Floor Statements

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2744, the Agriculture appropriations bill. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute be agreed to as the original text for purposes of further amendment and that no points of order be waived by virtue of this agreement.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken; that the text of H.R. 2744, Calendar No. 141, the Senate committee-reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments, and that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. President, I am pleased to bring before the Senate for myself and the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Kohl, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development and related agencies. This bill contains the funding for the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. It also sets a limitation on the funding for the Farm Credit Administration, although no appropriated funds are provided for that agency.

The bill is at our 302(B) budget authority allocation of $17.348 billion, and it is within our outlay allocation of $18.816 billion. It is the product of more than 7 months' examination of the administration's budget proposal and

many requests from Senators and other stakeholders. It was approved unanimously by the subcommittee and the full committee and is the product of a completely bipartisan effort with contributions from Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Since I have been the chairman of this subcommittee, I have had the pleasure of working with Senator Kohl and his excellent staff and have learned a great deal from that experience. For the record, I thank them for the excellent and professional way in which they have helped us craft this bill. This is truly a bipartisan effort. There has been a minimum of difficulty and bickering. This is a tribute to Senator Kohl and the staff he has assembled on his side, as well as the staff that made themselves available to me. I express my gratitude to him and to all of the staffers involved; also, the members of the subcommittee and the full committee who have cooperated with us in producing the unanimous report at both levels.

We commonly refer to this as simply the ``Ag appropriations bill,'' but it has a much wider impact on American citizens than just agriculture. The largest portion of the funding in this bill, whether discretionary or mandatory, goes to nutrition and feeding programs for mothers and children both in low-income groups and in senior citizens. We often think of the Agriculture appropriations bill entirely in terms of farmers, so I wish to make the point that this bill funds the feeding and nutrition program for those I have described.

It is also a consumer protection bill for food, drugs, and medical devices. It is an export promotion bill for our farmers and food manufacturers. It is a conservation and natural resources bill, and it is a bill to promote the economic development of rural America.

The budget authority allocation is $516 million more than last year's level, which sounds good if one is looking for more spending. Last year, we had a $406 million one-time saving that is not available this year. So when one nets those two numbers out, this bill is virtually identical to the previous allocation.

Also, we should note that the administration budget proposes $177 million in user fees contingent on authorization, which was sent to the authorizing committee only 3 weeks ago and has not been considered. So those user fees also reduce the total amount of the bill. That is why I say in general terms, this bill is level funding of the previous year.

I should point out that the previous year was below the year before that. So at least as far as this subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee is concerned, we are not expanding the Federal budget or adding to the deficit by increasing every year. We are either going down or, at best, holding steady.

We do thank Chairman Cochran for the allocation that gives us the $516 million more than that I talked about. Because of the other factors I have described, it is absolutely essential to keep us effectively holding steady.

At this time when we are concerned about homeland security, I will outline the homeland security increases that are in this bill. There is $10 million for the National Agricultural Pest Information Systems; provides $166.5 million for food defense activities at FDA. This is an increase of $16.6 million over fiscal year 2005. In addition, the committee continues to fund FDA counterterrorism activities related to medical product countermeasures at $57.2 million.

We provide $13 million for the Food Emergency Response Network in USDA and FDA to integrate the Nation's food testing laboratories for the detection of threat agents in food at the local, State, and Federal levels. We fund the completion of the National Animal Disease Center. Those are the increases in the funding levels for terrorism.

Food safety, we have an increase of $36.2 million, and this includes full funding for food inspection, BSE surveillance--BSE is the more appropriate name for what the press calls mad cow disease--as well as humane slaughter. As far as animal health programs are concerned, we provide full funding for BSE surveillance and an increase for the detection of low pathogenic avian influenza.

In the area of the research and education program, there is $1.167 billion to support research, education, and extension activities at America's land grant colleges and universities. We have learned that is the backbone of research in agriculture, and that is why we continue to fund that particular area. We also fund 1890 institutions--those are the historically Black land grant colleges--as well as tribal colleges and schools of forestry.

There is approximately $1.1 billion for the Agricultural Research Service, adding money for research in animal diseases, human nutrition, and food safety. Then there is $59 million to complete funding for the National Animal Disease Center located in Ames, IA. This is a project that we have been involved in for some years, and with this appropriation it will finally be completed.

For the farm assistance programs, there is $3.7 billion for farm loans; conservation programs, $963 million for conservation and watershed activities; and in the area of rural development, we have $454 million for water and waste water grants; $5 billion for low- income housing; over $1 billion in loans and grants for small rural businesses; $6.2 billion for rural electrification and telecommunications loans; and $550 million for broadband loans.

In the area of domestic food programs, WIC funding, Women and Infant Children, $5.257 billion; and for food stamps, $40.7 billion. These are very large numbers. This is the area I spoke of earlier where the bulk of the appropriations go, and for those who are concerned about these areas of nutrition for people in need, both funding levels provided will meet the expected caseload.

Foreign assistance, we have $147.868 million; PL-480 title II funds, $1.150 billion; and the McGovern-Dole program, $100 million.

Now let us turn for just a moment to the Food and Drug Administration: FDA, $1.841 billion; the medical device review is getting $7.8 million above fiscal year 2005; counterterrorism food safety, $16.6 million above fiscal year 2005; and drug safety, $5 million above fiscal year 2005.

With respect to the limitations on mandatory programs where we have looked for savings, we have two goals: one, to do no serious harm and, No. 2, in whatever limitations are there, that they be fair. We believe we have met both of those goals.

This was the work of the subcommittee and the full committee in the normal course of events, and then, of course, Katrina came along. So I think it is appropriate that we make some comments about what may or may not be in this bill with respect to the hurricane disaster in the southern part of the United States.

This bill does not have provisions directly tied to that disaster, having been written before the disaster came along, but it does provide much of the resources USDA will need to help the victims of that disaster, resources that were built into the normal course of events. There is money for food stamps, WIC, and food safety, as I have described. There is conservation recovery and rural housing, as I have described. Many of the people who were hurt, particularly I believe in Mississippi, are going to be facing rural housing challenges. USDA can continue its very commendable efforts to assist those in need with the existing authorities as it has with the funds provided in this bill.

The States affected by Hurricane Katrina are all major beneficiaries of these programs. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to help us get this bill passed by the Senate as soon as possible. We should not deal with all of Katrina with supplemental funds when there are funds in the pipeline in the normal fashion that can be of assistance.

We have had a number of requests from Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding matters that came up after this bill was passed by the Appropriations Committee back in June. I and my staff and Senator Kohl and his staff are working on a managers' amendment to address these requests, and I will be offering that amendment later during the consideration of this bill.

I appreciate the attention of the Senate to this outline of where we are.

Amendment No. 1726

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Kohl.

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

I am happy to yield to my ranking member, good friend, and full partner, Senator Kohl.

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

Mr. President, I ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to a period for morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I have followed with interest the remarks of the Senator from Delaware about the Founding Fathers. Like him, I am unburdened with a legal education, but like him I believe I can read the English language, and that I have spent some time studying not only the Constitution but the history behind it. In the spirit of the remarks that have been made here, I add a few comments of my own.

It is very clear to me from studying the history of the first amendment that the primary concern of the Founders was to prevent the creation of State churches in the various States. There was never any movement to have a national church, but there were movements on the part of some of the individual States to have State churches. One of the reasons for the fact that there was not a national movement was that different States were dominated by different religions.

For example, the Puritans who came to what became the State of Massachusetts came to flee persecution they found in Europe. Then once they had established their colony in Massachusetts, they proceeded to persecute those who didn't agree with them. One of them, Roger Williams, went over to found what is now the State of Rhode Island, and created in Rhode Island a bastion of religious liberty about which the Senator from Rhode Island instructed a group of us at noon today. I found his presentation to be very interesting and worthwhile.

So a national religion covering all 13 States united in the United States of America was never in the cards. But there were some who felt that individual States might adopt a State church in that particular State, in one particular State or another. The Founding Fathers in the first amendment made it clear that there must not be a State church in any of the individual States. That was the driving force behind the words in the first amendment.

There are those in today's society who read the first amendment and its prescription of freedom of religion to mean that the Government should guarantee everyone freedom from religion, that the Government should vigorously put down any reference to religion that takes place in the public square.

I think that is a misreading of the Founders' intention, and I think that particular notion is behind the recent court ruling that has given rise to the speeches we have heard here on the floor.

I want to make one other observation about this, as long as I have the floor. America is known as a religious country. As I travel abroad and deal with some of our European friends, I find many of them to be perplexed by that. Indeed, one religious commentator said to me that if you are religious in Europe, you will be treated with disdain.

Europe has now entered its post-Christian era.

That is a very interesting statement, to think that Europe went through a pre-Christian era, then a Christian era, and now it is in a post-Christian period.

When you go throughout the great cities of Europe and look at the many churches, you find that most of them have been turned into concert halls, or tourist attractions, and they are not used for religious purposes anymore.

So why is Europe turning away from religion where America remains a strongly religious nation? I am sure there are many reasons, but the one that strikes me as cogent is the fact that we have never had a State church here in America. That means religions in America have had to compete for adherence in the public square on the basis of their doctrine, on the basis of their humanity and compassion, on the basis of their attractiveness to those who might want to affiliate with them, whereas in Europe you are required by law to join a particular church in a particular country.

When the government and the church become intertwined together in that fashion, even to the point where the government provides funds for the church, that makes it unnecessary for the church to appeal to its adherents sufficiently that they will support it out of their own pocketbook, you get a corruption of both.

It was very interesting to me to travel to Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed and spend some time talking with Russian officials about this very issue. The Russian Parliament had passed an act which I believed was violative of the notion of freedom of religion and I went over to visit with them to talk to them about it.

After having visits with members of the Duma as well as members of the Yeltsin administration and their justice department, I was assured they would lean on the concept of freedom of religion and that the law would not be used in any way to persecute certain religions that had come in from outside, once the Iron Curtain was over and religions were made welcome there.

But the interesting conversation out of all of that in the context of what I am saying here came from some individuals who were talking about the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russian life. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians were making an effort to identify themselves once again as something other than Communists, trying to figure out who they were, asking the fundamental question: What does it mean to be a Russian? Of course, the members of the Russian Orthodox Church hierarchy said being a member of the Russian Orthodox Church is important to being a Russian, but they also said we do not want to be a State church again. We have been there, and we know how debilitating it is for the church to have government involvement in our affairs and to have government financing our affairs.

As we have this debate over the words that go into the pledge--a debate that I think will ultimately be settled in the courts one way or the other, and if the precedent is as it has been, the words ``under God'' will be retained in the pledge--let us take the occasion to remember why we have such religious strength in this country. It is the fact that we have had freedom of religion, and we have had different denominations competing in the public square for their various adherents and not depending upon the Government for funding or direction, unlike many of the countries in Europe.

America is not in its post-Christian era the way Europe is, and, ironically, I think one of the reasons is because America has never had a government dictation of what that would mean, what religion ought to be. But again, even as we celebrate freedom of religion, I hope we don't go so far as to have Government dictate freedom from religion and tell us that we must in some way or other, however subtle, persecute people of faith.

I had the honor of receiving an honorary degree at one of our universities, and the commencement speaker was the Catholic bishop of the area served by that university. He made the point that he respects, and it is required by our Constitution to respect, all of those who disagree with him and have made the choice not to worship anyone. But he said, I only ask in return that they extend to me the same respect for the fact that I have chosen to worship and that they do not use Government affairs to persecute me for having chosen to believe, just as I say we must not use Government agencies to persecute those who have chosen not to believe.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privilege of the floor be granted to John Ziolkowski, Fitzhugh Elder, Hunter Moorhead, Dianne Preece, Galen Fountain, Jessica Frederick, William Simpson, Tom Gonzales, Luke Johnson, Phil Karsting, as well as Stacy McBride, a detailee from the Food and Drug Administration to the Committee on Appropriations, during consideration of this H.R. 2744.

Mr. President, as we prepare to accept the conference report on the fiscal year 2006 Interior appropriations spending bill, I want to raise an issue regarding the implementation of a pilot project in the State of Utah to determine the feasibility of expanding the oil and gas leasing program to include online auctioning of leases.

There is a very active oil and gas lease trading market in the private

sector. Many of these leases are bought and sold online in an auction process quite similar to other auction processes on the Internet. Information about the individual lease sale is made available to the public with accompanying documentation, prices are set and bids are accepted, sales and transactions are completed all online. The system operates very efficiently and expands the opportunity to participate to potential bidders all across the country.

BLM is currently limited to conducting oil and gas lease auctions orally. However, under the Government Performances Result Act, or GPRA, Federal agencies are allowed to conduct pilot studies to identify opportunities to further improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their business processes. Under GPRA, a pilot program which tested the feasibility of both oral and online auctions might help BLM increase the efficiency of the auction process and increase the exposure of leases to a broader number of participants.

However, the BLM does not currently have the capability to implement a program like this. But were they to develop a partnership with the private sector to develop an online component of the oil and gas leasing program, the program becomes much more feasible.

With that in mind, I requested funds for the BLM State office in Utah to conduct a pilot program with a private sector partner to develop a potential online oil and gas leasing project and to conduct a series of tests to see if this idea is workable. The Senate included funding for this program in the State of Utah. However, the committee did not specify that BLM should try to identify a private sector partner that has experience in conducting online oil and gas lease auctions.

Would it be the opinion of the chairman that BLM should identify and work with a partner in the private sector to proceed forward quickly with the development of a pilot program in Utah?

I appreciate that clarification.

Mr. President, I will say to my friend from West Virginia, I had occasion to live abroad for 2 years, and as I caught the ship to come home again, westward bound--I suppose that dates me because now you go by plane--I recited that poem. It is good to hear it recited on the floor of the Senate in the shadows of the Fourth of July.

While I was waiting and heard the Senator from West Virginia urge us all to read the Declaration of Independence, I took the copy that is in my desk and I read it through so I can report to him that I have done my homework.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad that has to do with the desecration of the flag. All of us are angered when we see someone burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag, and I believe it is appropriate that we take such steps as are appropriate to deal with such desecration.

Over the years I have been in the Senate, I have opposed amending the Constitution to deal with this issue for two reasons. First, there are not that many cases of flag desecration for us to see as we look around the country. And I am reluctant to amend the Constitution to deal with a non-problem. Flag desecration hit its peak during the Vietnam years, but it has virtually disappeared now and occurs, ironically, only when debate about amending the Constitution becomes a subject of public discourse. We seem to stimulate flag desecration when we have the debate on amending the Constitution with respect to it.

So for that reason, I have consistently opposed a constitutional amendment on desecration of the flag.

However, as I have studied the matter and spent time with the legal experts at the Congressional Research Service over at the Library of Congress, I have found that there are things that can be done with respect to flag desecration that also establish our reverence for the flag, but do not require a constitutional amendment.

I have introduced this legislation before. It has not progressed in the congressional process to the opportunity for a vote, and I am not sure it will this time. But I wish to make it clear to my constituents and to others who have concern about this problem that my objection to a constitutional amendment should not be construed as demonstrating indifference to the issue of reverence for the flag.

Senator Conrad has joined me on this occasion as he has at previous times when this legislation has been introduced, and I am happy to have him as an original co-sponsor on the bill at this time.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am happy to ask unanimous consent that the honorable Senator from West Virginia be added as an original co- sponsor to the bill.

I have been interested at the reaction that has come from my constituents as I have held this position over the years. I remember a conversation with Utah's most respected pollster just before I cast my first vote against the flag amendment. He said: Senator, according to my polls, 80 percent of the people of Utah are in favor of a constitutional amendment with respect to the flag, and something like 60 percent of them consider it a voting issue. That is, they would be more likely to vote against a candidate who voted against the flag amendment than they would to vote for him. We talked about it, and he said: What are you going to do? I said: Regardless of the poll numbers, I am going to vote against the amendment. He laughed a little and he said: That is what I thought. I think it will stand you in good stead with your constituents who will respect your courage even if they do not agree with your position.

I was grateful for those words of encouragement, and I am happy to report that has happened.

I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my statement, two editorials be printed in the Record from Utah's two newspapers with the highest circulation, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News.

The Salt Lake Tribune editorial makes this comment:

If respect for something has to be required by law, then it

isn't respect. If regard for a symbol of freedom has to be

imposed by carving a hole out of our basic charter of rights,

then it isn't freedom.

And it concludes with this sentence:

The rare act of torching an American flag is one of two

things: pointless or meaningful. If it is pointless, the

worst it could be called is vandalism, and should be treated

as such. If it is meaningful, even full of meaning we don't

like, then it is and must remain constitutionally protected

expression.

Now turning to the editorial from the Deseret Morning News, the lead paragraph there says:

Once again, the House of Representatives has passed a

constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from

desecration. This is an annual event almost as predictable as

the swallows returning to Capistrano. So, too, is the

Senate's annual ritual of not passing it.

They conclude with this comment which I am happy to include in the record because it says nice things about me. We always like comments that do that. It says:

One of the Senate votes against it belongs to Utah Senator

Bob Bennett, who normally agrees with much that Senator Hatch

supports. He has said he is unwilling to overturn 200 years

of tradition in regard to the First Amendment.

He's right. The Constitution is no place for feel-good

amendments that do nothing but restrict freedoms.

Finally, Mr. President, I share with you the comment that I have had from one of my colleagues also, and I will not speak directly for him but associate myself with the line. He said: When my Senate career is over, I don't want the most important constitutional vote that I have cast to be one that weakens the first amendment.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad that has to do with the desecration of the flag. All of us are angered when we see someone burn or otherwise desecrate the American flag, and I believe it is appropriate that we take such steps as are appropriate to deal with such desecration.

Over the years I have been in the Senate, I have opposed amending the Constitution to deal with this issue for two reasons. First, there are not that many cases of flag desecration for us to see as we look around the country. And I am reluctant to amend the Constitution to deal with a non-problem. Flag desecration hit its peak during the Vietnam years, but it has virtually disappeared now and occurs, ironically, only when debate about amending the Constitution becomes a subject of public discourse. We seem to stimulate flag desecration when we have the debate on amending the Constitution with respect to it.

So for that reason, I have consistently opposed a constitutional amendment on desecration of the flag.

However, as I have studied the matter and spent time with the legal experts at the Congressional Research Service over at the Library of Congress, I have found that there are things that can be done with respect to flag desecration that also establish our reverence for the flag, but do not require a constitutional amendment.

I have introduced this legislation before. It has not progressed in the congressional process to the opportunity for a vote, and I am not sure it will this time. But I wish to make it clear to my constituents and to others who have concern about this problem that my objection to a constitutional amendment should not be construed as demonstrating indifference to the issue of reverence for the flag.

Senator Conrad has joined me on this occasion as he has at previous times when this legislation has been introduced, and I am happy to have him as an original co-sponsor on the bill at this time.

I will be happy to yield.

Mr. President, I am happy to ask unanimous consent that the honorable Senator from West Virginia be added as an original co- sponsor to the bill.

I have been interested at the reaction that has come from my constituents as I have held this position over the years. I remember a conversation with Utah's most respected pollster just before I cast my first vote against the flag amendment. He said: Senator, according to my polls, 80 percent of the people of Utah are in favor of a constitutional amendment with respect to the flag, and something like 60 percent of them consider it a voting issue. That is, they would be more likely to vote against a candidate who voted against the flag amendment than they would to vote for him. We talked about it, and he said: What are you going to do? I said: Regardless of the poll numbers, I am going to vote against the amendment. He laughed a little and he said: That is what I thought. I think it will stand you in good stead with your constituents who will respect your courage even if they do not agree with your position.

I was grateful for those words of encouragement, and I am happy to report that has happened.

I ask unanimous consent that at the end of my statement, two editorials be printed in the Record from Utah's two newspapers with the highest circulation, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret Morning News.

The Salt Lake Tribune editorial makes this comment:

If respect for something has to be required by law, then it

isn't respect. If regard for a symbol of freedom has to be

imposed by carving a hole out of our basic charter of rights,

then it isn't freedom.

And it concludes with this sentence:

The rare act of torching an American flag is one of two

things: pointless or meaningful. If it is pointless, the

worst it could be called is vandalism, and should be treated

as such. If it is meaningful, even full of meaning we don't

like, then it is and must remain constitutionally protected

expression.

Now turning to the editorial from the Deseret Morning News, the lead paragraph there says:

Once again, the House of Representatives has passed a

constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from

desecration. This is an annual event almost as predictable as

the swallows returning to Capistrano. So, too, is the

Senate's annual ritual of not passing it.

They conclude with this comment which I am happy to include in the record because it says nice things about me. We always like comments that do that. It says:

One of the Senate votes against it belongs to Utah Senator

Bob Bennett, who normally agrees with much that Senator Hatch

supports. He has said he is unwilling to overturn 200 years

of tradition in regard to the First Amendment.

He's right. The Constitution is no place for feel-good

amendments that do nothing but restrict freedoms.

Finally, Mr. President, I share with you the comment that I have had from one of my colleagues also, and I will not speak directly for him but associate myself with the line. He said: When my Senate career is over, I don't want the most important constitutional vote that I have cast to be one that weakens the first amendment.

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

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 173, 174,

175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, and 184.

I further ask unanimous consent that all of the mentioned nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 1 p.m. on Monday, June 27. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 3 p.m., with the majority leader or his designee in control of the first half of the time, and the Democratic leader or his designee in control of the second half of the time; provided that at 3 p.m. the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2361, the Interior appropriations bill, as provided under the previous order.

Mr. President, on Monday, following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the Interior appropriations bill. Under a previous agreement, all amendments to the bill must be offered during Monday's session. There will be no rollcall votes on Monday, but Senators who have amendments to the bill should make themselves available to offer and debate their amendments. We will begin voting with respect to amendments to the Interior appropriations bill on Tuesday.

I also inform our colleagues the next vote will occur on Tuesday morning shortly before 10 a.m. That vote will be on passage of H.R. 6, the Energy bill.

Finally, on behalf of the majority leader, I would like to remind all Senators that next week will be the final week prior to the Fourth of July recess, so Senators should expect a busy week with rollcall votes throughout.