Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased to congratulate my good friend from Alaska and commend him for his work as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations. He and the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Inouye, provided bipartisan and strong leadership in the crafting of this appropriations bill that is now before the Senate as a conference report. I am pleased as chairman of the full committee to have been a part of that conference as a member of the subcommittee and am very pleased that the leadership of Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye has been followed by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations so that we have before us a bill that not only funds the Department of Defense and related agencies for the next fiscal year, 2006, but also contains amendments that were proffered and accepted by the conference dealing with relief from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and others that have devastated the Gulf Coast States of our country.

As the Senator from Mississippi, I have been in close touch with friends and residents of the Mississippi gulf coast area and I have been pleased to join other Senators in trips to visit Louisiana and Alabama and get an impression and find out what the facts are about the seriousness of the devastation. The provisions of this conference report will go a long way toward providing assistance that is needed right now, not over a period of years but right now, so people can rebuild and truly recover from this devastating hurricane.

I am hopeful the Senate will approve the conference report. The Senator from Alaska did a good job of outlining all of the provisions of the conference report. We are particularly grateful that the amendment relating to disaster relief due to hurricanes in the amount of $29 billion was approved by the committee last night. There are other provisions in the bill, as Senator Stevens pointed out, that will directly affect our recovery efforts in a very positive way that are included in this bill. There is money that goes directly to levee assistance in the Louisiana area, a very high priority of the local officials there. We have specified amounts that can be reconsidered in the next fiscal year. All the money cannot be spent in 1 year. This is something people are realizing. We cannot appropriate in 1 year all that is going to be needed in the outyears. Some of these projects are going to take not a few months to complete but a few years to complete. So we are hopeful that with the full understanding of the Senate this conference report will be agreed to by a large vote of support for the committee's work in this area.

Mr. President, I commend the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for his eloquent statement about the importance of this legislation. He has been a true leader in this effort to craft a bill that will provide money now, needed desperately by the victims of these disasters in the Gulf Coast States. He and his colleague, Ms. Landrieu, have been very active, as all Senators know, in describing in detail the dilemma that is faced by local governments, municipal governments, and county and parish governments in the region. Our State governments have been stressed beyond imagination in terms of trying to make resources available to help save lives, to help rescue victims, to help communities that are struggling to repair and replace damaged and destroyed infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, highways and roads and bridges. The list is almost endless of the challenges that have been faced by the people of this region.

But the Senator from Louisiana has been, more than anybody I know, on a daily basis working his heart out and trying his best to be sure that we respond in the way that we should as a Federal Government, to provide the assistance needed for a full and real recovery from these disasters.

I also think about my colleague, Senator Lott from Mississippi, and Congressman Taylor in the House, who both lost their houses and suffered real, serious personal losses as a result of Hurricane Katrina. They have been tirelessly and constantly in touch with the situation as victims of this disaster but at the same time lending their energies, their imagination, their know-how, their leadership to provide guidance and suggestions all along the way.

This is not the last bill we are going to see on the subject of disaster assistance, but it is the most important because it provides real money at once. It is made available immediately upon passage for distribution to those who need the help the most. And it is urgent.

If we delay and get tangled up in a lot of parliamentary maneuvering, criticism, second-guessing, and partisan infighting, whatever kind of resistance to this important appropriations bill, it will be a disgrace. It will be a disgrace to the Congress and an injustice to the victims of this disaster.

There are a lot of people we could talk about this morning--State government leaders. Our Governor, Haley Barbour, has been up here for days answering questions, providing information, making suggestions of alternatives that would be appropriate for the Federal Government to undertake to help the recovery, and identifying ways State governments can share in the responsibility. The Community Development Block Grant Program is one of the suggestions Governor Barbour made as a conduit for funds to help rebuild communities and help landowners who have been harmed and who were outside the flood plain, didn't have flood insurance, yet they were flooded and didn't have coverage to pay for those losses and those damages. He is looking for ways to help everybody who needs help and who deserves help from their Government.

This bill provides this substantial amount of money and commitment from our Government at a time when it is truly needed. I am hopeful the Senate will act with dispatch and send this conference report to the President for his signature.

Leadership in the House and in the Appropriations Committee, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, has also been very important and crucial to this undertaking. The Speaker of the House, personally, and the whip, Roy Blunt from Missouri, have been personally engaged in trying to find ways to reach an accommodation with the Senate and with the States affected. They have done a wonderful job. It has culminated in the presentation of this conference report.

The Congressman from California, Jerry Lewis, chairman of the full committee in the other body, and Congressman Bill Young from Florida, who has had experiences with other disasters in the past, have been very helpful in remembering how we responded to past challenges-- Hurricane Dennis, I recall--and there are others that Florida has experienced. But everybody coming together and doing their best to sort through the challenges, identify ways to help, has culminated in the presentation to the Senate of this conference report. I am hopeful we will respond.

As Senator Vitter said, everybody has an opportunity to vote to help us recover. We hope you will. It is a bipartisan effort. Democrats and Republicans have both been involved, from both sides of the aisle here in the Senate and in the House as well.

We hope we will act quickly in response to the suggestions made by leadership here in the Senate and approve this conference report. We are deeply grateful to all who have been helpful, who have come up here, stayed and talked and explained what the facts are, who testified before committees.

We have reviewed all the facts. We know what the situation is. Now it is time to act, and act is what the Senate should do now.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was not agreed to.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, the pending amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 306 of the Budget Act.

Madam President, I renew my point of order. The pending amendment contains matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Budget. I raise a point of order against the amendment under section 306 of the Budget Act.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I was saddened to learn today that James Gray passed away after a long illness on November 1, 2005. Mr. Gray was 78 years old and lived in Danville, CA. I knew him as the founder of the National Writing Project, which today is credited with perfecting the training model of teachers teaching teachers how to teach writing.

For more than 30 years, teachers of all grades and nearly the entire spectrum of subject areas have benefitted from the vision and dedication of Jim Gray to finding better ways of raising a new generation of writers. Thousands of teachers have participated every year in workshops, classes and retreats to perfect their skills, and as a result, an exponential tens of thousands of students continue taking new steps to becoming skillful writers.

It was his work that gave me the good fortune of meeting him, and my becoming a close friend to the Writing Project as the sponsor of legislation to make it a Federal program under the U.S. Department of Education.

Across the country, many teachers and students mourn him, but I hope they take his serious creativity in teaching and live his legacy of the National Writing Project. I extend to his family, and to all who knew him, my message of gratitude for his life's work and my deep sympathy.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the obituary of James Gray released today by the National Writing Project be printed in the Record.

Will the Senator yield time to me?

Let me congratulate the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his leadership in our committee as the chairman of the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee in bringing to the Senate a section of this reconciliation bill that contains changes in current law that will help achieve the goals of the Budget Act. I hope we will not be sidetracked now by an amendment that suggests that there is a better way to do what we have already done. In fact, to approve the amendment offered by my good friend from Iowa would reinvade and urge the Senate to reconsider a farm bill that was passed 3 years ago. It has a life of 5 years. It is the framework for decisions that are made on farms all over America about what to plant and how to arrange financing, and these plans are made in advance. You cannot just change the rules from one year to the next and expect to have a dependable source of revenue to sustain an economy, a farm economy that is so important to our Nation.

This issue of payment limitations was debated fully during consideration of the farm bill 3 years ago. Payment limitations were included in that bill. It is now the law of the land. Farm plans, including planting decisions and financing decisions, have been made in reliance on that law. The payment limit structure within the law is a provision that was fully discussed and incorporated after careful deliberation. This proposal to change that law in the name of reconciliation under the Budget Act undermines the objectives of the Congress to provide a stable and predictable farm policy. The payment limit amendment offered by my friend will have a serious and adverse effect on farmers in Southern States in particular.

Farmers in my State are suffering from the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Add to that the record-high energy prices, and you have a recipe for total disaster. This amendment would be a fatal blow to an already beleaguered sector of our State's economy. This is not the time to make such a significant change in agriculture policy.

Incidentally, the World Trade Organization Doha Round in Hong Kong this December might result in the need to restructure U.S. farm policy. But the appropriate time to consider possible changes resulting from international trade agreements will be when we debate the next farm bill, which will be 2 years from now.

I urge Senators to oppose this amendment.

Mr. President, today we are considering the appropriations bill reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee to fund the Department of Labor, Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and related agencies for the next fiscal year, 2006. I am especially grateful to the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, who has guided this legislation through a process of hearings to examine the administration's request, the bill passed by the other body funding these Departments, and requests of Members of the Senate for programs to be funded in this legislation. He and the ranking member of the committee, Senator Harkin, have worked very hard and diligently to bring the Senate a bill that is both responsible but sensitive to the needs of the people who are served by the programs funded in this bill.

An example of the important appropriations provisions is those relating to low-income heating assistance. Over $2 billion of funding is provided in this bill to help those who are going to have difficulties meeting the payments for their heating bills during this winter.

There is an account in the Department of Education to provide assistance to low-income people who are seeking to improve themselves through higher education. Over $14 billion is included in this legislation for education for the disadvantaged account.

There is also money in here for medical research at the Department of Health and Human Services and also for the activities at the National Institutes of Health.

Included in the bill is $29.41 billion for NIH. This is above the level requested by the President, but in my judgment and in the judgment of the other members of this committee, it is needed. It is an important investment to help find new ways of dealing with diseases, to prevent illnesses, to do those things that will make America a healthier and, from an economic standpoint, more effective country.

There are many other provisions in this bill we could mention, but the Senators have already heard the bill described by the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. There will

be opportunity for discussion of individual amendments, if there are any, and I am sure there will be some for the Senate's consideration. But this is the final appropriations bill that will be considered in the regular appropriations process by the Senate this year. It is important that we notice the House has passed all of its appropriations bills and they did so early in the year. A lot of credit ought to be given to the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in getting that work done and getting it done early in the year so the bills could come over to the Senate and give us an opportunity to review them and carefully consider the legislation.

I also want to point out that our committee works on a bipartisan basis. That is possible because of the cooperation of the distinguished ranking member of the committee, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd. He is a former chairman of this committee, with a tremendous amount of knowledge of the legislation, and he has contributed in helping ensure the cooperation of all members of the committee, Democrats working with the Republicans, to report these bills to the Senate. It is a bipartisan effort and I think that is important for us as we complete our consideration of these bills this year.

We have had three bills passed with conference reports approved and they have been signed by the President. There are seven bills that have been passed by the Senate that are in conference with the House. The importance of this effort is to ensure that we can pass these bills on an individual basis and not have to resort to adding them all together, putting them all in one legislative vehicle as an omnibus appropriations bill, as we have seen happen in the past.

One other point that needs to be made is that, were it not for the cooperation of the leadership, we would not have been able to have the bills considered on an individual basis. That has been very important to the success of this enterprise and this effort. So the distinguished majority leader, in cooperation with the minority leader, has ensured that the Appropriations Committee has had time in the Senate to consider these bills on an individual basis, and that has been very important. It is our hope we will be able to complete action on all the bills and get them to the President so there will not be any delay in the planned adjournment of the Senate at Thanksgiving, as has been announced by the distinguished leader. We are hopeful we will be able to have time to reach agreement in conference with our House colleagues and get all of these remaining bills to the President for his signature before we adjourn at Thanksgiving.

Thank you all for the efforts you have made to cooperate with our committee to consider these bills in an orderly process. I think it is going to result in a better product, a more thoughtful approach to the appropriations process, and the people of this country will benefit from this record of achievement by the members of the committees and all of the Members of both bodies.

There are 72 Senators who are not members of the Appropriations Committee. Any one of them has the power to offer any amendment on any bill at any time during the consideration of these individual bills. If we had to group them all as an omnibus bill, it would take away from the opportunity each Senator has to participate in this process. So I thank all 72 Senators who have taken an active role in helping assure the success of this operation this year.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides of this issue?

Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of the time allocated to the majority.

Do you know what this is, pure and simple? Shenanigans. Pure and simple, shenanigans. Now, the reporter may not know how to spell that, and I am not sure I could get it right, but it is not a serious effort to increase funding for anybody for anything. No matter what my good friend from Iowa has said about the intentions of this amendment, it is to force Senators to vote for a lower level of funding than he is proposing.

The problem is, the House is involved in this. We received this bill from the House. It is a continuing resolution to provide interim funding until we complete action on the next fiscal year bills for these programs.

You have heard the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, who is chairman of the subcommittee, who will help write that bill and manage the bill on the floor of the Senate. He is not going to reduce the levels of these programs, as the Senator from Iowa suggests will be done.

We will negotiate, in due course, in the regular order with the House, for appropriate levels of funding for the next fiscal year when we pass the next fiscal year bill. This is a temporary measure. It is not going to deprive anybody of funds they would otherwise get under the next year's bills.

The next fiscal year starts on October 1. Here we are at the end of the last fiscal year. This is shenanigans, purely and simply. The continuing resolution is not a new or innovative procedure to provide interim funding while the Congress completes actions on bills that may not yet be finally worked out between the conferees, between the House and Senate. It is often done. I do not recall there being any serious disadvantage to anyone under a continuing resolution. Any shortfalls that might occur as a result of the adoption of this continuing resolution can be made up when the regular fiscal year 2006 bill is finally agreed to by both Houses.

So I urge seriously the Senate to reject the amendment of the Senator from Iowa. It is not going to have the effect that he suggests because the House is not going to agree to it. The House has already passed the continuing resolution and set the level of funding on a temporary basis.

What is up to us now is: Are we going to provide continued funding for those programs that are identified in the continuing resolution? It is not just the programs the Senator from Iowa talks about. There are a lot of programs affected by this continuing resolution: national security issues, all kinds of other programs, nutrition programs for the poor. So what he would do, in effect, is deny them the funds that would be made available under the continuing resolution. That would be a mess.

If we want a mess on our hands and people hurting and deprived of funding

to which they are entitled under current law, at currently approved levels of funding by both Houses of Congress, vote for the amendment. That would create the real mess.

So I urge the Senate, Mr. President, to resist this amendment, vote it down. Then, let's adopt the continuing resolution and provide funding that is needed by all the agencies and Departments identified in the continuing resolution.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of Judge John G. Roberts' nomination to serve as Chief Justice of the United States. The Members of the Senate may disagree on many legal and political issues, but I am confident a majority of the Senate will agree that Judge John Roberts should be confirmed. He has provided the Judiciary Committee with the story of his life. He has answered questions on a wide range of issues. In the process, he has demonstrated the ability, the temperament, and the wisdom to serve as Chief Justice of the United States.

The process of providing advice and consent on a Supreme Court nomination is one of the Senate's most significant constitutional responsibilities, although it is not something we are called upon to do very often. Eleven years have passed since the Senate last exercised its duty to provide advice and consent to the President on his selection of a Supreme Court nominee; 19 years have passed since the Senate last considered a nominee for Chief Justice.

By now, all Senators and most Americans have come to know the impressive life story of John G. Roberts, Jr. He is a summa cum laude graduate of Harvard University and an honors graduate of the Harvard Law School. He was an editor of the Harvard Law Review.

After graduating from law school with high honors, Judge Roberts served as a law clerk to a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and as a law clerk to then Associate Justice Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has also served as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States and as an associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan.

After those years of public service, he spent 3 years in private practice at a well-respected law firm, specializing in civil litigation. Judge Roberts then returned to public service as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States.

During these years of service at the Department of Justice and as a lawyer in private practice, Judge Roberts argued 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. His performance before the Court earned him a reputation as one of the Nation's premier appellate court advocates.

Two years ago Judge Roberts was unanimously confirmed by this Senate to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. This circuit court is considered by many to be the Nation's second highest court.

Judge Roberts is a devoted husband, a dutiful father of two young children, and he is a good and honest man. I closely followed the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings on his nomination to be Chief Justice. It is clear to me that he is the right person for this very important responsibility. Judge Roberts has served with distinction in every job he has ever had. His record is compelling evidence that he would be an able and thoughtful member of the Supreme Court, and that his experience and his respect for the rule of law demonstrate he would be an outstanding Chief Justice of the United States.

The quality and correctness of opinions and decisions by the Supreme Court will depend upon the conscientious application of reason and the rule of law by Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues on the Supreme Court. I think Judge Roberts fully understands the role of the Supreme Court Justice and is totally qualified to discharge the duties of Chief Justice. I believe he will be fair to all and, in the application of the rule of law, impartial and unbiased.

This is serious business. The members of the Federal judiciary are charged with the responsibility of protecting our rights as American citizens, adjudicating our grievances, promoting order and justice, and serving as stewards of the rule of law. The Chief Justice of the United States is the highest ranking official in the judicial branch of our Federal Government. He is in charge of the management and administration of the highest Court in the land. I believe Judge Roberts has what it takes to be an outstanding Chief Justice.

I congratulate the President for his selection of Judge Roberts and I commend the President for his nomination. His nominee will be in an important position in our Government. I am pleased, indeed, that I will be able to vote in favor of his confirmation by the Senate.

I thank the Senator from Ohio for bringing this issue to my attention and note his desire to provide funding for this new proposal to provide cash for in-country commodity purchasing. I want the Senator to know that I will work with him throughout the conference negotiations on this bill to address this issue.

food assistance programs

I join my colleague from Montana in expressing concern over the condition of the Nation's food assistance programs. I too believe that participation in these nutrition programs may increase due to the recent hurricane. I look forward to working with the Senator to provide adequate funding to meet the demand for food assistance.

Mr. President, I am happy to join my friend from Illinois in bringing to the attention of the Senate the fact that there have been substantial losses that have occurred as a result of Hurricane Katrina, particularly in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

Having visited the State, as the Senator pointed out, just recently, it makes a vivid impression upon anyone who looks upon the widespread disaster that was caused by this dreadful hurricane.

While we do have on the books Federal crop insurance programs, other disaster assistance authorization, there always seems to be examples in a disaster of this kind of unmet needs and where, for some reason or another, the effect of the disaster is not fully protected by existing programs.

I am pleased to note, on page 88 in the committee report accompanying this appropriations bill, the committee includes information about the recent amendments to the Agricultural Risk Protection Act. It amended the original Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable risk management tools and improved protection from production and income loss and to improve the efficiency and integrity of the Federal Crop Insurance Program.

So progress has been made, but notwithstanding, I agree to work with the Senator from Illinois and the chairman of the subcommittee to craft language and funding that would be approved by the Senate, it is my hope, in any supplemental bill which the administration may request.

It is my understanding, from a visit yesterday with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, it is expected that the administration will request an additional appropriation supplementing the funds that are available for many Government agencies and some departments to continue to provide disaster assistance to help recover from this dreadful hurricane.

In that legislation, when it does come before the Senate, we will work together to ensure that an appropriate provision is included, as described by the Senator from Illinois.

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

Mr. President, we are pleased to present to the Senate today the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Department of Agriculture, rural development, and related agencies. The bill is before the Senate and is open for amendment or discussion and debate. I am pleased to announce to the Senate that this reflects a lot of hard work through hearings, examining the President's budget request for these Departments for this next fiscal year.

The subcommittee was very capably managed by the distinguished Senator from Utah, Mr. Bennett, who is chairman of this subcommittee. The bill is within the budget authority outlined by the budget resolution adopted by the Senate. Specifically, section 302(b) of the budget resolution allocates $17.348 billion to this subcommittee's authority for appropriations. It is within the outlay allocation of $18.816 billion.

Throughout the past 7 months, the committee has reviewed suggestions by Senators and others who are interested in the provisions of this bill. The bill, as reported by the subcommittee, was approved unanimously and submitted to the full committee. And after review by a bipartisan group of Senators in that subcommittee, all of the Senators in the full committee approved the allocation and the appropriation of funds as reported in this bill.

We hope if any Senators have any suggestions for amendments, they will bring them to the attention of the managers of the bill. We will be happy to discuss those and review them. We hope we can complete action on this bill at an early date. There are other bills that need to be considered by the Senate, so we hope we can take up these suggestions, and if there are amendments, we can vote on them expeditiously.

We appreciate Senator Kohl, who is the ranking minority member of this subcommittee, for his hard work and leadership in the development of this bill. Their staff has worked with the staff on the majority side in a cooperative way. This is a truly bipartisan effort. The Senate appreciates that fact. I congratulate all who have been actively involved in the development of the legislation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I appreciate very much the kind remarks of the distinguished Senator from South Dakota and for his influence in the process of developing the appropriate levels of funding in this bill. We have tried very hard not only to stay within the budget allocation but to try to identify priorities so that we put money where the problems are and we deal with the realities of living on a farm, trying to make a living, trying to meet the needs of communities around the country for rural development projects. There is a wide range of jurisdiction that comes under the authority of this subcommittee for rural development, such as housing for low-income people who would otherwise not be able to have housing. Also, we have important components in the bill relating to food safety. We are confronted with threats to our country from terrorist groups, so this makes us worry about bioterrorism and being able to develop an infrastructure to protect ourselves against any efforts to contaminate our food supply or to wreak havoc in our communities with other terrorist activities that relate to our food supply and its sources. For that purpose, we have invested in research and other initiatives that will help us more successfully deal with these challenges to help assure the American public that our food supply is safe, wholesome, and nutritious.

In that connection, too, we realize this subcommittee has the responsibility of funding the school feeding programs so that school lunch programs, school breakfast programs, and others maintain healthy diets for children in school throughout our country to bring to them nutritious and safe foods.

We just reauthorized in the legislative Committee on Agriculture last year a new law that authorizes the funding of these programs. We have new initiatives, such as fruit and vegetable programs that help assure that schools are able to access and provide a wide variety of healthy foods for children in the public school systems of our country.

These are very important steps, building upon a legacy by previous committees that have worked on these challenges and expanding the benefits so that more and more students are reached by these programs.

We try to make sure the costs of these programs are controlled so that people are not priced out of the system. We want to make sure that in our public schools, there are free and reduced-price lunches available in our schools for those who cannot afford the full cost of these meals.

I also want to point out that access to communications systems, to rural water and sewer systems, to modern electricity facilities that are available in rural areas--where providing such services is much more expensive per consumer than it is in urban areas--is made available through Federal programs that help assure access of farm families and others who live in rural areas of our country to these important quality-of-life situations.

We have made a tremendous contribution throughout rural America in promoting economic development using business and industrial loans, trying to attract good-paying jobs to small towns and rural communities. Those programs are funded in this bill, too.

I might say for the purpose of showing the commitment, in many of these areas we have increased the funding over previous year levels of funding.

The Food and Drug Administration is an independent agency that is funded in this bill as well. Such initiatives as medical device review to assure safety for the consumers, drug safety, and the pharmaceutical products that are supplied throughout our country have to meet standards imposed by the Food and Drug Administration.

This year, we are providing an additional $5 million to the Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of helping ensure drug safety. The medical device review account is increased by $7.8 million over last year's level. I have mentioned our efforts in counterterrorism and food safety. That is also within the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, and the funding there is $16.6 million above last year's level. To help meet those challenges, we have had to make adjustments elsewhere in the bill to keep it within the allocation permitted by the Budget Committee.

There is not a specific account in here directed to hurricane victims. The recent hurricane that struck the Gulf Coast States has caused a tremendous amount of damage throughout the Gulf of Mexico States--Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. I think there are more counties in my State of Mississippi affected by that disaster than any other State. The geographical area was so large, it is just horrible to contemplate the total amount of physical

destruction of trees, of growing crops, of poultry facilities. Our agricultural and rural community has been hit hard by the effects of this hurricane. When you get closer to the gulf coast, of course, you see total destruction along the coastal areas.

The other day when the majority leader led a delegation of 14 Senators to Louisiana, New Orleans, across the Mississippi gulf coast and into Alabama, ending our tour in Mobile, it brought home to all of us that the entire gulf coast area has been devastated. Businesses are gone. Houses are gone. Churches are gone. Schools have disappeared. It is breathtaking and horrible to observe.

The point I am making is that while this bill is not a disaster assistance bill per se, there are many provisions in this bill that will help these communities rebuild and recover and will help the people of those areas until they can get their feet back on the ground and back at work and in suitable housing.

I mentioned the farmer's loan programs that exist. There are also funds in this bill for food stamps, for the Women, Infants and Children feeding program. This is for mothers, to help them care for their children, help to get them off to a healthy start in life. Food safety concerns we have mentioned. Conservation recovery, rural housing programs are all very important components to the recovery effort from Hurricane Katrina. The Department of Agriculture has stepped forward and is making good progress in identifying areas that need special help.

Before long, the Senate will take up another supplemental appropriations bill targeted directly to disaster victims. We are in preliminary discussions already with the administration on when that money will be needed, when will it be considered by the Senate, when will the request be submitted. These are issues we are working hard to resolve to be sure that Federal agencies that have the responsibility of responding to this disaster have the funds they need to do it and do it right and to do it quickly.

We have had a number of requests from Senators to consider changes in this bill and for opportunities to speak on the bill. We are here and we will be here the remainder of this day available to discuss issues that may be brought to the attention of the Senate. We appreciate the support of all Senators.

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

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

Mr. President, when I was talking about the strong support we received in this subcommittee from staff, I wanted to specifically mention those staff members who have been actively involved in the development of this legislation, helping organize the hearings that were held, to review requests, to assess the needs:

John Ziolkowski, who is the clerk of this subcommittee, formerly was staff director of the Senate Agriculture Committee when I was pleased to serve as chairman. He has been very instrumental in managing the work effort of this subcommittee.

Hunter Moorhead, who has had much experience in agricultural issues and is a veteran of this subcommittee staff as well and was very active in his work is deeply appreciated. He, incidentally, is from the State of Mississippi, so we don't have to have a translator or anybody doing simultaneous translation for anyone to understand us.

Fitz Elder, Dianne Preece, as well as Stacy McBride, an FDA fellow who has joined this staff team and has been helpful in developing our section in particular dealing with the Food and Drug Administration, all have been very helpful, and we appreciate their good work.

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

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a provision to be added to the bill that deals with eligibility for USDA rural development programs.

This is a provision which enables the municipality of Carolina, Puerto Rico to be eligible for USDA rural development programs. Eligibility for these programs is based on certain statistics such as population and income but on occasion some communities are declared not eligible because they are too close to an urban area or there is a small pocket of higher income population in the locality.

There is no cost to this amendment. It merely makes the community eligible. They still must apply through USDA and they are subject to the availability of existing funds.

The Agriculture Committee has no objection and it has been cleared on the Democratic side.

Mr. President, the amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle and we know of no objection to the amendment from any Senator.