggest their actions were any less patriotic or anxious to protect the law than actions of Senators.

I will conclude by quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is not known as a paper supportive of Republican positions. Indeed, it is often thought of as being a companion publication with the New York Times. But the Los Angeles Times says:

It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in

Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not

vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief

justice of the United States.

As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is

an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the

mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad

bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate

vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing

more than self-defeating obstructionists. . . .

Even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game,

voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee

hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage [on the upcoming

second nomination].

If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably

conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice

palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone

who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be

harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over

Roberts.

I am not sure that will change anything, but it makes me feel a little better having said it, after listening to the presentations we have heard over the last hour. I congratulate my friend, Senator Leahy from Vermont, for his courage in standing up to internal pressures and his announcement that he will, following the advice of the Los Angeles Times and others who have examined this, in fact vote to confirm Judge Roberts. This guarantees that we will have a bipartisan vote out of committee, as we should, and that we will have strong bipartisan support here on the floor, as we should.

Amendment No. 1783

Returning to the Agriculture appropriations bill, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, we need a little background on this amendment. It may be controversial. I understand there are some Senators who have opposed it and will be coming to the floor.

It would allow the producers on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board to vote to fund or not fund the dairy air emission research required under the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Compliance Agreement. This sounds fairly technical. In fact, the money that is available to the board has always been used for particular purposes, and most dairy producers want to make sure that it stays restricted to those purposes. But something has come up that requires research. It has come not from the Department of Agriculture but from the Environmental Protection Agency in a new agreement that affects dairy farmers. And in order to defend themselves against the position taken by the EPA, they need research. They need it now, and they need it badly.

This amendment would allow a one-time use of dairy promotion and research funds to fund the research. Most

dairy farmers are in favor of it. Dairy is the only program that does not have an option for funding its own research. The research will be conducted by Purdue University, according to protocols approved by the EPA. This is not in opposition to EPA procedures. The actual research will be performed by land grant universities in the States identified by the U.S. Dairy Environmental Task Force.

If we assume approval by the board, which would happen if my amendment were adopted, the funds will flow through an oversight organization, again approved by the EPA. The Agriculture Air Research Council, Inc., AARC, will contract with Purdue which will, in turn, contract with the universities in the States where the sites are selected. Dairy funds only will be used to fund the dairy research. AARC's board will include two members from the dairy industry and will monitor and audit the progress of the research and how the funds are spent.

The ultimate goal of all of this research will be to develop air emissions data that can be used in a process model that will allow any dairy farmer in the United States to input his dairy's operation information and find out what his emissions are. The information generated by this research, therefore, will benefit all dairy producers.

The reason is because the EPA has laid down rules with respect to emissions from dairy farmers. Most farmers have no clue as to how many emissions their farm is producing. The EPA has some fairly draconian restrictions to put on dairy farms, if the emissions go above a certain level. So how is a farmer to know whether he is in compliance, if there is no research on how the emissions can be measured? That is the reason we want the research done, and that is the reason farmers will benefit.

I believe Congress never intended the environmental statutes regarding emissions to apply to agriculture. When we talk about emissions, we are talking about smokestacks and automobiles and things that have been created by human beings. Now the EPA has said, no, we must monitor and, where necessary, control the emissions that come from cows. Cows have been generating emissions for a long time, perhaps even before human beings came along. So let's look at it, but let's not have a rule that arbitrarily disadvantages the dairy farmers without giving them an opportunity to know what is going on. That is what is behind this. In order to deal with the EPA regulations, the farmers need to know what is happening with respect to emissions. My amendment would fund a one-time study to give them the information they need. I believe without statutory changes, the courts will continue to rule that the environmental laws do, in fact, apply to dairy farms, and that is an issue for the authorizing committee. It is not something we should deal with on the Agriculture bill. Barring changes to the laws, I believe the collection of these data and the development of an emissions model will provide more certainty to producers.

I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Those who are opposed have been notified. I understand there are conflicts on both sides of the aisle at this particular moment. I am not sure how many Senators will be able to come down. We are open for business. We are ready for amendments. We are anxious to proceed. I hope my colleagues will accommodate us.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I listened to my friend from Idaho with great interest and great sympathy, and if, indeed, we could get all the other dairy producers to follow Idaho's example and put an assessment on themselves in order to come up with this money, I would agree with him this amendment is not necessary. Unfortunately, I believe there is an urgency here. The research needs to be done as quickly as possible, and this seems to be the logical place to which we should go.

I will say to the Senator from Idaho and to my other colleagues the fundamental problem here is not the research. The fundamental problem in my view is the absurdity of the EPA position with respect to the underlying question. That, as I said earlier, is not a matter for the appropriations subcommittee to deal with. It is a matter for the authorizing committee. But I will pledge to my friend from Idaho that to the degree we can have some influence on the EPA's position in conference, I will do everything I can to try to get a little common sense into this regulatory pattern.

With that, Madam President, I call for a voice vote on the amendment.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a series of cleared amendments and ask that they be considered en bloc.

These amendments have been cleared on both sides. I ask for their approval by voice vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the adoption of amendment No. 1752, the amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

Mr. President, there are cleared amendments at the desk, one from Senator Kyl and one from Senator Leahy. I ask unanimous consent that they be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, there is an amendment from Senator Feingold at the desk which I would like to call up and have a voice vote on at this time.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, there is an amendment at the desk offered by

Senator McConnell which I would like to call up for consideration.

Mr. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to with a voice vote.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand that there are three amendments at the desk; one offered by Senator Gordon Smith, one offered by Senator John McCain, and one offered by Max Baucus.

I ask these amendments be called up and considered en bloc. They are amendments No. 1786, for Senator Smith; No. 1785, for Senator McCain; and No. 1800, for Senator Baucus.

I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk for the senior Senator from Nevada, Mr. Reid.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask that this amendment be agreed to on a voice vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

There is a briefing going on in the Capitol with Members of the Senate invited to attend. Accordingly, with the approval of leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 5 o'clock.

Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock has come and gone. That was the hour by which all amendments to the bill had to be submitted. We had 120. We have disposed affirmatively of 31 of those, and we are not at all sure the other roughly 90 are all going to be offered.

The majority leader has made it clear he wants to finish this bill tonight, and so I say to those who have amendments still on the list, if they do not show up to offer their amendments, we will move to third reading at an appropriate time. We want to accommodate the majority leader's desire. I think it is the desire of most of the Members of the Senate to move forward. So I say to the other Members who do have amendments, you are on notice that if you do not let us know you are going to be here and try to reserve some time to call up your amendment, we will indeed move to third reading. There are hotlines that have been going out to Senators who have amendments filed to give them that message. We will go forward in that fashion.

Amendments Nos. 1754 and 1755

Mr. President, I do have two additional amendments to those that have already been cleared, which I send to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. Both are on behalf of Senator Salazar of Colorado.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendments be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I call for a vote on the two amendments.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

With that, Mr. President, we continue to go through the amendments that are available to us to see if they can be cleared on both sides in an effort to get them cleared. But I say, once again, to Senators who may be watching, we need to have an understanding of whether you are coming forward. We will soon reach the point where the amendments that can be cleared on both sides have been. At that point, if a Senator has not notified us of his intention to proceed and has not shown up, we will move to third reading.

I thank the Presiding Officer. We were aware of his intention to offer his amendments, and we will not take advantage of him being trapped in the Chair to move ahead without protecting his rights and his interests.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are making progress. I see the Senator from Minnesota on the floor and hope that he can proceed with his amendment.

Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota does involve some cost. We are, at the moment, unable to have a score from CBO. We are working on getting a scoring from CBO, so I ask we not vote on this amendment at the present time, until we get that.

I will say to the Senator and to Senators, generally, since the passage of the bill by the committee, we have had a number of requests, such as the one from the Senator from Minnesota, many of which appear to be meritorious but when added together, we get a sum of money that we simply cannot sustain under our allocation. So we have taken the position that we will not entertain these additional requests for money.

There are a number of Senators who have been disappointed as a result of that position, including, if I may say, the Senator from Utah. I felt that I had to deal with everybody equally, and those requests that have come in from my own State since the passage of the bill by the committee, with some difficulty, I have had to say to people, I cannot treat Utah differently than others.

This is a meritorious issue the Senator has raised, and I am not saying we will automatically oppose it because it does add to the list that I described. Because we want to know exactly what the number would be and get the information from CBO, I ask that we set this one aside for the time being, and when we have that information, then I

will be in a better position to respond to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comment and assure him this is no burden, and we will do the best we can.

Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct in the comments that he makes about the GAO and their study of this program. We have looked into it for the same reasons that the Senator from Oklahoma has and find that there have been mistakes made and there have been overestimates made. However, we have also discovered that the Department has recognized this and has made changes in the program, and the Department has reacted to the criticism that has come from the GAO.

The estimates that we have before us in this bill we believe are sound and the concern we have is that there is, in fact, no extra money sitting around. If we were to accept the amendment the Senator has offered, there would, in fact, be people who are currently in low- income housing who would lose that housing. They would lose that housing immediately upon passage of this bill.

It is further, of course, exacerbated by the situation created by Katrina, in that people have lost their housing by virtue of the hurricane, and to see others who have not been affected by the hurricane turned out because of the cutback in this program is something I do not think anybody would want to see.

The President requested $650 million, as the Senator said. We are at $653 million, based on the information that we have from the Department, which we now believe is far more accurate than the information of previous years. The GAO criticism is correct about misestimates.

Also, we point out these are 4-year contracts, so that something that appears to be money sitting there is, in fact, not necessarily money sitting there. It is money that has been committed over the 4-year contract. This is not just a single year's appropriation.

For these reasons I would have to oppose the amendment of the Senator because I believe in the present circumstances we do not want to have the consequence of having people who are currently in housing, currently receiving aid under this program, lose that aid and have to leave their housing. If it were entirely prospective, I would be more sympathetic to the amendment of the Senator, but all of the information I have is that it would, in fact, cause people who are currently receiving this to lose their housing.

I know the Senator from Oklahoma has some other amendments. I would like to give as much notice as possible to Senators around the city as to when we would take a vote. The Senator from Oklahoma says he would like to have this the subject of a rollcall vote. Of course, we will accommodate him. But if we could find out what other amendments the Senator has, and see if we could have a discussion and then set a time for those votes to be stacked--if indeed he wishes to have additional rollcall votes?

I ask if the Senator could respond to that.

Mr. President, I am unaware of the existence of the cushion. I would be happy to work with the Senator to try to find out exactly whether there is one and how much it is. But the information that I received both from the staff and, admittedly, from the Department, is there is no cushion and passage of this amendment would, in fact, cause people who are currently in housing to lose their housing.

I am not in a position to challenge the Senator's sources. I simply state that my sources have given me an additional answer. I have not looked over the books. I have not personally gone into the accounting of this situation, and therefore I am not in a position to do any more than state, as I have stated, that my information is different than his.

Clearly, this is a subject that needs to be pursued. I congratulate him on raising it. The question for the Senate now is how we proceed on this amendment, whether the Senator will ask for a rollcall vote and, if he does, when we schedule it.

Very good. We will have that discussion. As I say, my desire is to give Senators notice if they are at a location sufficiently far from

the Capitol that they need a heads up. That is the only concern that I have. I will be here. I will be prepared to vote virtually at any time.

Mr. President, as I examine this question, it is a question that involves the traditions and procedures of the full committee. At the risk of being accused of dodging, I would prefer to have Senator Cochran as chairman of the full committee examine and respond.

We have reached out to get hold of Senator Cochran to see if he is willing to do that. But this would be a departure from previous procedures.

As I understand, the Senator from Oklahoma would like there to be a permanent departure that occurs on virtually every appropriations bill from here on out. For that reason, I am a little reluctant to set a precedent on the bill over which I have responsibility which might then be cited as a precedent for all the other bills that would follow.

For that reason, I hope we can have Senator Cochran appear and have his position before we come to the question of whether or not we vote on it.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I call for the regular order on the Coburn amendment No. 1773.

Mr. President, I call for a vote on this by voice.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 7 o'clock be evenly divided between myself and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, with the vote on the Coburn amendment No. 1775 to occur at 7 o'clock to be followed by a vote on the Bingaman amendment, with the yeas and nays ordered in both instances with no other amendments being allowed to either amendment prior to the time.

Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I renew my request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two votes there be a period of 2 minutes for explanation equally divided between the Senator from New Mexico and myself.

Mr. President, there is no question but that an education program to try to get our young people to eat better makes sense. There is no question that we should do what we can to deal with the challenge of obesity.

Now let us look at a few realities with which we are faced. The President requested $10.25 million for the program. The amendment offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Lugar would virtually double that amount. There is no other program we are dealing with where the request is to double the funds. We have people who are requesting incremental increases of 5 percent and 10 percent, but quite frankly we have resisted.

The total number of earmarks and requests that have come in since the committee acted is over $50 million. We have stood firm against all of them and said we are sorry, the money isn't there. We feel we have to stand firm against it. So this $10 million would double the program as it currently exists and would be 20 percent of the total amount we on the subcommittee have said we cannot fund.

The offset is very interesting. It is the common computer environment. It always seems easy to say, well, we can get by, by delaying activity with the computers. Let's cut the computers because education is more important.

During the debate we have had today, we have heard complaints from people about interoperability, about inability to communicate in the time of emergency. Katrina has exposed problems with computers. If we were to cut the computer program as drastically as this would cut it, we run the risk of closing county offices. We run the risk of stopping the modernization of services right at a time when complaints are coming in about how antiquated those services are.

But interestingly, as the $50 million requests have come in, almost all of them, when we told them you have to have an offset, say let's cut the computers. If indeed we responded to every one of the requests for additional spending, we would have cut the computers $50 million.

I don't want to cut the computers at all. I accept the arguments that say we have challenges with communication in the Department; we need to have as modern a communication system as we possibly can. The common computer environment that is trying to create that interoperability should be encouraged and maintained.

For that reason, as fond as I am of the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Indiana, I have to oppose this amendment. I will ask my colleagues, when the time comes for the rollcall vote, to oppose it. There will be another bill next year. We will see where we are next year with overall spending. We will see where we are with respect to emergencies and how the Department of Agriculture is dealing with those emergencies.

I am convinced when we come to that, as we sift through all the damage that is done by Katrina and perhaps by Rita and other challenges, we would like to have as powerful and as modern a computer system to deal with communications as we possibly can.

For those reasons, the doubling of a program at a time of budget constraints that we find ourselves in, and taking the offset from a program where we feel we need to be as modern as we possibly can, gives me two reasons to say that I would be opposed to this amendment.

I still have an additional 5 minutes and I frankly have said all I need to say. I yield back the remainder of my time. If the Senator from New Mexico wishes to claim it, I am happy to have him use it; otherwise, we can go into a quorum call until such time as the vote starts at 7 o'clock, unless there are other Senators who wish to speak.

Mr. President, we have had previous conversations about the effectiveness of the Agriculture Department. We are talking about our own backgrounds. I have a little bit of

background in advertising. I would be anxious before we spend this money to do a little analysis of how effective the advertising has been.

You talk about instruction in schools. We all know that there are instructions that work and there are instructions that don't. My own experience is that the Government is not very good at advertising healthy lifestyle changes. We could have been spending--I have no idea. We have not researched this at all. I have no idea where the evidence might be. We could have been spending the 21 cents per pupil and wasting every bit of it in terms of results.

I have something of a background in advertising and I know how much advertising budgets get wasted simply because the advertising campaign is not effectively carried out.

I recommend to my colleagues we defeat this amendment and if, indeed, the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from New Mexico can examine this from their background and demonstrate we are getting a 17-to-1 return from this particular program, that we are getting a 17-to-1 return from the kind of instruction going on in classrooms, then I would be happy to endorse this at some future time.

In terms of what has been the result of the $10 million we have been spending, how certain will we be that doubling that is going to, in fact, increase health among our children? It may well be that a GAO study would say the $10 million has been spent on training materials that have been ineffective and produced no result whatever.

In effect, we are being asked to buy something of a pig in a poke without understanding exactly how it works. I hope we would stay with the committee allocation here. The issue is a very legitimate issue. I, for one, will be more than willing in the hearings to ask the Department to give us a demonstration of how effective this has been.

If it can be demonstrated that it has, in fact, reduced obesity and has had some impact on diabetes, at that point I would be all for doubling it or tripling it because of the 17-to-1 figure the Senator from Oklahoma cites. But lacking that information, in this particular situation I would be loathe to proceed.

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request in which all Senators, I believe, will be interested.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the next vote, there be no other rollcall votes until 9:30 tomorrow morning, with the understanding that all amendments will be offered tonight, all debate will take place tonight, and all votes that occur tomorrow will be stacked to be followed by final passage.

That means, Mr. President, that there will be no more votes tonight, and amendments that require rollcall votes will be voted on in the morning, and that we will go to final passage immediately at 9:30 tomorrow after disposing of any rollcall votes. We have several amendments pending which we hope we can deal with by voice votes tonight, and I hope that we will not have any more rollcall votes and can go immediately to final passage.

Mr. President, the President's request for this program was $10 million. This amendment doubles it and takes the money away from computers at a time when the Department is doing its very best to increase its interoperability and raise its level of technological ability. I do not think doubling a program that has not been evaluated for its effectiveness is the right thing to do in this time of heavy budget pressure.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to a vote on the Harkin amendment by voice vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I am unaware of any other Senator who is planning to offer any amendment. I don't want to cut anybody off, but I made it clear during the vote that all amendments have to be offered tonight and all debate take place tonight. We are scheduled for the vote tomorrow morning. My understanding is that the Dayton amendment is still pending, and, therefore, if it can't be disposed of tonight, it would be available for tomorrow morning. The Jeffords amendment is still pending, and if that cannot be resolved tonight, that would be voted on tomorrow morning. Those are

the only two I am aware of at the present time.

I will suggest the absence of a quorum so we can check the list and see who else might be out there. But I would say to any who are monitoring our procedures on behalf of their respective Senators that the time for offering amendments is getting mighty short. We don't want to deny any Senator his or her rights, but I feel we have given fair warning this is what we will do.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, no one has come forward, so we are prepared to close down with the two amendments still unresolved, Dayton and Jeffords, and then move to final passage after those two are resolved for a voice vote or yeas and nays, I assume which will be determined tomorrow. At the moment, the yeas and nays have not been ordered. I want to respect the rights of both of those Senators.

While we get together whatever final activity needs to go forward, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I would be pleased to yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.

I would like to assure the Senator from Hawaii that I will work with Senator Kohl to ensure that this program will be considered in conference.

I concur with my colleague's views on the need to move this ARS position to Pullman, WA, from Prosser, WA, and will work with Senator Kohl in conference to have language included in the final report.

I thank Senator Martinez, for sharing his concerns on this important issue. It is my understanding that the House has appropriated $10 million for citrus canker compensation payments and we are aware of the impact that this disease has on the citrus industry in his State. We are committed to working with his office to help provide funding for his growers that have worked with USDA to help eradicate this destructive bacteria.

Mr. President, throughout this entire process, both at subcommittee and at full committee level, Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig have expressed great interest and concern about specialty crops, and they have asked us to take action with respect to specialty crops. We have been unable to find room in our allocation to deal with it. However, we recognize that the House has an allocation for specialty crops, and for that reason we believe we will be able to find a solution to this issue in conference.

The 2 Senators have been very cooperative and helpful. I want to make everyone understand that as we have worked our way through this they have been in no way less than enthusiastic about supporting the issue of specialty crops. If we get the problem solved in conference, as I am hopeful we can, and as I have commented to them that I will work to do, it will be in large measure because of the tenacity and leadership of Senator Feinstein and Senator Craig. We appreciate their calling our attention to this particular issue.

Also, Senator DeWine and Senator Stabenow have a problem which we have indicated we will do our best to deal with in conference. We understand the importance of the issue they have raised.

With that, I want to once again pay tribute to the ranking member, Senator Kohl, and to his staff as we have gone through this process. Both the

majority and minority staff have worked as one rather than as two competing staff. That is one of the reasons we have been able to clear as many amendments as we have as expeditiously as we have.

I once again want to thank my ranking member not only for his professionalism but for his friendship as we have gone throughout this process.

Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent there be a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday September 21, 2005 at 9 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to review the status of the World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture.

Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 10 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., on Energy Pricing, in SD 562.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 10 a.m. for a hearing titled, ``After the London Attacks: What Lessons Have Been Learned to Secure U.S. Transit Systems?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 385 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct an oversight hearing on Indian Gaming: Regulation of Class III Gaming. Those wishing additional information may contact the Indian Affairs Committee at 224-2251.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing'' on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Curt Weldon, United States Representative, R- PA, 7th District; the Honorable Slade Gorton, former United States Senator, [R-WA], Preston, Gates & Ellis, Seattle, WA.

Panel II: Mark Zaid, Esq., Attorney at Law, Washington, DC; Erik Kleinsmith, former Army Major and Chief of Intelligence of the Land Information Warfare Analysis LIWA, Project Manager for Intelligence Analytical Training, Lockheed Martin, Newington, VA.

Panel III: Gary Bald, Executive Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism/Counter Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; William Dugan, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 21, 2005 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet Wednesday, September 21, 2005 to conduct a hearing to discuss the Endangered Species Act and the roles of States, Tribes and local governments. The hearing will be in SD 406.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 242, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.