Floor Statements

Mr. President, over the past few months I have spoken several times in this Chamber about the need to approve a supplemental request from the President for appropriations to fund activities and operations of the Department of Defense. Progress on this request has been terribly slow. It has now been more than 500 days since the President submitted his request.

In a hearing before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last month, Secretary of Defense Gates testified that the military personnel accounts that pay our soldiers, and the operations and maintenance accounts that fund readiness, training and salaries of civilian employees were running dry. Secretary Gates has been able to forestall this depletion of funds for a short period of time, but only by employing measures that are disruptive to the operations and management of the Department of Defense.

Secretary Gates has had to transfer funding from Air Force, Navy and Marine accounts to the Army to enable the Army to meet its military and civilian payroll, and to fund current operations. It is incredible to think that to be able to pay military personnel who are on the frontlines, engaged in combat, the Secretary of Defense has had to transfer funding between accounts because the Congress will not act on a supplemental request that has been pending for almost a year and a half.

The delay in providing supplemental funding has caused the Defense Department to divert thousands of man hours from focusing on how best to support our men and women in uniform to figuring out how to cash flow the Defense Department so our men and women in uniform will receive a paycheck. We will probably never know how many millions of dollars have been wasted during this shell game. And we will probably never know how many sailors, soldiers, airmen or marines have been put at greater risk because Defense Department leaders and managers have had to shift their attention from supporting the warfighter to figuring out how to make the payroll, or deciding what activities are ``exempt'' from cessation because the Department's funding has been depleted.

The delay in providing funding for our troops has disrupted operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing that during his visit to the front lines he learned that the soldiers were unable to allocate funds from the Commander's Emergency Response Program because all the money had essentially already been allocated. We are more than two-thirds of the way through the fiscal year, yet Congress has provided less than one- third of the funds requested for this emergency response. Admiral Mullen said, and I quote,

I'm especially concerned about the availability of funds

into the Commander's Emergency Response Program, authority

for which expires next month. (The program) has proven in

most cases more valuable and perhaps more rapid than bullets

or bombs in the fight against extremism . . .

I worry that the Congress is becoming an impediment to the efficiency and the capability of our government, and to our Department of Defense particularly. I worry that we are not acting as expeditiously as we should to protect our troops in the field that are conducting dangerous missions. The delays we have experienced with this supplemental were as unnecessary as they are inexcusable.

I am also disappointed that the supplemental before the Senate means that the gulf coast's ongoing recovery from Hurricane Katrina will be slowed. Mississippi's gulf coast suffered tremendous devastation as Senators know as a result of Hurricane Katrina. There was significant loss of life as well as significant damage to property. In last year's supplemental spending bill, the Congress tasked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to recommend measures to protect the Mississippi gulf coast from future storms. The Corps of Engineers has drafted its recommendations, and the Senate responded by including funding for these important Corps-recommended projects in our version of the supplemental appropriations bill.

One of the projects included in the Senate-passed supplemental is the restoration of Mississippi's Barrier Islands. These islands, which are federally owned, suffered terrible damage after Hurricane Camille in 1969 and are now so vulnerable that even a relatively small hurricane may destroy them completely. These are my State's last line of defense before a major hurricane moves inland. Continued delay leaves my state more vulnerable.

The Corps of Engineers also concluded that homeowner relocation assistance would be the most effective alternative for reducing the risk from future hurricane surge events by relocating structures and population centers from the high risk zones. This voluntary program would assist those who are looking to locate outside the high-hazard area. It is vital not only to recovery but also for protection from a future disaster. We are now in the midst of another hurricane season, and every day this Congress does not act is 1 more day that Mississippians are at risk.

Unfortunately, all of these items were dropped from the bill by the other body, and because of the long delay in acting on the supplemental there is now no time or opportunity to consider the matter further. I share the President's concerns about excessive spending. But 16 months have passed since the President's supplemental request was submitted, and 6 months have passed since the 2008 bills were enacted. In that time natural disasters have occurred and additional disaster-related needs have become apparent.

In March of this year, three barracks at Camp Shelby in Mississippi suffered significant damage and destruction after violent weather. Fourteen soldiers were hospitalized; four of the soldiers sustained serious injuries. Many other structures were damaged. The Senate-passed spending bill contained funding to rebuild these barracks, but the continued delays in funding prevent this important work from being started. Floodwaters continue to inflict damages to farms, homes, and businesses along the Mississippi River. There is little question that additional resources will be required to respond to this continuing disaster.

I am speaking today in part to draw attention to what I feel has been a poor performance by Congress on this bill. But I also come to the floor because there is no other venue to express my views on the supplemental. There was no conference committee appointed to resolve differences between the House and Senate. There were no meetings of the chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations Committees or of the subcommittees involved. And there has been virtually no opportunity for Members of this body to offer amendments to the bill. I regret that. It is not the way we should discharge our responsibilities. I think there is little question that had we followed regular order we could have enacted a supplemental a month ago, and spared our men and women in the field a great deal of uncertainty.

I support this supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same, but hope that we can do better next time.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to concur.

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

Madam President, the high cost of gasoline has had a crippling effect on the economy of my State of Mississippi. The people in my State, where earnings are below the national average, are simply not able to keep up with the rising cost of living. High gasoline prices not only increase the cost of going to work, they also result in an increased cost of food and other consumables.

As a constituent who called my office yesterday said: I can stand the high price of gas, but my utility bills have stretched me to the breaking point.

The Daily Journal, a newspaper in northeast Mississippi, quoted another constituent, Jennifer Skinner, of Tupelo, as saying:

Working class people can barely make it. I'm a single Mom

with three kids.

We have been very fortunate that our farmers have been getting record prices for corn, soybeans, and wheat, other commodities as well, over the last 2 years. While the value of these commodities is high, energy costs have caused the inputs for farm operations to rise significantly. This has affected costs of fertilizer, pesticides, electricity, and the diesel fuel farmers use. As a result, some farmers who have worked so hard to produce food at a lower cost to the consumer than in any other country are not able to sustain their farming operations. These high prices and high costs have created a cycle of higher food costs that have been added to the burden of my constituents.

Crude oil prices are, of course, linked to supply and demand. While there are many other compounding factors, such as a weakened dollar, we must remember that at the root of the problem is the increased worldwide demand for energy. According to the Federal Highway Administration, Americans drove 12 billion fewer miles in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. Americans are driving less due to increased costs. However, the decreased demand for energy in America has had little effect on the increased worldwide demand.

We know that demands for oil will continue to escalate as more developing countries use crude oil. According to the International Energy Agency, between now and 2030, China and India will account for 70 percent of all new demand for oil. The Congress and the administration must consider now how much future demands will increase in the coming years. While there are steps I believe the Congress can take to help cope with higher prices in the short term, our future demands for energy independence will require us to move to new sources of fuel. Americans are looking to their leaders for answers. They want to know what the Congress can do to help them through these hard times.

As we consider energy policies that will ease the burdens of higher costs for our constituents and their struggling businesses, we should not impose policies that create higher tax burdens or costs for energy companies. Higher taxes will not lead to lower prices but will only serve to increase the expenses of doing business that will be passed on to the consumers. Our economy relies heavily on transportation. A policy that doesn't provide real long-term reforms to the way our country acquires and uses energy will not provide Americans with a better deal or a stronger economy.

While we search for better energy sources, we must remember that until developing technologies are able to create affordable and efficient fuels, the short-term supply-and-demand problems will still exist. Some Senators have called for increased exploration and drilling. While I am always mindful of protecting our environment, I think we need to be reminded that advancements in drilling technology over the last several years mean we are much better able to protect our valuable natural resources as we explore for new energy.

In addition to acquiring more crude oil within the United States--and offshore drilling provides another opportunity--we should do all we can to promote the exploration and use of oil shale. I know the distinguished Senator from New Mexico talked about his views, which include the use of oil shale. It is already used extensively in many other countries.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there is a potential equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil to be found in America alone. It is my hope the Congress, the administration, and private industry will come together, work together with those who are concerned about environmental consequences and impacts, deal with those challenges in a thoughtful and effective way, and proceed with exploration and extraction of oil shale. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 identified oil shale as a very important resource that should be developed. While progress in the development of this important resource has occurred, we should do more to make oil shale resources as a motor fuel into a reality.

Peter J. Robinson, vice chairman of Chevron Corporation, recently testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. He said:

The search for the next source of energy--whether it be oil

or next-generation fuels from renewable sources--takes

enormous capital, specialized expertise and the

organizational capability that characterizes Chevron.

Transforming raw materials into usable energy products and

delivering them to market some six continents takes

substantial financial strength, advanced technology, and

human energy.

I think Mr. Robinson is correct when he says we face a huge undertaking in determining the next source of fuel. I also believe the Congress should not be in the business of trying to pick a winner for the next form of energy. Rather, we should be doing what we can to promote all forms of alternative energies that show promise through appropriated research dollars, grants, and public/private partnerships.

In Mississippi, we are prepared to play a major role in the development of new energy. Our farmers have the knowledge and expertise to create renewable feedstocks such as corn, soybeans, timber, grasses, animal fats, and even wastewater. The University of Southern Mississippi, for example, is engaged in research to create more efficient and lower cost fuel cell membranes. The University of Mississippi is using termite research in an innovative approach to cellulosic energy research.

In addition to researching alternative fuels that include waste water, timber, and other feedstocks, Mississippi State University students were winners of the 2008 Challenge X Competition. This competition is a partnership between the Department of Energy and General Motors. It challenges university students to create vehicles that are more fuel efficient and produce lower emissions.

I am proud of my State's commitment and contribution to creating a better energy future, and I hope we can continue to work hard to make the ideas and efforts of these students and university researchers and our entire population in our State who are involved in this challenge a reality.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on behalf of the Republican leader, I object.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for bringing to the attention of the Senate the good works of a man who embodies compassion, sacrifice, and service.

A few weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the Mississippi gulf coast, David Trowbridge of Lingle, WY, traveled with a group of his fellow church members to Bay Saint Louis, MS, to help the victims of this terribly destructive disaster. Because of the extent of the destruction he saw and the enormous challenges that confronted the storm victims, David Trowbridge purchased a motor home and moved to Bay Saint Louis so he could devote full time to the recovery effort.

He helped rebuild properties that had been destroyed or seriously damaged, including housing for other volunteers who needed a place to stay and help. His carpentry skills have been a valuable resource, not only to help rebuild homes but which also enabled him to train hundreds of unskilled volunteers to assist in the rebuilding efforts. These volunteer teams have worked on over 1,400 homes in the communities of Bay Saint Louis and Waveland.

People in Bay Saint Louis refer to David as a fixture of the community. They have praised him as a hero. In fact, he is on a first- name basis at homes and businesses all over town.

The Mississippi gulf coast was devastated by Hurricane Katrina and is still struggling to recover. But were it not for the unselfish, hard work and dedication of David Trowbridge, my State would not be as far along as we are in the recovery process.

Thank you, David Trowbridge.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent------

I am happy to withhold for my friend from North Dakota.

Mr. President, my staff members and I hear from Mississippians every day about the crippling effects of high energy prices. We all understand the need for increasing clean energy supplies, and I hope we can continue to work to do that and to develop other innovative solutions to deal more effectively with this great problem. But the bill we are considering will not accomplish that goal. Instead, the legislation will have a detrimental effect on our economy. It will contribute to a higher overall cost of living, and it will be especially harmful to lower income families.

According to projections by the Energy Information Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency, energy costs are projected to rise because of this legislation. Energy prices are already at an all-time high. We cannot afford to increase these costs even further. By 2030, increased costs for delivered coal could range between 405 percent and 804 percent, natural gas prices could rise between 34 percent and 107 percent, and gasoline prices could go up between 17 percent and 41 percent. Although the substitute amendment we are considering imposes yearly cost ceilings, these high prices will still be realized unless improbable advancements in alternative energy production, such as 70 new nuclear reactors and 68 billion gallons of ethanol, are produced.

Various projections of this bill show not only will prices increase, Americans could lose jobs as industries struggle to keep costs down. I am proud of the new era of manufacturing that my State of Mississippi is entering, but I don't want Mississippians to lose the jobs we have fought so hard to obtain. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Information Administration suggest that this bill could reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by as much as 7 percent by 2050 and could reduce the manufacturing output of the United States by almost 10 percent in 2030. A reduction in output means that industry will need fewer workers in order to keep their costs down. A need for fewer workers will result in job losses, and unemployment rates in my State are already too high.

I believe the Senate should spend time considering the best use of America's natural resources while being mindful of the environment. However, if we are going to mandate reductions in greenhouse gases, there are certain principles we need to keep in mind. The Senate must consider the costs we will impose on the consumers we represent. The legislation we have before us goes beyond what is required to reduce emissions and imposes harsh, costly restrictions on the industries and businesses we count on to keep our economy healthy.

The bill provides that only 30 percent of annual emissions reduction obligations can be met using credits and offsets. Only half of that amount can be from domestically generated credits, through a complex formula, and the remainder of the available credits would come from outside the United States. Many of these credits and offsets will likely come from the agricultural sector. Mississippi farmers are already engaged in better and more efficient practices, such as no-till farming, new irrigation efficiencies, and reforestation of marginal lands.

Another troubling aspect of the legislation is the creation of a massive new mandatory spending regime that would direct nearly $3.3 trillion in auction revenues over the next several decades to dozens of specific programs, some that already exist but some that are new. These mandatory programs will not likely receive the proper oversight and control that the annual appropriations process provides. It is unreasonable to think we can know today whether it will be appropriate in 2050 to allocate 3.42 percent of auction revenues for Department of the Interior adaptation activities or to allocate 3.1 percent of auction revenues in 2030 for cellulosic biomass programs.

As ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, where we have annual hearings and review the needs and the constraints we are dealing with under the budget for appropriating funds, I cannot support this approach that pretends to project what the appropriated amount should be years and years from now.

It is my hope we will be able to help restore a strong economy, create an energy infrastructure that provides for low-cost electrical and motor fuel prices, and foster a responsible attitude about our natural resources and the environment. However, the legislation we are now considering will not bring Americans lower energy costs or, realistically, a cleaner environment.

Unless major changes to this legislation are considered, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. President, earlier this week I spoke about the need to act expeditiously to consider the supplemental appropriations bill to fund ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global war on terrorism. I don't know that I could add any more persuasive reasons why we must approve the President's request for supplemental appropriations.

In a hearing earlier this week before our Appropriations subcommittee, Secretary of Defense Gates testified that the military personnel account that pays our soldiers and the operations and maintenance accounts which fund readiness, training, and the salaries of civilian employees across the Defense Department will run dry over the next few weeks. Secretary Gates can forestall this depletion of funds for a short period of time, but if he does so, it will disrupt ongoing programs that are critical to our operations in theater and to our national defense generally.

Delay in providing funds for our troops has already disrupted operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Admiral Mullin, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee also about a recent visit he had with soldiers on the front lines. Those soldiers told Admiral Mullin that they were unable to allocate additional funds from the Commander's Emergency Response Program because essentially all the money had been allocated for the quarter. We are two-thirds of the way through the fiscal year, and yet Congress has provided less than one-third of the funds requested for this emergency response program.

Secretary Gates characterizes this initiative as:

The single most effective program to enable commanders to

address local populations' needs and get potential insurgents

in Iraq and Afghanistan off the streets and into jobs.

I will not repeat my statement from earlier this week on the urgent need to move this process forward, but it is clear that when Congress finally began to act, it did so using convoluted procedures designed to shut out individual Members in the Senate and in the other body. Yet, this morning, it remains highly uncertain whether an adequate and signable supplemental funding bill will be sent to the President before Memorial Day. There are rumors--conversations--about a short-term, 1- month supplemental being drafted by the majority.

Mr. President, that is really not what we need. It is one thing to extend the aviation bill or the farm bill or other programs for short periods of time while Congress completes its work on long-term legislation, but to begin stringing out our military and our diplomatic corps on a month-by-month

basis during a period of military conflict is a dereliction of our duties.

I worry that the Congress is becoming an impediment to the efficiency and the capability of our Government, and to our Department of Defense in particular. We are not acting to protect the security of our troops who are putting themselves in harm's way and embarking on dangerous missions or providing for others whom we are trying to train to prepare to take over the responsibilities for national security. We need to get together now.

The time for dragging our feet is long past. We need to find a common ground so that we can provide our men and women in the field with the necessary resources and the support that is necessary to conduct successfully the mission assigned to them by our United States Government. We need to do this without any further delay. I urge my colleagues to do it now.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining Republican time be allocated as follows: Senator Graham for up to 20 minutes to engage in a colloquy with Senators Burr, Kyl, and Cornyn; Senator Vitter for 5 minutes; Senator Brownback for 5 minutes; and that the remainder of the time, if anything, be allocated by Senator McConnell, or his designee.

Mr. President, we had understood that there was a Senator or two on our side who wanted to be recognized before we go to a vote on this issue. But pending their arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I am happy to yield the distinguished Senator 4 minutes off the time allotted to the Republicans.

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

Mr. President, we are prepared to yield back the remainder of the time on the bill on this side.

Mr. President, we are still wrestling with the challenge of what to do about the supplemental appropriations that have been requested by the administration.

This morning, in our Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, chaired by the distinguished Chair's State colleague, Mr. Inouye, and also led on the Republican side by the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, we heard testimony from the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. They drew a very frightening picture of what is happening to the military forces, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan and deployed elsewhere in the world, but also in our training accounts, many other support activities for our military, pay and allowances--all the accounts that fund the Department of Defense that have been included in the supplemental budget request are suffering and many are running dry. The accounts are running dry.

We are at a point that is past serious. I am not going to say it is desperate, but it certainly concerns this Senator that we continue to wait and wait and wait on Congress to act on the President's request for supplemental appropriations for our military forces at a time when they are engaged in military action overseas and protecting our security interests here at home. So I am pleased the Senate is taking up this request to fund activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and to respond to domestic natural disasters.

It is important that we act expeditiously to consider this legislation so we can reconcile our differences with the other body and with the President. The President submitted the bulk of his supplemental request in February 2007 in conjunction with his regular fiscal year 2008 budget submission. He did so because Congress clearly expressed its desire for a full-year estimate of war costs. But Congress did not appropriate a full year's funding. Instead, Congress approved a $70 billion bridge fund to support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Enacting even that amount required a protracted struggle among the House, the Senate, and the President. As a result, the Department of Defense had to issue furlough notices, make a series of inefficient transfers and reprogrammings, and generally function in ways that detracted from its primary duties.

We find ourselves today facing a very similar situation. It has been more than 15 months since the President submitted this request. We have not approved or otherwise acted upon some $108 billion of that request.

The personnel and operations and maintenance accounts that support our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan are running low. This morning, Secretary Gates was asked about the consequences of this situation, and I am going to read into the Record, with the permission of my colleagues, some comments directly from that hearing this morning. This is Secretary Gates:

There is, however, a more immediate concern. Congress has

yet to pass the pending $102.5 billion global war on terror

request for fiscal year 2008. And as a result, the Defense

Department is currently using fourth quarter funds from the

base budget to cover current war costs. Shortly, two critical

accounts will run dry. First, Army military personnel after

June 15. We will run out of funds in this account to pay

soldiers, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Second,

operations and maintenance accounts. Around July 5, O&M funds

across the services will run out, starting with the Army.

This may result in civilian furloughs, limits on training,

and curbing family support activities.

If war funds are not available, the Defense Department can

transfer funds from Navy and Air Force military personnel

accounts to pay soldiers, but that would get us only to late

July. Using the limited transfer authority granted by

Congress would also help get us to late July. Doing so,

however, is a shell game which will disrupt existing programs

and push the services O&M accounts to the edge of fiscal

viability.

I could go on. He went on into some more detail about other accounts. I think we get the picture. I got the picture.

Our full subcommittee membership was in attendance for most of the hearing. I was disappointed that I was sitting there listening to the consequences of deliberate actions by the Congress to delay the availability of funding for our national defense, not just war funding for Iraq and Afghanistan; it has implications across the Department of Defense and into other accounts in other departments that are likewise affected by this denial of funding for our forces at a time when we need them to be fully prepared, fully trained, and fully engaged to help win the war against terror.

According to an earlier letter, so you won't get the impression that we have not been forewarned, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Gordon England, wrote us a letter on May 15 advising us that the Army would run out of military personnel funds by mid-June. He said if the supplemental legislation is not enacted by Memorial Day, the Department of Defense will be compelled to borrow funds from other services to finance Army operations into July and the Army would be out of options to pay its soldiers. He said the Department would be compelled to constrain expenditures from the Army operations and maintenance accounts. He said it will have to issue notices of potential furloughs of civilians funded from this account.

So we have been on notice from the Deputy Secretary and now this morning from the Secretary himself, as well as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We have been advised that the operations and maintenance accounts also fund the Commander's Emergency Response Program, a program that is critical to the success of our military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said those funds will run out in June.

I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, to have printed in the Record the letter from Secretary England.

Mr. President, what are we going to do? Are we going to let our men and women in the field stop their activities? Is that what Congress is urging be done, just sit down, stop what you are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't believe that. That is not the message this Senate wants to send or intends to send. But we should not put the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families here at home through such an ordeal and a period of such unnecessary uncertainty. We should not cause the Department of Defense to operate at less than peak efficiency or take actions that are demoralizing for Department personnel simply because Congress fails to act in a timely manner.

I don't know why it has taken Congress so long to act. I do know the request has been before the Congress for more than 15 months. Think about it: an emergency supplemental request for funds for national security languishing in Congress for 15 months. Most people don't know that.

We have held hearings, we have had meetings with administration officials, we have heard testimony from General Petraeus, our commander in Iraq. Our Ambassador in Iraq has testified about the consequences on accounts for the Department of State which are also included in the legislation. But instead of marking up a supplemental bill to respond to the request a month ago, as had originally been planned, the majority chose to spend weeks talking with the majority in the other body, trying to decide what to do, when to do it, negotiating with themselves.

I would have hoped that the legislation could have been brought up under a better parliamentary scheme designed to get the job done, not to just create political advantage, not just to put off the inevitable day of reckoning. That is an unfortunate choice to make. The fact is, had we followed the regular order, we could have had a bill to the President by now. Had he chosen to veto the bill, we might well be working this week to resolve differences with the administration and produce a bill that could be signed or whatever the Congress decided to do to work its will, but to act. Instead, we are facing the approach of a Memorial Day recess with no clear path, no clear plan to enactment of legislation and little prospect for meaningful input by Members of the Senate.

I applaud the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my good friend from West Virginia, for calling our committee to a markup of the supplemental. When it became apparent that the leadership plan was to bypass the Appropriations Committee in both Houses, our side wrote a letter to the chairman expressing our preference for a committee markup. I suspected that was consistent with his views, too, and that was correct.

We know about the prerogatives of the Appropriations Committee and how the chairman safeguards those and how he respects all members of our committee. So he honored that request. But the other body has not acted in this way. There still has been no markup in the other body.

So we are in this dilemma. We are asked by our respective Houses--the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense--to make recommendations, to produce legislation to take care of our country, to defend our interests, but we have not found a pathway to enacting a bill or responding in a professional way to the wishes of our Members.

As it stands now, the Senate amendments contain a number of legislative provisions and appropriations that were not included in the President's request. The President has said very clearly he will veto this bill if it includes language that unduly constrains our military commanders in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan or which imposes artificial timelines for withdrawal. He has also said he will veto a bill that is too costly.

I am not one who thinks an appropriations request submitted by this President or any other President is written in holy tablets, somehow immutable and not subject to improvement or change during the legislative process. The Senate and the House have a right to work their will. Since the President saw fit to recommend certain measures to protect the State of Louisiana from future hurricanes in response to Members' requests for those funds, I thought it appropriate to recommend certain projects that would similarly be helpful to my State, which was also a victim of Katrina, to deal with the continuing challenges to the security and the well-being of the citizens of that region if other hurricanes strike in the future.

The President has every right to look at those requests and make his decision. But I do not think he is going to veto this bill because of those requests that are included in the bill. I think he is sympathetic to the needs of the Mississippi and Louisiana gulf coasts and elsewhere in the country, so accounts that were depleted because of the destruction of the hurricane can be renewed and resupplied in this supplemental. The committee has approved including those funds.

We need to find common ground. This is what I am saying. We have had differences of opinion with the administration--Members on my side have; some on the other side have--for various reasons. But let's get to a point where we can work out our differences. If he wants to veto the bill, he will veto the bill, and we will see whether we have the votes to override it. If we do not, we can try again. Eventually these funds have to be made available. These requests are too important to be ignored any longer. We need to find common ground. That is what I am saying. And we need to do it now.

We do not need to prolong this activity--describe it however you want to--any longer. We need to get down to brass tacks. We cannot allow political maneuvering on either side to obscure our core duty in this matter. We need to provide our men and women in the field with the resources necessary to conduct successfully the mission assigned to them by our Government, and to do it without undue delay.

I do not think the exchange of messages--strategy, or whatever you want to call it--is appropriate or necessary as a substitute for legislation. I do not think it will result in an enacted bill any sooner than had we simply acted in the regular order. But that choice has been made, and we must deal with it. I will do my best. I commit myself to work with the Senate leadership, with our colleagues in the other body, and with the President to find a way to get the job done in a timely manner.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia, the ranking Republican member of this committee, for his kind words and for his hard work and diligent efforts to bring us to a successful conclusion of this conference report.

The chairman of the Committee, Mr. Harkin, has also been relentless and thoughtful in the way he has managed the responsibilities of the chairman of this committee through this very difficult task.

This was not an easy task. I applaud both of them for their leadership, their fairness, and their support for farmers' and ranchers' interests, and truly for the interests of all Americans.

I also compliment the staff members of the committee for their tireless work on this bill: Mark Halverson, the majority staff director of the committee and all of his staff who worked to resolve the many issues important to our region of the country; Martha Scott Poindexter, a former staff member of mine who is now serving as the staff director for Senator Chambliss, deserves high praise for the successful efforts to help resolve the issues important to agriculture producers and the consumers in our State of Mississippi.

I also want to thank Vernie Hubert, Alan Mackey, Hayden Milberg, Cameron Bruett, Betsy Croker, Jane Anna Harris, Anne Hazlett, Matt Coley, Kate Coler, Patty Lawrence, Christy Seyfert, Dawn Stump, and Carlisle Clarke for their contributions to this effort.

This has been a team effort. I have been very fortunate to have had the pleasure and privilege of working with all of those I mentioned in the drafting and negotiation of this very important legislation.

Mr. President, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 strikes a careful balance between the many important programs within the farm bill. I am pleased that the bill continues the farm income safety net program developed in the 2002 farm bill. Farmers in Mississippi believe these programs have worked well to ensure an adequate support during times of depressed prices. Currently, our farmers are fortunate to be benefiting from strong commodities prices. However, we have learned from past experiences, that these prices can fall as quickly as they have risen and having a safety net in place is necessary for farmers to make the significant investments needed to operate.

Conservation is an important part of a farm bill. The continuation of programs such as the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and Environmental Quality Incentives Program which have broad participation throughout Mississippi. Farmers understand how critical the environment is to the continuation of agriculture and the health of the community of which they live. The increased funding for these incentive based conservation programs will allow producers to adapt these programs with greater success to their land and provide real benefits for their good efforts.

The additional funding for nutrition programs will address many of the needs facing many of America's poor, children, and elderly. The nutrition programs authorized in this committee touch the lives of one out of every five people in this country, including over 37 million children. Also, I am pleased the conference recognizes the success of the fruit and vegetable pilot program and have expanded the program to all States.

There are many titles of the farm bill that are often overlooked but are important to agriculture and our rural economies. The research title of the farm bill is crucial to keeping U.S. agriculture a leader in food and fiber production. The streamlining of grant programs in the research title will allow for efficiency and oversight of the appropriated funds. The rural development title provides assistance to rural communities through housing assistance, rural broadband access, water and wastewater programs, and small

business development. I am pleased that the conference has maintained and improved upon these important programs.

The issue of payments limits is always a point of contention in every farm bill. The reductions in payment levels in this bill are a significant reform from the current payment limit rules. The payment limit levels in this bill will result in a significant hardship for many producers in Mississippi. Some of the best, most diversified producers in Mississippi will be ineligible for income safety net programs. It is important that the supporters of stronger payment limits understand that this will not reduce farm bill spending. The land will be farmed by another producer and be eligible for program benefits. The adjusted gross income limitation has the effect of moving one farmer off the land and putting another farmer in their place. The Government doesn't ask other businesses to go out of business if they grow and expand, why should farmers be treated differently?

Again, I want to thank Senator Harkin and Senator Chambliss for their good work on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report.

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

Mr. President, 2 weeks ago, I came to the Senate floor to express my concern that Congress had yet to act on the President's fiscal year 2008 request for supplemental funding to support our troops and our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. At that time, I also expressed my displeasure with the majority's intention to bypass the Appropriations Committee in writing the supplemental appropriations bill.

Two weeks later, little appears to have changed. Little has changed, except that we are 2 weeks deeper into the fiscal year, and we are 2 weeks closer to the date when accounts that support our Armed Forces and our diplomatic corps begin to run dry.

The majority leader is apparently sanguine about the status of the supplemental because last Thursday, he said:

I think we'll do our best to finish this before the

Memorial Day break, but if we don't, it's no big deal.

There's money there.

The leader then went on to say:

I don't know why there is a rush to judgment. This is

moving along quite rapidly. We're not behind schedule.

Everything's fine.

Exactly what is ``moving along quite rapidly''? No markup of the supplemental has been officially scheduled in either the House or the Senate. There are continued reports of imminent action in the other body, but no bill has been introduced. No bill or report has been circulated to Senate committee members in anticipation of a markup. There is nothing for Members to look at, nothing for Members to consider or to draft amendments to.

A week ago, Republican members of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate wrote to Chairman Byrd to express our concern about the committee being bypassed entirely. I am pleased that the chairman concurred in the sentiments expressed in that letter and has stated his intention to hold a committee markup this week. I am certain that has been his preference all along.

In my memory, I cannot think of any instance where the committee did not mark up a supplemental such as this. I think the chairman has been fighting valiantly to maintain some semblance of regular order, but it is apparent he is meeting resistance from the joint leadership.

That is a shame. We should take advantage of the collective expertise and experience of the members of the Appropriations Committee and bring that knowledge to bear on the supplemental.

I am sorry to say it remains uncertain whether a markup will take place, and if a markup does occur, it remains uncertain whether the committee's work product will be considered by the full Senate.

In the House, it appears the committee will be bypassed altogether. Yet even with that step being skipped, there is still no definite schedule for House floor action. There apparently have been discussions by House and Senate staff in an effort to sort of ``precook'' agreements on the various chapters of the bill, but there has been little substantive involvement by the minority in those discussions. Very few Members have been involved at all, to my knowledge.

The fact is the Appropriations Committee could have marked up the supplemental several weeks ago, and the Senate likely could have passed the bill by now. We should be in conference with the House already and be well on our way to negotiating a conference report to be sent to the President. But instead, we wait. We wait for more closed-door meetings between and among the Democratic leaders. We wait for more rumors about what extraneous legislative matter is or is not part of the draft being compiled by the majority. And all but a handful of Members wait for an opportunity to shape the bill.

I am a member of the Committee on Agriculture and was appointed as a conferee on the farm bill. That conference has met at least seven times in recent weeks. There have been countless additional meetings among committee principals. It has been a grueling effort, it has been messy, and it remains uncertain whether the President will ultimately sign the conference report once it is presented to him. But we can be fairly confident that the conference report will at least reflect the collective will of Congress and it will be the process of a reasonably transparent process.

At this point, I cannot say that about the supplemental. Eventually, we will approve and the President will sign a supplemental bill. I am confident that ultimately we will not allow our Armed Forces and our diplomatic corps to go wanting for resources. My concern is that the majority's approach to the supplemental places political tactics and strategy ahead of the need for inclusive, timely, and transparent action.

Contrary to the majority leader's assertion, it is a big deal if we do not get this bill done by Memorial Day. It is a big deal, not because the U.S. Army will run out of ammunition on June 1 but because our inaction will represent an unnecessary and completely avoidable process failure on the part of the Congress. It will say to our Armed Forces that we are willing to draw out this process as long as possible, even though we know the likely outcome. We are willing to force the Department of Defense to issue advance furlough notices, delay contract awards, and make inefficient funding transfers in order to keep the money flowing--all because congressional leaders spent these last several weeks devising artful parliamentary schemes rather than simply advancing the bill through the committees, onto the House floor, onto the Senate floor, and into conference.

The April 28 edition of Roll Call included an article by Don Wolfensberger titled ``Have House-Senate Conferences Gone the Way of the Dodo?'' I commend that article to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent to have a copy printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. Wolfensberger reminds us of the promises made by the Senate leadership in 2006 as part of their ``honest leadership and open Government'' reform plank. Conference meetings were to be open to the public, and members of the conference committee were to have a public opportunity to vote on all amendments. Copies of conference reports were to be available to Members and posted publicly on the Internet 24 hours before consideration. Bills were to be developed following full hearings and open subcommittee and committee markups and were to come to the floor under procedures that allow open, full, and fair debate.

These practices have been followed in some cases. I mentioned the farm bill already as an example of a conference committee in action. But procedures governing the conference process and the markup process are only relevant if there actually is a conference committee or there actually is a committee markup.

As noted in Mr. Wolfensberger's article, the number of instances in which major legislation has been dealt with outside the conference process has increased markedly in this Congress. The supplemental appears destined to become another example. I gather that we are to receive the bill from the House in the form of three amendments to a dormant version of the fiscal year 2008 Military Construction appropriations bill. As I have already noted, it is not certain whether the Senate Appropriations Committee will act on some, all, or none of these amendments or whether the leader intends for there to be an opportunity for Senators to offer amendments on the floor. A conference committee appears out of the question.

It is not easy to be the Speaker of the House or the majority leader of the Senate. Individuals elected to those positions are subjected to enormous pressures. They are besieged constantly by colleagues, constituents, and outside interests with an array of often conflicting demands. In an effort to resolve those competing demands, it is

tempting to centralize decisionmaking, construct processes that minimize uncertainty, and generally try to eliminate the untidiness of the legislative process.

A handful of Members and staff are empowered at the expense of the rank and file in both bodies and, by extension, the people whom the rank and file represent. On occasion, such tactics are successful. But over time, these practices tend to become abusive and often result in a messier, more protracted process than would have been the case if more traditional procedures had been followed.

For the sake of our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope the process the majority has chosen for the supplemental does not put us any further behind than we already are. But in the 2 weeks since I last came to the floor to speak about the supplemental, little has occurred to inspire such hope.

Our men and women in the field are waiting. We do need to finish this bill by the Memorial Day recess. It is a big deal.

Exhibit 1

[From Roll Call, Apr. 28, 2008]

Have House-Senate Conferences Gone the Way of the Dodo?

(By Don Wolfensberger)

In June 2006, House and Senate Democratic leaders rolled

out their ``New Direction for America,'' a campaign platform

to take back control of Congress. The ``Honest Leadership and

Open Government'' reform plank, at Page 22, included the

promise to require that ``all [House-Senate] conference

committee meetings be open to the public and that members of

the conference committee have a public opportunity to vote on

all amendments [in disagreement between the two houses].''

Moreover, copies of conference reports would be posted ``on

the Internet 24 hours before consideration (unless waived by

a supermajority vote).''

The minority Democrats' justifiable complaint was that

majority Republicans often shut them out of conference

committee deliberations after a single, perfunctory public

meeting was held to minimally satisfy House rules (aka ``the

photo op''). After that meeting, all that is necessary to

file a conference report is the signatures of a majority of

conferees from each house. No formal meeting or votes on

final approval are required; nor does the majority even need

to consult the minority before finalizing an agreement.

Once they took over Congress in January 2007, House

Democrats abandoned their promises of public votes in

conference meetings on amendments in disagreement and of 24-

hour advance Internet availability of conference reports.

Nevertheless, they did adopt some palliative House rules

changes on the opening day of the 110th Congress that at

least appear to move conference committees in the direction

of a more deliberative and participatory public process.

The new rules require: (a) that all conferees be given

notice of any conference meeting for the resolution of

differences between the houses ``and a reasonable opportunity

to attend''; (b) that all provisions in disagreement be

``considered as open to discussion at any meeting''; (c) that

all conferees be provided ``a unitary time and place with

access to at least one complete copy of the final conference

agreement for the purpose of recording their approval (or

not)'' by affixing their signatures; and (d) that no

substantive change in the agreement be made after conferees

have signed it.

The Parliamentarian's footnotes to the rules for conference

reports indicate that the rules are not enforceable if all

points of order are waived against the reports, as is

routinely done by a special rule from the Rules Committee.

Nevertheless, conference committee chairmen (or vice

chairmen) could still be punished by the House adopting a

question of privilege resolution for willful disregard of

these modest requirements. This is because a blanket waiver

of the rules only protects the conference report. It is not a

retroactive pardon for malfeasance in the management of the

conference.

Unfortunately, these well-intentioned new rules have no

relevance when the bicameral majority leadership decides to

bypass going to conference altogether, and instead negotiates

final agreements behind closed doors. And this is happening

with increasing frequency, sometimes even over the

public protests of committee chairmen who have been

excluded from leadership negotiations.

To determine just how serious the practice of bypassing

conferences has become, I compared action on major bills

through March of the second session in both this Democratic

110th Congress and the preceding Republican-controlled 109th.

(A major bill is defined here as one originally considered

under a special rule in the House.)

Of major bills approved by the House and Senate that

required some action to resolve differences between the two

versions, 11 out of 19 (58 percent) were settled by

conferences in the current Congress compared with 18 out of

19 (95 percent) in the previous Congress.

Put another way, the current 110th Congress has been

negotiating eight times as many bills as the 109th Congress

outside the conference process. This is done by using the

``pingpong'' approach of bouncing amendments between the

houses until a final agreement is achieved.

Among the major bills in this Congress that have bypassed

conference consideration are the energy independence bill,

State Children's Health Insurance Program, Iraq-Katrina

supplemental appropriations, terrorism insurance, the

consolidated appropriations act and the tax rebate/stimulus

legislation.

While the conference bypass approach is just as legitimate

under the rules as going to conference (and sometimes

advisable when there are only minor differences to iron out),

the procedure is more suspect when used on major bills on

which numerous substantive disagreements exist between the

houses. That is when House and Senate leaders are more likely

to directly intervene, rendering committee chairmen less

relevant to the process.

Senate minority Republicans are not entirely blameless in

this development. At times they have brought pressures to

avoid conferences, under threat of filibuster, in order to

better ensure the retention of provisions in which they have

a vested interest. However, House and Senate Democratic

leaders have been just as culpable in wanting to skip

conferences to produce outcomes most beneficial to their

party.

While it is too early to declare House-Senate conferences

as extinct as the dodo, it is not too early to move them onto

the parliamentary endangered-species list. It is one more

sign of the decline of the committee system and its

attributes of deliberation and expertise. It is especially

troubling because the lack of conference deliberations shuts

out majority and minority Members alike from having a final

say on important policy decisions. Party governance must be

better balanced against participatory lawmaking. Both parties

need to recognize this.

Madam President, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by my colleague from Mississippi. The amendment of Senator Wicker will benefit not only constituents in Mississippi but anyone who lives in the path of future hurricanes.

Two-and-a-half years ago, the most devastating natural disaster in the history of our country, Hurricane Katrina, made landfall on the Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama coasts. The devastation that was caused was indescribable.

The people of our State have made significant and impressive progress toward recovery since that fateful day, August 29, 2005, but there is still much

work to be done. There are far too many vacant lots and empty slabs that remain around our gulf coast for our recovery to be considered complete.

Mississippians are appreciative of the assistance the Federal Government has provided to aid in their recovery from Hurricane Katrina. However, a significant additional opportunity to assist that recovery will have been lost if the issue of affordable wind insurance is not addressed.

One of the most significant impediments to the recovery of the Mississippi gulf coast is the availability of affordable homeowners insurance. There are many coastal residents who simply cannot afford to insure their homes, and homes cannot be rebuilt until they have secured insurance.

One of the most expensive components of these homeowners insurance premiums is coverage for damage caused by wind.

Most coastal Mississippians are currently being forced to buy their wind coverage from the State-run wind pool. This wind pool is necessary because the private insurance industry has largely discontinued selling wind policies in these coastal communities.

So a program that was designed as an insurer of last resort has become the only available option. Those who are able to buy coverage from this State wind pool have found their premiums increased dramatically over the last 2 years.

Unfortunately, this is a shortsighted solution. There is simply too much risk, in too small of a pool, concentrated into a small geographic area. This is not a problem that is unique to Mississippi. Most State wind pools face the same problem of not being able to spread the risk wide enough to avoid an overwhelming loss in the event of a significant hurricane.

I wish to be clear. This is not only an amendment for those who were impacted by Hurricane Katrina. This amendment would benefit millions of Americans who live on our vast coastlines and face the potential of a future catastrophic hurricane.

This amendment would allow homeowners to buy insurance and know in advance of the storm that they will be covered without a prolonged dispute over whether the damage was caused by wind or water.

This wind coverage will be available only where local governments enforce strict building standards to minimize future loss. The premiums for this coverage would be actuarially sound and would not expose the Federal Government to undue financial risk.

A great deal of thought has gone into my recommendation of this amendment. I urge a vote in support of the amendment. If private insurers or the State-run wind pools could adequately address this problem, then I would not as vigorously advocate the Federal Government expanding its role in the business of insurance.

But Senator Wicker's amendment provides the best available solution for this very serious problem.

As the 2008 hurricane season approaches, I believe we should not miss this opportunity to address this growing problem. The Wicker amendment provides us with the best opportunity to make certain affordable wind insurance is available for those living near our coastlines.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Bill Kennedy of Inverness, MS, for his distinguished service and exemplary contributions to the Mississippi Delta as president of the Delta Council.

Delta Council, an economic development organization in the Mississippi Delta, represents the business, professional, and agricultural leadership of the region. Bill has commendably fulfilled the role of president during a time when Mississippi agriculture and the economy of the State of Mississippi have faced significant challenges.

As president of the Delta Council, Bill was called upon to commit time and resources to the ever-pressing issues of Mississippi River flooding due to the delta's geographic location at the bottom of a watershed funnel encompassing most of the United States.

Bill Kennedy has set the standard by which other agricultural leaders of the Mississippi Delta are measured. As past president of the MS Ginners Association, past president of the Southern Cotton Ginners Association, and president of Duncan Gin, one of the oldest and most successful agricultural enterprises in the Mississippi Delta, Bill has proven to be an effective advocate on behalf of delta agriculture. Because of his unique understanding of the U.S. cotton industry, his counsel is frequently sought when issues of national, statewide, or regional concern arise.

Additionally, the role which Bill Kennedy has played in wildlife conservation through his leadership as former president of Delta Wildlife is inestimable. Bill is a true sportsman and conservationist who has devoted thousands of hours to making the Mississippi Delta a better place for all those who live and do business in the region.

I congratulate Bill Kennedy, and thank his wife Lanny, his son Larkin, and daughter in law, Jenny Ruth, for the year which they have shared with the delta while Bill has served as president of Delta Council.

Mr. President, I am pleased to recognize the service of one of my constituents, Mr. Bryan McDonald. Bryan has served the State of Mississippi and Governor Haley Barbour as director of the Governor's Office of Recovery and Renewal. In his final week as director, I thank him for his outstanding contribution to Mississippi's progress in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Prior to his appointment, Bryan worked with the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency as director of accounting Oversight, where he helped provide assistance to governmental and nonprofit applicants under the Stafford Act. Bryan's extensive management experience as a CPA and auditor suited the State perfectly in our recovery efforts.

Bryan established a team and a process which ensured FEMA public assistance dollars were accounted for and complied with Federal regulations. The system expedited reimbursements to State and local governments and resulted in over 99 percent of projects being obligated by FEMA. Considering the unprecedented magnitude of this disaster, this was truly a monumental task and one that had never before been undertaken.

As director of the Office of Recovery and Renewal, Bryan again put the right people and processes in place to manage the Federal assistance entrusted to the State of Mississippi. Thousands of homeowners have received direct financial assistance through the homeowners assistance grant program; programs and policies have been implemented which will result in the development of low income housing units in excess of what was available before the storm, and Katrina affected cities and counties have received the much needed Federal resources to rebuild and revitalize their communities.

Bryan has worked to ensure that every Federal taxpayer dollar entrusted to Mississippi has been and continues to be spent efficiently and appropriately. The State of Mississippi and this country owe Bryan a debt of gratitude for taking a leave of absence from his private sector career to serve our great State. As we know, public service can be a strain on our families both financially and emotionally. I want to thank Bryan's wife Michelle and his two children, Matt and Laura Beth, for their sacrifice and support while allowing Bryan to serve our State.

Bryan has reflected great credit on the State of Mississippi and I appreciate his service.

Mr. President, whatever one's point of view on the war in Iraq, on whether we should be involved or not in the competition for influence in that region, the incontrovertible fact is, there are men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces who are there trying to protect our interests, carry out the orders of their superiors, and safeguard and defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And they are in danger of running short of equipment and supplies and the other means necessary to succeed in this conflict because requests for supplemental appropriations are languishing in the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with no certain schedule for reporting out the bills that must be passed, the bills that must be passed to support our troops and replenish the accounts that have been depleted in this conflict.

Mr. President, I am growing increasingly concerned about the status of the President's fiscal year 2008 request to provide supplemental funding to support our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The President submitted the bulk of his request in February of 2007 in conjunction with his regular fiscal year 2008 budget submission. He did so largely because Congress clearly expressed its desire for a full year estimate of war costs. Yet Congress did not appropriate a full year's funding.

At the end of last year, Congress approved only a $70 billion ``bridge fund'' to support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until this spring. Enacting even that amount required a protracted struggle between the House, the Senate, and the President. As a result, the Department of Defense had to issue furlough notices, make a series of inefficient transfers and reprogrammings, and generally function in ways that could only detract from its primary duties.

We find ourselves today facing a very similar situation, more than 14 months after the submission of the President's request. We have not appropriated, approved, or otherwise acted on some $108 billion of the President's request. The personnel, operations, and maintenance accounts that support our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan are running low. And by May or June, those accounts will run out of money. Soon the Department of Defense will once again have to issue furlough notices, initiate transfers and reprogrammings, and take other inefficient and demoralizing actions that simply should not be necessary.

I have no doubt that Congress will someday approve a funding bill. While individual Senators have different views about what our policies should be in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am confident that each of my colleagues wants ultimately to provide our Armed Forces and our diplomatic corps with the resources they need to implement the policies of the U.S. Government.

My concern is, when will we act? And how will we act? Every day, I read stories speculating about action on the supplemental. Last week, the Appropriations Committee held a hearing on the supplemental with Office of Management and Budget Director Nussle as the witness from the administration. It seemed as though we might mark up the bill this week, but that has not occurred. I had hoped that by now a markup would be definitely scheduled for next week. But that hasn't occurred either. Hopefully, a markup will occur before we lose yet another week.

But I grow more concerned with each passing day. In the other body, it appears the majority will bypass the committee altogether and take a bill straight to the House floor. Why they would choose to forfeit the detailed knowledge and expertise of the relevant committee of jurisdiction is beyond me, but that is their decision to make. In the Senate, I am not entirely comfortable that a similar procedure isn't under consideration. I know very well that it would not be Chairman Byrd's preference, but I recognize that such decisions are sometimes made by leadership and not by the chairman.

I am also concerned that the process by which Congress will consider the supplemental will again be through a series of messages between the House and the Senate. The House will neither hold a committee markup nor generate an original bill for consideration. As such, it appears there will be no conference committee to reconcile differences between the House and Senate. Rather, the committee leadership, as well as the majority leadership in the House and Senate, will retire behind closed doors to produce a final product for our consideration. The minority will be part of the discussion to varying degrees, but there will be no conference meeting to attend, there will be no conference votes to decide items of disagreement, and there will be no conference report for Members to sign or not to sign.

None of these procedures are without precedent. The Republican majority at times employed similar tactics to move legislation. But I fear that in the appropriations realm, we are making a habit of these procedures--a bad habit. Processing bills by exchanging messages with the House is becoming the norm rather than the exception. Formal conference committees are becoming rare. It seems that committee markups may be the next part of the regular order to go by the boards. This trend should be of concern to all Members of the Senate, not just the members of the Appropriations Committee.

I get the sense that the majority is struggling mightily to develop a unified, bicameral course of parliamentary action that is most advantageous for their party and which minimizes the chances of unexpected legislative outcomes. I can understand that desire. It is extraordinarily difficult to guide a bill as significant as this supplemental through the legislative process, particularly in an election year.

But in meeting and striving to engineer all uncertainty out of the process, the majority is losing valuable time--time that, in my view, would be better spent marking up the bill, moving it to the floor, and processing amendments in the regular order. Let's not forget those who are depending upon the outcome for their livelihood, their ability to defend themselves and protect the security interests of our great country. They are the ones who are awaiting our action.

Let the Congress work its will. Let the President make a decision whether to sign the bill, and let Congress respond, if necessary. Not to make light of the Senate schedule over the past 2 weeks, but we should be using this window of time that appears to be available to us. In the increasingly political atmosphere in which Congress operates, sometimes we have to remind ourselves of our core responsibilities as Members of this body. In the context of this war supplemental, I think our core responsibility is to give the men and women of our Armed Forces and diplomatic corps the resources they need to succeed in the mission they have been assigned by their Government, and to do so without undue delay

We have had the President's request for 14 months--14 months. We have held hearings. Members and staff have had numerous meetings with administration officials and other interested parties to discuss the details of the need. We have received an updated report from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Mr. President, it is time to act.

I yield the floor.