Floor Statements

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to support the nomination of Judge Catharina Haynes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She is a very well-qualified and capable nominee to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which hears appeals from the Federal District Courts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Judge Haynes has extraordinary academic credentials. She graduated first in her class with a degree in psychology from the Florida Institute of Technology at age 19, and she then finished second in her class at Emory University School of Law at age 22. While in law school, she also served on the Emory Law Journal.

Since graduating from law school, Judge Haynes has compiled a distinguished record in private practice and as a State court judge.

In 1998, Judge Haynes was elected to be a district court judge in Dallas, TX. Four years later, she was reelected to that same position. While she was running for reelection, the Dallas Morning News endorsed her and said of her: ``(She) has energy, intelligence and a strong commitment to the law.'' They further added, ``She runs a fair, efficient court.''

While working as a trial court judge, Judge Haynes presided over 190 jury trials and approximately 100 bench trials. She was able to dispose of over 7,000 cases related to a full range of civil topics including complex commercial disputes, commercial litigation, insurance issues, personal injury, intellectual property matters, and employment disputes.

Having recently concluded her time as a Dallas District Court Judge, Judge Haynes returned to private practice at the well-regarded national law firm of Baker Botts, LLP, where she is a partner working in the litigation department.

While in private practice Judge Haynes has handled a wide range of complicated cases in before both State and Federal court. She has also argued cases before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court to which she is nominated.

Judge Haynes has been heavily involved with the local bar associations and has volunteered extensively in the community.

Judge Haynes has received numerous awards and professional honors, including the 2006 State Bar of Texas Presidential Commendation, 2006 Florida Tech Alumni Association Outstanding Achievement Award, 2004 Dallas Women Lawyers Association Louise B. Raggio Award, 2003 Dallas Women Lawyers Association Outstanding Board Member Award, and 1996 and 2002 Dallas Bar Association Jo Anna Moreland Outstanding Committee Chair Award.

Her commitment to public service will serve her well on the Fifth Circuit and will reflect credit on the Federal judiciary.

Mr. President, I am pleased the nomination of Catharina Haynes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is being confirmed today by the Senate.

Mr. President, I was deeply saddened by the news of the death of our former colleague and friend, Howard Metzenbaum.

The Senator from Ohio was one of the most conscientious, hardest working, and influential Senators I have had the privilege to observe since I came to the Senate in 1979.

We were friends even though we would disagree on some subjects and be on the opposite sides of amendments he would offer on appropriations bills I was supporting. He was a fierce debater and would often become agitated and raise his voice level for effect. But, he always impressed me as sincere, honest, and relentless.

The Senate and the United States were well served by Howard Metzenbaum.

Mr. President, I am opposed to the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina that would create a point of order against consideration of any legislation that contains an earmark.

Since the earliest days of our country's existence there has been tension between the executive and the legislative branches. Each has attempted continually to gain power at the expense of the other. The balance of power has tended to ebb and flow over time. The instances where one branch gets absolute advantage over the other are rare. That is the fundamental genius of the system created by our Nation's Founding Fathers. It is a system that is unique because of the balance of power that exists between the Congress and the Chief Executive. We should honor this unique relationship that has made our country the envy of the world for stability, and fairness for our citizens.

The President has said that he believes earmarking has gotten out of control, notwithstanding the many pieces of legislation containing earmarks that he has signed into law over the last 7 years. The President has further stated that he will now veto any fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill if the number and cost of earmarks isn't cut in half.

It is the President's right to veto bills. I don't deny that the practice of earmarking should be the subject of review and debate and I don't deny the right of the President to express his views on the subject and to use his veto pen if he feels that it is justified.

What I cannot understand is why the legislative branch would unilaterally relinquish a fundamental power granted to it in article I of the Constitution; the power of the purse.

This debate is not about the level of Federal spending, the size of the deficit, or the national debt. Nothing in this amendment would change the level of discretionary spending called for in the budget resolution. Nothing in this amendment issues reconciliation instructions to committees that might begin to address the entitlement crisis that faces our Nation. This debate instead is about who decides how Federal dollars are spent, and where?

Proponents of this amendment apparently are content for Congress to provide large sums of money to Federal agencies for general purposes, either to be distributed by a formula or by some sort of executive branch allocation process. Congress's only input would be after the fact. I fundamentally disagree. Congress is well within its rights to target spending for purposes that the legislative branch concludes are in the public interest.

Senators and Members of Congress represent the several States and the American people. While some funding formulas or agency-run processes may have their rightful place in the allocation of Federal dollars, there should be an opportunity for Congress to identify its own priorities, as the Constitution contemplates.

There have been cases where the power of the purse has been abused for personal or political gain, just as other aspects of the legislative process have been abused. That is an unfortunate truth. But it is also true that nearly all earmarked projects are put forth by Members with honorable intentions. Nearly all earmarked projects match the general purposes of the programs within which they are funded. The question is, who decides how the people's money is spent. I think it is the people's representation in Congress.

I am aware that my own party's nominee for President, the Senator from Arizona, supports this amendment. I am also aware that Senator McCain has stated that, if elected President, he would veto any bill that includes an earmark. Even though I disagree with him on this issue, I understand he thinks the executive branch of government should decide how taxpayers' money is spent.

It doesn't surprise me that the other Presidential candidates in this body support this amendment. Any President would want the ability to allocate Federal funding as he or she sees fit.

Why would the Senate assume it would be preferable for the executive branch to allocate funds based on the whims of an assistant secretary, or on the political pressures that can influence the White House or the Office of Management and Budget? Do we have faith that executive branch agencies will not embarrass themselves with inappropriate grants for art exhibits, overpriced hammers for the Pentagon, or million dollar outhouses in our national parks? History tells us otherwise.

I think Congress should continue to hold the purse strings as the Founders of our great country contemplated. We should not shirk our duty to make spending decisions. If the President disapproves, he can veto the bill.

This amendment doesn't fix anything. It doesn't save any money. It doesn't propose any reforms. And in spite of its supposed 1-year duration, the amendment will do nothing to mollify those who wish to put Congress permanently on the sidelines of the process of allocating Federal dollars.

This amendment will most assuredly do nothing to help Congress and the next President of the United States address the budgetary challenges facing our country in Medicare, Social Security, and tax policy. We shouldn't be seduced into thinking that a `timeout' on Congressionally directed spending will somehow help us deal with those issues. What we should do instead is stay in the game, consider spending

bills on a timely basis, and carefully scrutinize the spending in those bills. Then we need to engage the President on those proposals through established, constitutional processes and determine the collective will of the people as determined by all of their elected officials.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 4233

Mr. President, I join the leader in commending my colleague for an excellent statement about the challenges faced by our State of Mississippi in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There could be no greater need of any State than to confront the realities of the challenge we face to rebuild and recover fully from Hurricane Katrina.

We have had a tremendous amount of support from the Federal level. We have the approval of appropriations bills, seeing the leaders of both Houses--the House and the Senate--coming together, joining with the administration in crafting a recovery package of changes in laws, as well as the appropriation of funds that will help speed the recovery. But it has been very frustrating to see how long it has taken to truly get back on the road to foreseeable recovery. Many of the communities are still without Federal, State, and county services that existed before the hurricane.

Although every effort is being made to overcome these challenges, the path ahead is filled with many new challenges. I am very confident that the presence in the Senate of my friend Roger Wicker will help us identify and succeed in meeting this enormous challenge. I congratulate him on his remarks and thank him for his strong effort in meeting this very important challenge our State faces.

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. President, I was pleased to learn last week that the Air Force had made a selection for the development and procurement of its new aerial refueling tanker fleet. I am told that the replacement of the 1950s-era fleet of KC-135s had been the Air Force's No. 1 procurement priority. By the time the last one is replaced, it will be over 80 years old. It is good to see the Air Force move forward to replace these aging aircraft.

GEN Arthur Litche, the commander of Air Mobility Command, whose mission it is to provide rapid global mobility and sustainment for America's Armed Forces, recently said:

Tanker modernization is vitally important to national

security.

I have been told this acquisition selection process is the most documented selection process the U.S. Air Force

has ever conducted. Last Friday, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne said:

Today's announcement is the culmination of years of

tireless work and attention to detail by our Acquisition

professionals and source selection team, who have been

committed to maintaining integrity, providing transparency,

and promoting a fair competition for this critical aircraft

program.

The Air Force advises us that 25,000 American workers at 230 U.S. companies located in 49 States will support the assembly of these aircraft. The winning proposal was submitted by the team led by Northrup Grumman and includes EADS North America and General Electric Aviation. It was judged to provide the best value for the U.S. Air Force and for the U.S. taxpayer. General Litche said the winning proposal gives the military more passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more availability, more flexibility, and more dependability.

I am pleased to congratulate the winners of the competition, and I look forward to the day when this new aircraft joins the fleet.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

Under the terms of many treaties and agreements, the U.S. Government has the responsibility to provide health care and other benefits to Native Americans.

The Indian Health Care Service estimates that it provides only about 60 percent of the health care that is needed in Indian Country: an amount that is less than half of what we spend on the health care needs of Federal prisoners. Tribes with the resources, attempt to make up the difference. In most cases, the result is inadequate to meet the needs of our Native American population.

In my State, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has made progress in improving its health care, and the overall health of its population, over the last 30 years. But, the sad fact is that health care on the reservation is not adequate.

There are 9,600 members of the tribe and there are only 4 doctors. Their small hospital has only 14 beds.

Over the last 5 years, there has been a 30.4-percent increase in the number of patients from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians who accessed the health care system. During that same time period there was a 41.4-percent increase in the number of ambulatory visits.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 7 percent of Americans have diabetes. By comparison, 20.5 percent of Choctaws have diabetes, one of the highest percentages of any tribe in the country. Over the last 5 years, there was a 62.3-percent increase in the number of patients diagnosed with diabetes.

Statistics for other tribes are similar. Some include alarming incidences of suicide, high infant mortality rates and practically nonexistent mental health care.

Some in the Senate have suggested that those tribes that have made progress with economic development initiatives, specifically through gaming, ought not be eligible for Indian Health Care Services. I don't agree. The tribe in my State should not be penalized for its modest economic success.

The tribe is responsible for the safety of not only its members but those who visit. It maintains roads, schools, courts, law enforcement, fire fighting, housing, and other services we expect from local and State governments.

It has a poverty rate of approximately 30 percent. Forty years ago there was a near 100 percent unemployment rate of tribal members.

There is no health care system near the tribe that has the capacity to serve tribal members. Even now, treatment facilities for dialysis, heart patients, and serious medical conditions are 80 miles away.

I urge the Senate to support the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Pontotoc.

Mr. President, I am a cosponsor of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which provides updated objectives and policy for addressing the health needs of American Indians.

By virtue of many treaties and agreements, the Federal Government has a trust responsibility--an obligation--to provide a variety of basic needs, including healthcare.

The Indian Health Care Service estimates that it provides about 60 percent of the health care that is needed in Indian Country: an amount that is less than half of what we spend on the health care needs of Federal prisoners. Tribes with the resources, try to make up the difference. In most cases, the result is an absence of health care.

In my State, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians has improved its health care and the overall health of its population over the last 30 years. But the sad fact remains that health care on the reservation is inadequate.

For the 9,600 members of the tribe, there are four doctors. The hospital has 14 beds. The approximately $8 million the tribe spent last year is simply not enough to cover the needs of the Choctaw's growing population.

According to Health Care Financing Review--Summer 2004, Volume 24, Number 4--the national health care expenditure average cost per person per year was calculated at $5,440. Using the $5,440 estimate, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Health Care System would need over $48 million dollars to cover the tribe's health care costs.

From fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, there was a 30.4 percent increase in the number of patients from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians who accessed the health care system. During that same time period there was a 41.4 percent increase in the number of ambulatory visits.

According to the CDC, 7 percent of Americans have diabetes. In comparison, 20.5 percent of Choctaws have diabetes, one of the highest percentages of any tribe in the country. From 2000 to 2005 there was a 62.3 percent increase in the number of patients diagnosed with diabetes.

My point in telling the Senate these examples is, with adequate health care, successful preventive care, appropriate facilities, and more health care professionals, lives would be longer and general health would improve.

Statistics for other tribes are similar. Some include alarming incidences of suicide, high infant mortality rates, and practically nonexistent mental health care.

This bill includes provisions that promote better communication between tribes and the Indian Health Care Service, in order to ensure effective administration of the programs meant to assist the well-being of the American Indian population.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Madam President, the decision made by my State colleague to retire from the Senate has left me with a deep sense of loss. I respect his right to leave the Senate, and I know he will enjoy a well- earned respite from the demands and challenges that go with this job.

Trent Lott has served with distinction, and he has reflected great credit on our State and Nation. I have enjoyed his personal friendship and the opportunity to come to know his family, his wonderful wife Tricia and their two fine children, Chet and Tyler.

Trent and I were elected to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1972. At that time, he was serving as the administrative assistant to Congressman William Colmer, who was the chairman of the Rules Committee in the House. So I looked to him for advice and counsel because of his experience on the Hill and his insight into how the House really worked, as only an insider such as he would know.

We became friends right away. We were the first Republicans elected from our districts in Mississippi since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

In due course, we were elected to serve in this body, and we have worked together over the years on the many challenges that have confronted our State.

I will truly miss serving with Trent in the Senate. I have come to respect him and appreciate his legislative skills and his great capacity for hard work. He is a tireless and resolute advocate for causes and issues which he decides to support. In a word, he is a winner. He gets things done.

I know Trent and his family will enjoy the new opportunities they will have following his great career in the House and the Senate. They have certainly earned the right to new, less burdensome, and more rewarding experiences in the years ahead.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join my distinguished friend from West Virginia in advising the Senate that we have before us the Omnibus appropriations bill. It has been a long and difficult road getting to this point.

The President, in February, delivered a budget request to the Congress that included a robust increase for our Armed Forces, very few increases for nondefense discretionary programs, along with many proposed program cuts. Then, in the spring, the new majority in Congress laid out a very different vision for discretionary programs, one that called for some $23 billion in additional spending. We have before us an Omnibus appropriations bill that reflects many of the spending priorities of the Congress, both from the majority and minority perspectives, but the bill also reflects the very real concern about overall spending levels held by the President and most Members, certainly on the Republican side of the aisle.

The bill is, without question, an imperfect product of an imperfect process, but I think every Member of this body would rather have the opportunity to vote on appropriations bills individually rather than lumped together in one giant omnibus bill. I regret that the Senate did not take up and consider all 12 of the appropriations bills individually. When we fail to take up all of the bills, we invite the creation of an omnibus bill, lumping all the other bills together, such as this one, and we weaken the opportunity for the Senate to influence the content of these bills and shape the final legislation. I hope next year the leader will redouble his efforts to make time for consideration of all the appropriations bills, even though it is quite possible that we will again disagree with the President over appropriate amounts of discretionary spending.

Having said that, this omnibus bill is, in my view, superior to many of its predecessors in one sense: It contains virtually none of the legislative matter that is so often added to omnibus bills. And I give great credit to the chairman, my friend from West Virginia, and our two leaders, Mr. Reid and Mr. McConnell, for this fact. The business of the Appropriations Committee is complicated enough without importing legislative baggage from other committees in a way that often undercuts the delicate bipartisan and bicameral negotiations in other arenas.

I also note that the bill includes none of the riders or funding prohibitions that the President previously identified as likely to prompt a veto. While I am sure this is a disappointment to some Senators, it is an important factor in our being able to support the omnibus portion of this bill.

I also wish to touch briefly on the subject of earmarks. Much has been made about earmarking throughout the year. Clearly, there have been past cases of abuse, just as historically there have been abuses of legislative powers in other areas. I hope the heightened scrutiny and transparency of the appropriations process will eliminate any such abuses going forward. The Appropriations Committee and its staff have made extraordinary efforts to add transparency to the process going back to well before the enactment of the ethics reform bill.

I think all Senators are comfortable in openly defending the funding priorities they advocate and suggest be included in appropriations bills, and they should be. This is another reason why it is so important that the Senate make time to consider all of the appropriations bills in an orderly process.

The total amount of congressional earmarks funded in this bill is well below the level included in the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bills. I know the amount is reduced because we hear the protests from our colleagues and from our constituents as well. Whether the amount of earmarking in this bill is ideal, I don't know. I suppose it depends on the interests of the beholder. What I do know is Congress should never yield its right or its power to make annual spending decisions and include those decisions in the appropriations bills. Congress should not leave it up to the executive branch, and it should not be persuaded that last year's decisions are the right ones for the next year. That is why we have an annual process. Enacting a long-term, continuing resolution might appear to be an easy way to avoid controversy and disagreements. It is an abdication of our responsibilities.

If Congress has to undergo vetoes of appropriations bills and make modifications to bills as a result, so be it. But ultimately we need to finish our work in a timely fashion and provide Federal agencies and departments with a set of directives and spending priorities that reflect the collective will of the legislative branch in consultation with the executive branch. That is why we have hearings at the beginning of the annual appropriations process, to get the views of the administrators of the programs, to invite executives from the various departments to tell us what their challenges are, tell us what the President's priorities are, what the Cabinet Secretaries have to say about their needs and their suggestions for appropriate funding levels. We take those into account. These are serious issues that have to be considered by the Congress. That is what the Appropriations Committee tries to do every year, in reviewing the President's budget requests and the information we receive at our annual hearings.

Finally, I wish to say something about a part of this bill that is without question one that has to be fixed. The amendment adopted by the House of Representatives includes $31 billion to fund the deployment of American men and women overseas in the global war on terror. But the House amendment restricts operating funds to those fighting in Afghanistan and does very little to support our troops deployed in Iraq. While I understand the political needle the House was attempting to thread when it wrote this amendment, I think the message it sends to our men and women who are deployed in these countries is unfortunate.

The Senate dedicated a serious amount of floor time to the debate of Iraq policy this year. The debate was, of course, earnest and sometimes informative. Amendments have been offered and votes were taken on issues related to the war. Yet while the debates demonstrated a strong and sincere desire among Members to successfully conclude operations in Iraq as quickly as possible, there remains no broad consensus on any particular alternative to the policy currently advocated by the President or Ambassador Crocker or General Petraeus.

Let's be honest, that policy has produced undeniable successes in recent months. I am sure deeply felt disagreements remain on the subject of Iraq policy. But we have tens of thousands of American men and women who are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, performing missions assigned to them by our Government and with the blessing of Congress at the outset. Those men and women need the resources to succeed. To try to change American policy in Iraq by slowly starving our troops of resources they need is unfair to them and very dangerous to our Nation's interests. We should reject the House language and provide adequate funding to support our troops until well into next year.

I wish to end my remarks by thanking and commending our chairman, Mr. Byrd, my dear friend. We have worked together in writing and negotiating these appropriations bills and this package that is coming before the Senate. I know we haven't been able to agree on everything, but we have reached an accommodation so that we present this now at this point and urge its adoption. I thank all Senators who served with us on the committee for their diligent efforts.

Last year, we had a large appropriations train wreck. We do not want that again. It produced a large supplemental funding bill. But we brought together a bill this year, despite new rules and hard negotiations--renegotiations. I thank all our members for their hard work on both sides of the appropriations committee, and I am happy we will be able to present this bill to the Senate.

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

I appreciate this colloquy and your intent to meet all the new, as well as old, ethics requirements regarding earmarks in appropriations bills. This is the first year for implementation of many of these new ethics rules and there has been some not unexpected confusion over how some of the new requirements must be implemented. I applaud your aggressiveness in making sure that you have done everything within your knowledge and power to ensure that you have complied with all the rules and requirements that are specified by the rules of the Senate with regard to the use of earmarks. Our discussion today provides the type of transparency intended by the ethics rules and should satisfy all requirements with regard to letters of pecuniary interest and earmarks as they relate to your situation.

Mr. President, first I want to thank the chairman of the committee, the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin and the distinguished ranking member, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for their leadership during the debate of this farm bill.

I commend them for their response to the needs and interests of our Nation's farmers and ranchers. In my State, most of our farmers are deeply concerned about the amendment offered by Senator Grassley and Senator Dorgan. If it is approved it will adversely affect family farms in many States by eliminating the ability to receive financing and making it harder for farmers from efficiently marketing their crop.

Since the passage of the 2002 farm bill there has been a good bit of controversy surrounding the issue of payment limits. Much of this has been based on misinformation and is a result of misunderstanding of modern agricultural practices. While I am pleased that the legislation passed by the committee contains significant reforms to address the concerns raised over the past 6 years, these reforms are not easy for producers in my State of Mississippi to accept and will result in many farms having to significantly alter their farming operation.

I believe it is important for us to understand just how significant the reforms in the committee passed bill are. This legislation applies direct attribution to the individual farmer, thus making all farm payments transparent. The committee passed legislation would limit the direct payment a single producer can receive to $40,000. The legislation reduces the amount of a countercyclical payment to $60,000. In addition, the Senate language reduces the adjusted gross income means test for producers from $2.5 million to $750,000. While this may still sound like a lot of money, when you consider production costs such as a four-hundred thousand dollar cotton picker, fuel prices, fertilizer costs, and technology fees for seed, these support levels are quite low.

Many crops of the Midwest are enjoying record prices right now due mostly to the use of corn in the current ethanol boom. The most prevalent crops in the South, cotton and rice, are not seeing the record prices created by renewable fuel incentives and tax credit subsidies; and it is important to point out that none of these subsidies are subject to an arbitrary limit.

Mr. President, this amendment would have a very negative impact on the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It would undo what many farmers today and generations before them have established through hard work, surviving natural disasters, and the Great Depression. This amendment is an attempt to make farmers in my State to conform to the way others operate in very different regions of the country. Mr. President, not every farmer should be made to fit in the same mold. I urge the Senate to reject the Grassley-Dorgan amendment.

Mr. President, first I want to congratulate the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, and the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for their leadership in the Agriculture Committee and for bringing to the Senate a bipartisan farm bill that works for many family farmers.

I hope this hard work will not be endangered by an amendment that will adversely affect family farms in some States by eliminating the ability for family farms to receive financing, or will prevent farmers from efficiently markting their crop. Since the passage of the 2002 Farm Bill there has been a good bit of controversy surrounding the issue of payment limits. Much of this has been based on misinformation and is a result of misunderstanding agriculture practices. While I am pleased that the legislation passed by the committee contains significant reforms to address the concerns raised over the past 6 years, I want to be very clear that these reforms are not easy for producers in my State of Mississippi to accept and will result in many farms having to significantly alter their farming operation. I would like to give an example of how unfair this amendment is to crops grown in the South. Under the Grassley-Dorgan amendment, a cotton and rice farmer in Mississippi could only grow 400 acres of cotton or 225 acres of rice before they reach the limit. In comparison, a soybean and corn farmer in North Dakota could farm 2,000 acres of soybeans or 1,300 acres of corn before they hit the limit.

I believe it is important for my Senate colleagues to understand just how significant the reforms in the committee-passed bill are. This legislation applies direct attribution to the individual farmer, thus making all farm payments transparent. The committee-passed legislation would limit the direct payment a single producer can receive to $40,000. The legislation reduces the amount of a counter-cyclical payment to $60,000. In addition, the Senate language reduces the Adjusted Gross Income means test for producers from $2.5 million all the way down to $750,000. While this may still sound like a lot of money, when you consider production costs such as $400,000 cotton picker, fuel prices, fertilizer costs, and technology fees for seed, these levels are quite low.

Many crops of the Midwest are enjoying record prices right now due mostly to the use of corn in the current ethanol boom. The most prevalent crops in the South, cotton and rice, are not seeing the record prices created by the billions of dollars in renewable fuel incentives and tax credit subsidies, and it is important to point out that none of these subsidies is subject to an arbitrary limit.

Agriculture is the economic engine for rural communities located throughout Mississippi. These communities are dependent on family farms to provide the economic activity that generates millions of dollars in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. While we encourage small businesses to grow and prosper in this country, this amendment is telling our family farmers they will be punished if they do the same. The amendment offered by my friends from Iowa and North Dakota would have a very negative impact on a region of this country that already suffers from severe economic depression.

This amendment would have a very negative impact on the livelihood of thousands of farmers. It would undo what many farmers today and generations before them have established through hard work, surviving natural disasters, and even the Great Depression. This amendment is an attempt to drive farmers in my State to conform to the way others operate in very different regions of the country. Not every farmer fits in the same mold, and I ask my colleagues to vote against the Grassley- Dorgan Amendment.

Mr. President, I have mixed feelings about the conference report now before the Senate. The chairman and ranking member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee and the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs Subcommittee have done excellent work in crafting their respective bills. These bills represent a reasonable blending of House and Senate priorities. They support critical national priorities in medical research, veterans' care, K-12 education, and military infrastructure. But the fact these two bills have been joined into a single conference report is unfortunate. The President has stated unequivocally he will veto the Labor-Health and Human Services bill in its current form.

By attaching the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill, the Democratic leadership has done nothing to change his mind. The bill will still be vetoed, and the veto will probably be sustained. Through the duration of that process, we will needlessly delay the availability of critical funding for veterans' care, and for the facilities necessary to support our Armed Forces.

There is no procedural reason that the Military Construction-Veterans Affairs conference committee could not meet this evening to approve the conference agreement under their jurisdiction. The House and Senate could then approve that conference report and get it to the President's desk for signature by Veterans Day.

That would be the right thing to do. The Labor-Health and Human Services bill could also be sent to the President, and both the Congress and the President would have been allowed to argue their respective fiscal priorities. Instead, we are being compelled to go through this procedural dance that adds nothing to the debate over fiscal policy and serves only to compound Congress's abysmal failure to get appropriations bills to the President.

I am acutely aware of past failures to enact appropriations bills in a timely fashion. I was chairman of that committee, and I remember how upset and frustrated I was when the Republican leadership wouldn't call up the bills. I couldn't believe it, an abdication of very important responsibilities of the Congress, a fundamental right and responsibility of the Congress to set the appropriations priorities. No one was more frustrated with the Senate's failure to consider these bills last year. I was particularly exasperated by our inability to get what appeared to be a noncontroversial Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill to conference. That was as inexcusable then as it is now. But past failures don't make the current failure any more acceptable to me. The President has a right to veto bills. There is no way around that. This President has strong opinions about his responsibility to be involved in holding down Federal spending, keeping the budget under control. Why are we compounding our failure to present him appropriations bills by wrapping into Labor-Health and Human Services another bill that we all agree is important and that the President has said he will sign?

This procedure does nothing to change the substance of the debate,

and it only serves to further delay the appropriations process. There may come a point when vetoes of appropriations bills require us to go back to the drawing board and rewrite some of the bills at lower spending levels. There may also come a point in that process where I believe the funding levels advocated by the President are not appropriate or sustainable in certain cases. We have the right to disagree. Somewhere along the way, I remain hopeful we will reach an accommodation that will allow for enactment of individual appropriations bills at an aggregate funding level that is lower than the amount contemplated in the budget resolution. But to get to that point, we have to send the President some appropriations bills.

It is November 7. We have failed to send a single one to his desk. I hope the Senate will support the Hutchison motion so we can put two bills on the President's desk in short order and start to demonstrate to the American people that we are responsible, that we are acting on one of our most fundamental responsibilities, the passage of appropriations bills for the operation of the Federal Government.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.