Floor Statements

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I will be happy to respond.

Mr. President, I will be happy to respond to the Senator's inquiry. Responding to the Senator's inquiry, I am not, as manager of the bill, deciding who offers an amendment or what the content of the amendment is or how long the amendment can be discussed, whether or not there will be a tabling motion offered to any amendment or reaching an agreement with each Senator as to when a vote would occur on the amendment. The Senate rules control all of those issues. As manager of the bill, I am not going to inject myself in trying to manage to the extreme minutiae of the procedures of the Senate the way this bill is considered. I think we have rules that are here for a purpose. We ought to follow the rules.

We have other Senators who have offered amendments already which are pending and were pending before the amendment of the Senator from Oregon. They have a right, and I am not going to do anything that would abridge or infringe upon that right, to call for the regular order at any time. And the Senate would go back to the consideration of those earlier amendments.

So I cannot give the Senator any assurance, except you should be treated like any other Senator; no different whatsoever. You have the right to talk about your amendment, and eventually it will be disposed of in some way. But I am not going to put it ahead, reach an agreement that it should go ahead of any other issue before the Senate.

This an emergency, urgent supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war in Iraq, the global war on terror, provide the Department of Defense and Department of State with funds that are needed now to protect the national security interests of our country, and to assist in the recovery from Hurricane Katrina and other such events.

That is the business of the Senate. I wish to see it handled in an expeditious way, under the rules of the Senate, and then we wind up the business of the Senate on this bill and any amendments thereto in a workmanlike way, with fairness to all, Republicans and Democrats.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a question, without his losing the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator asked if I would agree that he could have an up-or-down vote at a specific time or in a certain order. That in itself treats the Senator in a way that is different from the way every other Senator would be treated under the rules of the Senate.

We have opportunities for making points of order against an amendment that every Senator has under the rules. Any Senator could move to table the Senator's amendment and get the yeas and nays. But he is insisting that his amendment be treated different from that required under the rules in that he wants an up-or-down vote and he wants it in a certain order.

His amendment was not in the first order of business when the Senate started its work today. There were other amendments pending. But the Senator, by unanimous consent, proceeded with his offering of an amendment.

All I am suggesting is, I cannot be the referee for the duration of the handling of this bill and decide whose amendments get up-or-down votes, whose amendment can be tabled or a motion to table can be made, whether parliamentary objections can be made to proceeding on an amendment. Any person can be recognized to debate the amendment and talk without interruption until 60 Senators vote to cut off debate of that Senator who is talking.

So I am not going to make, I can't make, it is not appropriate for me to make rules that, in effect, limit all of the other Senators in the rights they have under the rules of the Senate.

This is just plain and simple. He is asking for special treatment of his amendment, and I don't have the power to do that and be fair at the same time to every other Senator. So that is why I am not agreeing to the unanimous consent request. I don't think it is appropriate that I do that.

His amendment ought to be treated just like anybody else's amendment. But he comes out here after amendments are being set aside at his request and offers his amendment and asks that we agree to vote up or down at a particular time. I have heard from some Senators who have concerns about the amendment.

The Energy Committee has jurisdiction of this legislation. I am chairman of the Appropriations Committee, not the Energy Committee. The Energy Committee has the right to review any suggested change in current law on matters coming within the jurisdiction of their committee, and that is being denied by offering this amendment to

an appropriations bill and then asking the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to guarantee that there be an up-or-down vote at a particular time. So I can't agree.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Further reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I think the Senator from Alaska has propounded a question that has not been fully answered--at least I didn't understand the answer--to permit him to offer the amendment he would seek to offer to this amendment. So before I yield for that purpose, I want to be assured that the Senator's rights are protected on this side of the aisle and that we are not guaranteeing an up-or- down vote in so doing on the underlying amendment.

I don't want to treat that amendment any differently from any other amendment that might be offered. That is my concern. Maybe I should frame that in the form of a parliamentary inquiry. I do so inquire of the Parliamentarian.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How does the Senator seek to clarify--

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding of the unanimous consent request that this would give the distinguished Senator from Oregon the right to have his amendment the pending business after disposition of the amendment of the Senator from Colorado. If that is correct, my conclusion is that we are placing in the hands of one Senator by this action a decision as to what the order of business is of the Senate, the order in which amendments can be considered, specifically these two, and that they have priority over any other motion or action that could be taken by any other Senator under the rules of the Senate. Under that assumption, I am obliged to object.

Reserving the right to object.

If that is a unanimous consent request, I reserve the right to object to it and make a further observation. By this procedure, if the unanimous consent requests--plural now--are approved, no other Senator has a right to offer an amendment even to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon. No one has the right to move to table the amendment of the Senator from Oregon which establishes his amendment by the request in a position that no other Senator has a right to expect.

Everybody is governed by the same rules, but in this instance, the Senator from Oregon is trying to construct a situation where he is not under the same rules. His rule is that he is entitled to an up-or-down vote without any further amendment, without there being an opportunity to move to table by any Senator in the Senate. That is inappropriate.

That is a modification of the rules without discussion of it and is a bad precedent to set. He is governed by the same rules as all Senators are. We should not make any exception in that. There has been no cause shown for that. I object.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a response since he referred to his conversation with this Senator this morning?

Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The Senator did call me, as he said, and asked if he could get a vote on his amendment, be recognized to debate his amendment. I said I am not in the business of picking out which Senator can speak first. This is the Senate. The first Senator who rises when we go in today and says ``Mr. President'' gets recognition and can talk about anything that Senator wants to talk about, for as long as he or she wants to talk about it, and can offer any amendment to any pending amendment, can have the attention of the Senate. But that is not my prerogative, it is the Presiding Officer's prerogative to recognize Senators.

I told him I wished him well with his amendment in terms of getting recognition, offering it, and talking about it and proceeding. Go ahead, you don't have to get my permission.

That was pretty well the extent of the conversation. The fact is that there are 21 pending amendments that come ahead of the Senator's amendment. There are 21 in all; 20 come ahead of the Senator. His is the last one that has been presented to the Senate.

I can read the list. We have had some that have been adopted, some that have failed, and some that are still pending without action by the Senate. Those Senators have a right to have their amendments considered. So he is asking that we put his amendment to the top of the list from 21 to 1 and that no amendment can be offered to his amendment and that it can't be tabled on a motion of another Senator. That is not fair to all the other Senators. That is not fair to the Senate. That is why I am unable to agree to give him those rights.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, as I understand the Senator's request, this would prevent the Senator from New Mexico from offering an amendment to the amendment offered by the Senator from Oregon. It would also prevent returning to the first amendments that were offered and that are the pending business of the Senate; specifically, amendments offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn.

I understand that he would like to have his amendments considered and voted on in the regular order in which they were filed by the Senate. An alternative to the proposal of the Senator from Colorado is to go to the regular order. But as long as the Senator from Oregon has the floor, if he doesn't ask for the regular order, no other Senator can, as I understand it, because we don't have the floor for that purpose. So, again, what the Senator from Oregon is trying to do is to design a situation that benefits him, puts him in priority over all the Senators who have amendments pending, and provides that he will get an up-or- down vote on his amendment; that it won't be subject to any amendment, that it can't be tabled. That is not fair. I can't agree to that. So I am compelled to object.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a response?

I am happy to inform the Senator that this would disadvantage some 10 Senators who have already filed and argued and had their amendments pending for consideration. You would urge that we have six more amendments offered from three Republican and three Democratic Senators and add those to these and then have a vote, I guess, on the Wyden amendment? Instead of voting on those which we would take up in regular order, if we could ask for the regular order? It puts you in charge of managing the business of the Senate, setting priorities for the amendments that can be offered when that priority has already been established.

I think what we should do is follow the regular order. That is all I have said from the beginning. But Senator Wyden wanted to come in today, get recognized, offer his amendment, and have an up-or-down vote on it without any other intervening business--no amendments, no motion to table. I don't know of anybody who has ever gotten a deal like that.

Mr. President, I reserve the right to object.

First of all, the Wyden amendment No. 3665, I think, was offered just before the Santorum amendment last night. The Santorum amendment No. 3640 was offered on the subject of Iran. I am not able to agree to his amendment being voted on without any amendment. So I object.

Madam President, I appreciate the fact that we are now prepared, I assume, to proceed with consideration of other amendments on the emergency supplemental bill, H.R. 4939. For the information of Senators who would like to know what the status is, we have over 20 amendments that have been filed and are pending before the Senate. A number of those have been offered by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, who divided amendment No. 3641 into 19 divisions. As I understand the parliamentary situation, each one of these divisions is considered under our procedures as a separate amendment and a separate vote could occur on each.

I am further advised that the Senator from Oklahoma would like to call up some of these amendments and have them debated and disposed of.

There are other amendments. For example, last night there were four filed by the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter, which remain pending. The Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, likewise has four amendments pending. Senator Warner of Virginia has two amendments pending. The Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin, has an amendment that is pending. The Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, has an amendment. The Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, has debated and discussed his amendment at length today. These are amendments which are already pending. It is my hope that we can dispose of some of those amendments before proceeding to consider

other amendments. That is my suggestion for an orderly procedure that the Senate should follow.

I know the Senator from Colorado has been on the floor from time to time today indicating that he has an amendment he would like to offer. I don't want to stand in the way of his offering that amendment, but I say this to the Senate just to give everyone equal information and knowledge of the status of the bill. We need to proceed to get these amendments disposed of--agreed to or defeated or amended and agreed to or whatever is the pleasure of the Senate. I don't intend to try to limit Senators in how long they can speak, but I hope we will not abuse the rules of the Senate to make arguments that prolong the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill. That is the subject before the Senate. I hope we can stick to the subject.

Having said that, I am happy to yield the floor, and we will be glad to work with other Senators to either work out agreements on amendments, have votes on amendments, vote to table amendments, or whatever the pleasure of the Senate may be.

Mr. President, it is the responsibility of the National Marine Fisheries Service to assure Americans of the safety and availability of the seafood from U.S. oceans. The service has done extensive environmental testing in the gulf, and it has shown no increase in toxicity. The gulf seafood is just as safe as the seafood from Washington State or New England.

This amendment strikes the funding that could be used for seafood marketing programs that get that information to the consuming public. The Senate should defeat the amendment.

Mr. President, I was going to move to table the amendment, but I understand it is OK to have the vote on a voice vote or show of hands. So I think we are ready to vote.

Wait a minute, I didn't yield the floor. I am standing here. I asked for a vote.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays have been ordered.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the amendment has the support of this side of the aisle, and we join in the request of the Senator from Washington.

Mr. President, let me thank all Senators for the cooperation

we received during today's consideration of amendments to H.R. 4939, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We have taken up a lot of amendments to the bill, and we have heard a lot of debate. We know this will continue probably on into next week before we complete action on the bill. But we look forward to considering any suggestions that Senators have for improving the legislation. We would just as soon they did not spend a lot of time finding ways to improve the bill. But we think we made good progress today.

We thank all Senators and especially Senator Murray for her help in managing the bill today. Senator Byrd, the ranking Democrat, the senior Democrat, on the committee, has been a friend for a long time, and I have appreciated his help and counsel and advice and assistance as well.

I know of nothing further to come before the Senate, so we will await the advice of the leader before any further action is taken.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., in closed session, to receive an operations and intelligence briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, April 27, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building Room 226.

Agenda

I. Nominations: Norman Randy Smith, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit; Brett Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit; Michael Ryan Barrett, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio; Brian M. Cogan, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Thomas M. Golden, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Timothy Anthony Junker, to be United States Marshal for the Northern District of Iowa; Patrick Smith, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of North Carolina.

II. Bills: S. 2257, Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006, Specter, Kohl, DeWine, Leahy, Feinstein, Durbin; S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, DeWine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent charges, Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein, Biden; S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act, Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch.

III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting Rights Act: An Introduction to the Evidence'' on Thursday, April 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., United States House of Representatives, R-5th District-WI, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary; The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., United States House of Representatives, D-14th District-MI, Ranking Member, House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 2006, to markup the nomination of Daniel L. Cooper to be Under Secretary for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs; and to hold a hearing titled ``VA Research: Investing Today to Guide Tomorrow's Treatment.'' The meeting will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 27, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business meeting,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention and Prediction be authorized to meet on Thursday, April 27, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Drought.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps, and Narcotics Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, April 27, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Implementing the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Vote on Amendment No. 3604

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I make a point of order that the amendment is not in order under the provisions of rule XVI.

I object.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Wyoming for bringing this amendment to the floor. It does go to some of the points of contention that have been raised in the discussions based on whether the President's request should be exceeded by the Congress.

First of all, the President has threatened to veto the bill, which, of course, he has a right to do. He is setting out another marker that any amount over and above the request of the President would be considered inappropriate and therefore would subject the bill to a veto.

This is very early in the process of considering the bill for the President, in my opinion, to be threatening a veto. We have clear emergencies confronting the country that require the expenditure of funds for the Department of Defense and our military forces which are deployed in Iraq and elsewhere and engaged in the global war on terror to protect the security interests of our country and the lives of our American citizens. That is the major portion of this legislation.

Another very important part of the bill is to replenish some accounts in the Department of State, where agencies and officers of that Department are engaged in the same kind of peacekeeping activity, diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict, to preserve the peace where it can be preserved and protect the security interests of our citizens.

The third request the President submitted was to provide additional disaster assistance for the gulf coast States, primarily in the State of Louisiana but also across the gulf coast. I know that we can disagree on the exact dollar amounts. In the Senate, we are going to have a difference of opinion on some of these issues, but it suits me now to just test the water and see where the Senate is. Do we want to ignore, as a body, the needs that are clear and important and serious, that are addressed by the funding in this legislation? This amendment takes a lot of money out of the bill. It may respond to some concerns that some have that this bill calls for spending more money than is necessary. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported this bill to the Senate and is recommending its passage. I am hopeful that we can get an early reading. If this bill should go back to the committee, we could reconsider it.

But I think the time is now, when we should come to terms with the realities of this legislation. Either the Senate agrees that these needs are real, that they require the funds we recommended be appropriated, or not. We had an open discussion in the committee, in public. Any Senator who serves on that committee could offer an amendment to reduce funding. I don't recall any amendment to reduce funding. There were amendments to add funds to address needs that had either arisen after the President submitted his request and the House had acted early on the legislation or because of information that had come to the attention of the Committee on Appropriations. It was the view of the majority, the vast majority of the members of that committee, that the funding should be included at the amount reported to the Senate.

I am prepared to have a vote. I suggest--I don't know of any reason why we can't have the vote now. I can move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays and we will get a vote. I think that is what we will do.

Mr. President, I move to table the amendment of the Senator from Wyoming, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, this is an amendment, as the Senator points out, which has been before the body before. We have approved it by a substantial margin on a recorded vote. We are prepared to recommend that the amendment be accepted on a voice vote, so we can proceed to that unless there are other Senators who want to be heard on the amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I have no advice to give him except to withdraw the amendment. I disagree with it, the part I have read, so that would be my advice.

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

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so the Senator from Hawaii can proceed to offer an amendment.

Mr. President, it is my understanding that the distinguished Senator from Texas has an amendment to the Akaka amendment which she intends to offer. And I was going to be sure she had that opportunity at this time. I am happy to yield to her for that purpose.

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

Mr. President, I move to table the motion to recommit, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, the Senator has very ably explained the challenge that is faced to restore and rebuild and recover in terms of transportation assets on the Mississippi coast, but this applies and will have an effect across the breadth of the area of the gulf coast that was damaged, including Louisiana, Mississippi, as well as Alabama.

Somebody cavalierly noted the other day that this is like the bridge to nowhere--this is the railroad to nowhere.

It is a transportation corridor that links New Orleans; Bay St. Louis, MS; Pass Christian; Gulfport, MS; Biloxi, MS; Pascagoula, MS; Mobile, AL, and

beyond--as the Senator said--all the way to California on the west side. This is a very important part of the transportation system across the southern United States, and on this line of transportation facilities the Stennis Space Center, where our rockets are tested for the space program, and many other military activities in that part of the gulf coast area--the ship yards at Pascagoula, the Keesler Air Force Base along U.S. Highway 90 in the Biloxi, MS, area, and on and on and on. The Coast Guard facilities and the former naval station at Pascagoula have other activities there.

There are national security consequences for the failure to rebuild and recover and restore these important transportation facilities. That is why it is appropriate to do it now.

This is authorization. The committee recommended $700 million for the Rail Line Relocation Capital Grant Program. That is the entity where the money goes, and through that money to mitigate damages and restore transportation under the provisions of that authorization, the funds will be used to relocate.

This is what our committee report says:

To relocate tracks that are currently located along the

coast of Mississippi, the damaged railroad line----

These are findings of a committee of Congress----

is a major east and west freight corridor adjacent to the

Mississippi gulf coast.

It is vitally important to numerous Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama industries, and essential to the successful operations of major Gulf of Mexico ports.

The rail line sustained major damage and total destruction in some areas as a result of Hurricane Katrina's winds and water surges. Eleven bridges were destroyed. More than 38 miles of track were completely lost. Signaling and safety systems were demolished and many track beds were completely washed out along the rail corridor. The rail line has been out of commission for 143 days.

Progress is being made, but these funds will be used to accelerate the reconstruction and the recovery that is essential for that area of the gulf coast of the United States.

We have made a case for it in committee. The committee agreed to provide these funds. The Senator from Mississippi, my colleague, has adequately and impressively described the consequences to the gulf coast area. This amendment should be defeated. It would strike all of these funds that have been approved by the committee.

I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I never asked any questions. The Senator has had an opportunity to describe his amendment. He did that earlier in the day. He used information that I presume he will present all over again. I don't have any objection to his proceeding, but I don't want him to talk too long. We have Members who are waiting to vote. They have read comments in the paper and the debate that has been carried throughout the press for the last 2 weeks while the Senate wasn't in session. I think the Senate has heard enough about it and is ready to vote.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Weirich, a detailee with the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, be granted the privileges of the floor for the duration of consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill,

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

Mr. President, it is my pleasure and honor to describe for the Senate the supplemental appropriations bill that has been reported by our committee. The President has requested supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year, which the committee has reviewed. The House has passed a bill reporting and referring to the Senate this bill that is described as an emergency. The funds are needed primarily for the global war on terror, which is included in title I of the bill.

The total committee substitute would provide $106,474,107,000 in supplemental appropriations for this fiscal year, 2006. It is above the President's request by $14,253,522,000. It is also above the House- passed bill, and we have broken this down and presented it to the Senate in titles.

The first title provides money primarily for defense-related activities, as I said, to carry out the global war on terror. It provides funding for ongoing operations and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In title II, we have included funds above the President's request for recovery from the damages caused by the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico in 2005. The President requested $19.7 billion for this purpose. The committee, in consideration of amendments offered by Senators during the markup session, approved an additional $7.4 billion for this purpose. So the total of title II is $27,126,662,000.

Title III reflects the provision of an amendment that was offered in committee by Senators Dorgan of North Dakota and Burns of Montana relating to agricultural disaster assistance for farmers and ranchers in States that are affected either by the hurricanes of 2005 or drought, flood, wildfires, and other natural disasters that have occurred. That amendment provides exactly $3,944 million for emergency agricultural disaster assistance.

Title IV reflects an amendment that was approved by the committee for emergency drought assistance, more broadly defined, and is an amendment offered by the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, and agreed to by the committee, with $12,500,000 for that purpose.

Title V is an appropriation of $648,050,000 for port security enhancements. This was requested by--and the committee approved the request--the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd.

Title VI includes funds for influenza pandemic preparation and response activities. The administration asked for this amendment. It was included by the committee. It provides $2,300 million for that purpose.

Title VII is the part of the bill that has general provisions and technical provisions.

Overall, the bill can be described as having two major points of focus. First, it provides needed funding for our military to continue to carry out operations overseas. It also includes the commitment to rebuild the gulf coast to permit inhabitants there to recover from the devastation caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

It is my opinion--and I think this reflects the action taken by our committee--that it is critical that these funds be provided expeditiously, and we need the cooperation and support of all Senators to accomplish this goal. The committee recommendation has been available to Senators for several weeks. I hope we can consider amendments in an orderly fashion, that they can be brought up as early as possible so they can be considered without prolonged and unnecessary delay.

I have to say that the individual subcommittee chairmen worked hard to identify the needs in the areas under their jurisdiction. Those who serve as ranking minority members of the subcommittees have had opportunities to participate. It has been a bipartisan effort made by our committee to bring to the bill a recommended appropriation amount that would serve our national security interests as well as our economic interests and other problems that were caused by natural disasters.

At the appropriate time, I will move that the committee substitute be adopted and be treated as original text for the purpose of further amendments. I have to say at this point that the work of this committee reflects bipartisan cooperation and mutual respect between the Members on both sides of the aisle. It carries out a tradition that I believe has been one of the hallmarks of the activity of the Senate. It has reflected credit, therefore, on the Senate.

I hope Members will understand that we are not addressing issues on the basis of partisanship but on the basis of need to address problems that confront our country and those which were unanticipated when the President submitted his initial budget request for this fiscal year. We have had other events that have caused us to have to proceed to adopt emergency appropriations bills, and here again that is something we have to deal with. We are presenting this bill as a good-faith effort to meet the needs of the country as we see them and as requested by the President.

I am happy to yield to my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who has provided very important assistance to me personally and, through his service in the Senate, to the work of this committee for a long time. We appreciate his valuable assistance. All members of the committee have worked to be sure that this is a good bill and deserves the support of the Senate. I think it does.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to express my genuine heartfelt appreciation for the remarks of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia

about me and about the work of our committee. He has been a very valuable tutor, friend, and companion during the work of our Committee on Appropriations since I have been on the committee, since January of 1981. I have learned a lot from him. I have learned to respect him in terms of the conscientious way he goes about carrying out his responsibilities to the people of West Virginia and also to the people of the United States as a U.S. Senator. We can all study his career and his dedication to public service with great profit for our own interests. We can be guided by his example and be very proud of our work product if we do.

Mr. President, at the appropriate time, I will ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to and the bill as thus amended be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived by the request. I give the Senate notice that I will make that unanimous consent request in due course, and it probably will occur immediately after our break for the policy luncheons of the respective parties of the Senate. I am happy to yield to any other Senator who wishes to make any comments. I understand the Senator from Minnesota would like to speak as if in morning business, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senator from Georgia has indicated he wishes to speak on the amendment and I defer to him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment be agreed to, that the bill as thus amended be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived by this request.

Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of Senators in laying this groundwork for the further consideration and debate of this bill. I particularly appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire with respect to the situation regarding funding for border security activities, programs, and equipment necessary to help guarantee the strict enforcement of our laws and to ensure integrity of our borders. His suggestion in this amendment is going to result in a major step forward in achieving our goals.

His comments about our efforts when the Department of Homeland Security was initially established and funding for various activities under the jurisdiction of that Department are appreciated very much, but his leadership is demonstrating we can do a better job. He has made another suggestion in the offering of this amendment that carries out that past practice of identifying ways to use funds wisely, make investments in equipment, personnel, and strategies that will lead to a higher level of security for our country.

The offset identified in the bill for adding this money takes it away from

certain Defense appropriations activities. We have consulted with the chairman of that subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and this offset can be accommodated, I have been advised, and without doing detriment to any military activities funded in this bill.

Unless there is a Senator who wishes to be heard in opposition or requesting a vote on this amendment, I recommend this amendment be accepted.

Mr. President, I know of no further Senators seeking recognition on this amendment. I, too, support it.

I am advised that the leader wants to speak on the amendment.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, by way of explanation, the objection was lodged because we are currently considering a supplemental appropriations bill on the floor of the Senate to appropriate funds to the Department of Defense, Department of State, and assist gulf states in recovery from the devastation cautioned by Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. The request posed by the distinguished Senator would have not only required the Senate to turn immediately to the consideration of the bill she is offering, but that it be considered read, the debate concluded, no amendments be in order, and that it be passed and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

It is the judgment of the managers of the bill that the thing to do now in the Senate is to complete action on this supplemental appropriations bill. Over $100 billion is being requested, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee, to fund these needed activities, many of which are designed to protect our Nation's security. So under those circumstances I felt compelled to object.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, under rule XVI, I raise a point of order against the amendment. It is legislation on an appropriations bill.

Mr. MENENDEZ addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, for the information of Senators who may be interested in knowing what the plan of action is for the remainder of today, we have pending before the Senate an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Gregg, relating to border security, to strengthen, tighten up the provisions of this bill with respect to adequacy of funding to protect the security of our borders.

It is our understanding that the other side would like to have an amendment also offered tonight, with debate on it, as much as whoever wants to discuss it would like to engage in, and then enter into some kind of agreement on having votes, back-to-back votes or close together tomorrow, on the two amendments, the Gregg amendment and whatever amendment is offered on the other side.

That is the situation as I understand it. I am happy to see the distinguished Democratic leader on the floor. He may be able to add to that or clarify the intentions with respect to another amendment tonight.

I thank the Democratic leader.

Amendment No. 3604

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

Mr. President, this is a statement of an agreement that has been reached between the two leaders regarding the votes on the pending amendments.

I ask unanimous consent that at 12 o'clock on Wednesday, April 26, the Senate proceed to a vote on the pending Gregg amendment, as modified, to be followed immediately by a vote on amendment No. 3604 on the subject of border security offered by Senator Reid; provided further that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendments and that when the Senate resumes consideration of the bill on Wednesday all debate time until the votes be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic leader, and I thank all Senators for their cooperation in the consideration of this bill today.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Gregg amendment be modified with the changes at the desk.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on April 25, 2006, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing on ``A Review of Current Securities Issues.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``The Social and Economic Effects of the Methamphetamine Epidemic on America's Child Welfare System''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Immigration: Economic Impacts'' on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Panel I: Richard B. Freeman, Professor of Economics, Harvard University, Program Director of Labor Studies, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA; Dan Siciliano, Executive Director, Program in Law, Economics and Business, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA; Barry R. Chiswick, Professor of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL; Harry J. Holzer, Professor of Public Policy, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 2:15 p.m., in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Panel I: The Honorable Frank Lautenberg, United States Senator, D-NJ; The Honorable Robert Menendez, United States Senator, R-NJ; The Honorable Barbara Boxer, United States Senator, D-CA; The Honorable Gordan Smith, United States Senator, R-OR.

Panel II: Milan D. Smith, Jr. to be United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.

Panel III: Renee Marie Bumb to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Noel Lawrence Hillman to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey; Peter G. Sheridan to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey; and Susan Davis Wigenton to be United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., for a field hearing regarding ``North Korea: Illicit Activity Funding the Regime.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science and Space be authorized to meet on Tuesday, April 25, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., on NASA.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Mr. Les Spivey, Mr. B.G. Wright, Ms. Rachel Taylor, and Ms. Mary Catherine Fitzpatrick of the Committee on Appropriations be granted full floor access during the consideration of H.R. 4939, the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mike Morrissey, Mr. Kevin Templin, and Dr. Leigh Ann Ross of my personal office staff be granted privilege of the floor during consideration of this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Michael Pollock and Alison Garfield, detailees with the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of the fiscal year 2006 supplemental and the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bills; and that Rose Fabia, a detailee to the Appropriations Committee from the Department of Veterans Affairs, be granted the privilege of the floor for the remainder of the debate on H.R. 4939.

Mr. President, The Medicare prescription drug plan is a tremendous success with more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries now enrolled in the program. Seniors are realizing significant decreases in the cost of their prescription drugs and the savings are even greater than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and health care providers worked together to plan and implement this program. In particular, community pharmacists played an important role in making this benefit successful. Prior to the January 1 start of the program, pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection and enrollment process. This process was new and challenging, but pharmacists were diligent in serving their patients and providing much- needed medications while the program became functional.

We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they have provided to new beneficiaries. This is especially needed by small, rural independent pharmacies. This legislation will also provide incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries better utilize their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

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

Mr. President, The Medicare prescription drug plan is a tremendous success with more than 27 million Medicare beneficiaries now enrolled in the program. Seniors are realizing significant decreases in the cost of their prescription drugs and the savings are even greater than expected. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and health care providers worked together to plan and implement this program. In particular, community pharmacists played an important role in making this benefit successful. Prior to the January 1 start of the program, pharmacists assisted their Medicare patients in the selection and enrollment process. This process was new and challenging, but pharmacists were diligent in serving their patients and providing much- needed medications while the program became functional.

We are introducing a bill today to assist pharmacists as they continue to serve their patients and as they help to continue the success of the Medicare drug benefit. This bill will allow pharmacists to achieve efficiencies in reimbursement for the products they have provided to new beneficiaries. This is especially needed by small, rural independent pharmacies. This legislation will also provide incentives for pharmacists and other providers to help beneficiaries better utilize their medications, adhere to their drug regimens, and utilize cost saving medication therapy management programs.

I am pleased to offer this legislation that will help continue the success of the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

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

Mr. President, yesterday was a sad day for me because it was the day when friends and family of Margo Carlisle, my former chief of staff, gathered to bid her farewell.

Margo worked faithfully in a number of positions of responsibility here in the Senate. She was the first female staff director of the Senate Republican Conference, under the chairmanship of former Senator Jim McClure of Idaho. She was my chief of staff from 1991 to 1997. All who worked with her here know of her respect and appreciation for the Senate, and her conscientious devotion to our great country.

She served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs from 1986 to 1989, and at that time, she was one of the highest ranking women in the Department of Defense. She received the Distinguished Public Service Medal in recognition of her outstanding performance of duty in this important office.

She also served as vice president of the Heritage Foundation, president of the Philadelphia Society, and was a member of the board of the Marine Corps University in Quantico and the Washington Home Hospice.

She is survived by her husband of 45 years, Miles; and two children, Mary ``Nisi'' Hamilton of Bethesda and Tristram Coffin Carlisle of Alexandria. We extend to them our sincerest condolences.

Mr. President, it was interesting to notice the arguments of the Senator from Arizona right before we had the vote on cloture on this bill. He pointed out what the consequences of cloture would be, one of which would be that nongermane amendments could not be offered, and he listed two examples, one of which was amendments on earmarking.

I think this amendment, just as the previous amendment, should be subject to a point of order. The Parliamentarian sustained the point of order that was raised by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, but I am advised that the Parliamentarian would not rule that a point of order lies against this amendment. It is clear and obvious that it would.

But notwithstanding that disagreement, this amendment would have the most impractical effects and unintended consequences of any I have seen offered. What the Senator is suggesting is that anytime you identify a project or a program or an entity that is enlarged or constructed in any bill--an appropriations bill, an authorization bill from any of the authorizing committees--you have to separately list or include in the conference report, it is not clear, the identity of those who support the inclusion of that or who authored it.

There are many things here that are sponsored by one Senator, cosponsored by many others. In order to meet the criteria of this requirement, we would have a voluminous stack of documents presented to the Senate when a bill is presented, showing which Senators in committee may have offered that amendment or suggested to the committee that it be included in the bill, and why.

We already have committee reports that accompany most pieces of legislation that come to the Senate. In that committee report, the provisions are discussed, described. It boggles the

mind to think what the consequences of this one provision would do, the paperwork, bookkeeping, and the like. I don't know of any Senator who does not want his name associated with a provision that he suggests or she suggests be included in a bill, whether it is authorizing language or whether it is in an appropriations bill. There is nothing wrong with that. I am not arguing that should not be included. It usually is well known.

I plead with the Senate, let's not include this amendment on this bill at a time when we are right about to go to final passage. The bill reflects the consensus of the Rules Committee. The two managers of this legislation did an excellent job of carefully reviewing all the suggestions that were out there for lobbying reform, reforms of the way the Senate does its business. We are going to have to go to conference with the House. If there are better ways to word this earmarking provision that is in the bill, there is a provision in the bill, the committee signed off on it, and we are coming to the very end of the consideration. We are nitpicking. That is what this is, nitpicking. I don't know of a better word to describe this amendment. It does not serve any useful purpose to inform the public.

What member of the general public is going to look through documents that will be 2 feet high associated with almost any legislation that authorizes or appropriates funds for a department's activities for an entire year? Think about it. Do not approve this.

I support the idea that we need to do a better job of controlling spending. We need to achieve more in the way of ensuring that projects are justified, that they are reviewed more carefully. That is a part of this process. That is why this provision is in the bill. I voted for it. I supported it in the markup session of our Rules Committee. I am a member of that distinguished committee. My colleague from Mississippi is the chairman of the committee. I am here supporting the work of his committee.

Friends and colleagues who want to be more demonstrative and more zealous and more volatile on the issue of spending restraint now come along and insist that we vote on an amendment such as this. We should say enough is enough. We have listened to all of the arguments. We have brought this bill to the Senate. The consensus has been achieved.

So, Mr. President, I move to table this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, a point of order: Is a motion to table debatable?

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

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Arizona was suggesting that he be allowed 2 minutes to comment on this amendment. I have no objection to him having 2 minutes. So I ask unanimous consent that he be granted 2 minutes to speak on this amendment.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I am pleased to commend Dr. Kent Wyatt of

Cleveland, MS, for his distinguished service as president of Delta Council this year. Delta Council is an economic development organization representing the business, professional, and agricultural leadership of the 18 delta and part-delta counties of Northwest Mississippi. Delta Council was organized in 1935 to focus on the challenges which face the economy and society of the region.

Kent Wyatt distinguished himself as the president of Delta State University from 1975 to 1999, and during his years as the president of this proud, regional university, the school experienced unprecedented growth. Since retirement from Delta State University, Dr. Wyatt has provided careful and responsive civic leadership to the Mississippi Delta region. Through his work with Delta Council, he has been a strong advocate and effective leader in advancing adult literacy, for reversing critical teacher shortages in the primary and secondary school system, in increasing access to improved health care, and for sustaining progress in highway developments which are so important to the delta region.

Dr. Kent Wyatt has been a leader in his community and in the field of higher education. He and his wife Janice have committed their entire life toward improving the quality of life for others in this special delta region of our country.

I congratulate Dr. Kent Wyatt for his contributions to the delta region and for his effective leadership of Delta Council. I look forward to his future contributions.

Mr. President, I have some remarks to make in tribute to a combat infantry and armored brigade from Mississippi which has returned from Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to the service of the 155th Separate Armored Brigade of the State of Mississippi. The 155th has a rich history of extraordinary military service to our Nation. It has participated in the War of 1812, the American Civil War, the Spanish-American War, both World Wars, Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and operations in Bosnia.

Recently, the 155th completed a year-long tour in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 4,000-member brigade combat team was attached to the II Marine Expeditionary Force and deployed to the Al Anbar Province of Iraq. They conducted operations that included rebuilding infrastructure, hunting down insurgents, and supporting elections. Each of these activities made an indelible impact on the people of this fledgling democracy and improved their chances of surviving and prospering in a much safer and secure environment.

It is truly remarkable what our soldiers have accomplished. They served in a combat environment where they thwarted continuing attacks from a determined insurgency. They endured the hardships of being away from their families. They suffered the loss and injury of their fellow comrades. They had to endure the worry for their families' well-being as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast. Through it all, they remained dedicated and determined to carry out their mission.

As Mississippians have done for centuries, these soldiers left their families and the comforts of home to answer the call of duty. This was not done without cost. During its deployment, the 155th lost 24 soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. These soldiers left behind wives, children, and loved ones. They answered the call of duty and gave their lives for America's freedom and security. This wasn't done for fame or fortune. It was done out of a commitment to duty and service to our great country. They are true heroes.

The 155th is the modern-day ``Mississippi Rifles'' that has carried on the proud traditions of Mississippi and our Nation.

As we honor these brave men and women, it is appropriate for us to also honor their families. No one understands the hardships of war and sacrifice more than a soldier's family. For 18 months, these Mississippians sacrificed as their loved ones answered our Nation's call. Although their lives were disrupted, they assumed the role of both mother and father. Their resilience and courage during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita continue to be admired by us all.

Of course, they did not accomplish all of this alone. Our Mississippi communities came together to provide support which ranged from countless letters and packages, to daily support at home that included clearing storm debris and ensuring shelter for their loved ones, to support for the families of fallen comrades and those who were seriously wounded.

As we pay tribute to the accomplishments of the 155th and give thanks to their sacrifice and service, it is important we remember our country is still at war. The State of Mississippi has over 500 of its citizens deployed in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan continuing to fight the global war on terrorism. In addition, we have citizen-soldiers in various stages of mobilization preparing to answer our Nation's call. Our country's military is the most committed and powerful in the world, and they are well prepared to serve in our hometowns and across the globe. We will keep them in our prayers as they continue their great legacy of sacrifice and service.