Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment 3641, division IV, be called up.

We are considering a very large supplemental spending bill that now stands about $10 billion larger than what the President has said he will sign. I thought it would be interesting to spend a minute to think about what $1 billion is because we throw that number around so often. We need to consider that $1 billion is a difficult number to comprehend.

A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. A billion minutes, ago Jesus was alive. A billion hours ago, some would say our ancestors were living in the stone age. A billion days ago, no one walked on Earth on two feet. A billion dollars was only 8 hours 20 minutes ago at the rate we are spending money in the Federal Government.

A billion is a hard number to get your arms around. It is an interesting number and $10 billion more than what the President thinks we need. More than what we actually need is a tremendous amount of money.

The second point I make in talking about this amendment is that the money we are going to spend on this emergency supplemental bill we will not ever see anywhere when we come to talk about the deficit because it will not get included in the deficit reported by the Federal Government. What it will get included in is the payments your children and grandchildren will have to pay back 30 years from now, amortized at 6 percent, and that $10 billion is going to come to about $50 billion when they pay it back. We are reaching forward and stealing opportunity from our kids.

This particular amendment deals with an item in the supplemental that is meant to help a very significant contractor in our defense industry. They do a lot of great things for this country in terms of supplying jobs, giving us great equipment, great ships, great tools for our men and women to fight with and defend this country. I understand the damage that has occurred in both Pascagoula and all the shipyards along the coast. We are making plans to do what is right. In the supplemental, we put greater than $1.5 billion toward that.

There is a significant amount of loss that was incurred by Northrop Grumman as the hurricane came on shore and damaged both their facilities and their equipment. They had significant operating losses from that. My problem with the amendment is they have insurance with which to cover this loss. No one knows exactly how much it is going to be. Northrop Grumman says by their own public statements that $500 million was their business interruption cost insurance, so it could be upward of $500 million. It is probably somewhere between $100 and $200 million.

If we allow this amendment to go through, we set significant precedence that we will be hard pressed to ever break.

First of all, this is a private contractor with insurance who is now suing their insurance company for the claims they have made that will not be adjudicated until 2007.

One of the messages we will send if we pass this supplemental with this in it is we will tell the rest of the defense contractors: You do not have to have business interruption insurance. Why would you have to if the Federal Government is going to come in and pick up the tab?

There is an answer that whatever is collected will come back and be paid to the Navy if, in fact, we intercede in the midst of this contract dispute for Northrop Grumman. I hear what the contracting office says, and it is a fairly important point because the contracting officers and the contracting office know the right of legal loss doctrine. Most of our insurance, whether it is homeowners, auto insurance, or business interruption insurance, runs on the doctrine of legal loss. Legal loss in insurance contracting says that if you get paid by someone else, we do not have to pay you.

This amendment is not so much about being against helping Northrop Grumman; it is about not helping their insurance firm which actually owes this money, which will be adjudicated in the future, and not limiting their responsibility and not transferring that responsibility from them to our children and our grandchildren.

September 28, 2005--this is the Contract Management Agency for the Defense Department:

This office believes it would be inappropriate to allow

Northrop Grumman to bill for costs potentially recoverable by

insurance because payment by the Government may otherwise

relieve the carrier from their policy obligation.

If the Government pays the costs, or agrees that the costs

are even tentatively or conditionally allowable, there is a

risk that insurers will deny coverage on the basis that there

has been no loss suffered by Northrop Grumman.

In fact, that is exactly right. If we pay the loss, Northrop Grumman does not have a loss, and therefore the legal loss doctrine will apply to this contract, so there will not be a lawsuit. This is in litigation.

I also make the point that Northrop Grumman, by their CEO's own statements this year, said that it continues to expect sales of $31 billion; earnings per share between 4.25 and 4.40; and cash from operations, free cashflow, between $2.3 and $2.6 billion. If this is $100 million or $200 million, they have all the capability in the world to borrow that money, pay the interest, and collect the interest charges against the insurance company. We are setting a terrible precedent by doing this.

The other thing we are going to do is send a message to every other defense contractor: Don't get business interruption insurance because we will come in and pick up the tab.

I want them to be fully remunerated. I want the shipyards to be up and running. I want every aspect we can deploy that will make things happen, that will resecure the jobs, resecure our production of ships. But I don't want to do that when Factory Mutual Insurance Company really should be on the hook for this, not our children and our grandchildren.

The other point I make is should companies that contract as defense suppliers and make billions each year be put ahead of the others waiting in line for help? Is it going to be our policy by this bill to further subsidize the business interruption insurance of all the rest of the contractors?

Their own litigation filed in California says:

There is no reason to allow Factory to avoid accountability

for its wrongful actions.

I agree. And by keeping this in the bill, we will allow Factory Mutual to avoid accountability for its obligations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Defense Contract Management Agency letter, dated September 28, 2005. There has also been the filing of Northrop Grumman Corporation against Factory Mutual Insurance Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

I also note that Northrop Grumman is the fourth largest defense contractor we have in the country. I also note that Northrop is already the recipient of billions of dollars in Government contracts, including some contracts that otherwise could be considered largess. I will not go into that.

I would make a final note that the House Appropriations Committee, when they passed their bill, put this into the Record:

The Committee believes strongly that funds in this Act and

under this heading in prior Acts should not be used to

substitute for private insurance benefits. The Committee is

aware that some shipyards have business interruption

insurance coverage that could potentially overlap with the

Navy's budget for increased delay and disruption costs.

I understand the Navy. We have an obligation for delay and disruption costs. There is no question about that.

On March 1, 2006, the Committee received the Navy's

certification that there is no overlap between shipyard

insurance claims and the Navy's funding plan, and that costs

covered by private insurers were not included in supplemental

request estimates. Once again in this bill, the Committee

directs the Navy not to obligate funds under this heading

until the Secretary of the Navy certifies that no such funds

will be used for activities or costs that are subject to

reimbursement by any third party, including a private

insurer.

The final point I would make is the President's message to Congress on why he would be against us funding this. He made some significant points, and I will summarize them. One is they do not think this is necessary. No. 2, it violates clear contracting guidelines. And, No. 3, it sets a terrible precedent for the future, not just on our coast but for any other defense contractor that might have a loss based on a natural catastrophe, that we would now have a precedent that we would supply that.

The American people want to help solve the problems on the gulf coast. We want to create a vigorous business environment. We want to create a vigorous defense industry. This is a step too far. I believe we need to back up and let the private sector take care of its obligations, as it should, to help us meet our obligations and then move forward.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to raise a few points. First, I have great respect for the Senators from Mississippi and Louisiana. If they will note, my votes have reflected that, when we have sent money for both. The President did request $2.5 billion, $2.7 billion for this. But he also requested that we not do this specific thing, that we not do this. The Senator from Mississippi makes a point they have already collected $125 million--actually they told us $125 million, maybe it is more--from insurance. They did have a big loss.

We had a hurricane down there and everybody will agree, because of the hurricane, the ships are going to cost more, no matter what we do. They are going to cost more because they were delayed. We know that in defense contracting. Is it in Northrop Grumman's interest to recapitalize this shipyard? Yes. There is no question about it. Do they have a positive cashflow of $2.6 billion this year? Yes. The reason we should not do this is because there will be no money coming from the insurance industry. Under the legal loss doctrine, we will obviate all those policies. So by doing this, it is true, any money that comes comes back to the Navy. I agree, that is in here. But the fact is, there will be no money coming back because they will have and utilize in their insurance contracts the legal loss doctrine. That doctrine will obviate any obligation, any liability these insurance companies have to do it. So the question is, should our kids pay for it, our grandkids pay for it, or is it in Northrop Grumman's best interest to put the business interruption insurance, which is in litigation, to borrow that money or take it out of earnings from cashflow from operations right now and then collect the interest on it? Instead, we are going to send it on down the pike 30 years to be paid back, and $125 or $200 million will become $800 million or $1 billion after 30 years.

I would also read into the record part (a), section 2303, ``Amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act.'' Going on down, ``under the heading `Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy' may be obligated and expended to pay the costs of any business disruption incurred by a ship construction contractor with respect to facilities or businesses located in the Hurricane Katrina Disaster area by reason of Hurricane Katrina.''

We do get all four of them, all four segments intentionally, because if we don't, then we pay. The insurance industry won't pay. Anything that isn't settled at the time this goes through will not be paid for by the insurance industry. So if you want to go out and make some money today, go buy Factory Mutual insurance. Because if this goes through and is a part of it, they made $150 million today with this thing going through. They are not going to pay, and they are going to be upheld in a court of law.

This is an established doctrine of law. And if it is already paid for by the U.S. taxpayers' grandchildren, then Factory Mutual is not going to have to pay for it.

I understand the intent. I believe the Senators from Mississippi are doing what they think is right. I think this is just a step too far that doesn't have to be done to truly get going. There are 11,062 employees in Mississippi right now working for Northrop Grumman. They have employees in 38 States. They are a great company and a vital contractor. But I would make the case that the cost of ships has gone up because we had the hurricane. And it is noble to try to limit that increase. This won't limit the increase; this will just increase the cost to our grandchildren.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up Coburn amendment No. 3641, Division V, and I ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Division VI of amendment No. 3641 be called up.

Mr. President, I have every intention of withdrawing this amendment. But I wish to mention for a moment that this is an amendment that would have removed $20 million from the National Marine Fisheries Service to study catch, bycatch, shrimp and relief and fishery profitability in the Gulf--the study of profitability. We are going to spend $20 million to study profitability.

The Louisiana Seafood and Marketing Board considers this to be unnecessary spending and a low priority.

That is what the people who market the seafood from Louisiana said about this amendment.

I am not going to put us through a vote on it, but I think we ought to pay attention to the people down there who are now saying they don't need $20 million for marketing and studying. They believe it is a waste of money. When the people of Louisiana are telling us it is wasted money, it is certainly wasted money.

I ask unanimous consent it be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3641, Division

Mr. President, I don't intend to ask for a vote on this amendment and may, in fact, withdraw it, but I think it is something that the American people should know. This is about AmericaCorps, the National Civilian Community Corps.

There are three things we ought to know. The idea behind this is fine. They have done a great deal of work on the gulf coast. However, there are some real problems with this program. The House also has significant problems with this program.

Here is the key point: It has never had a comprehensive evaluation in 13 years to see if it accomplishes anything of importance. Compared to all the other AmeriCorps service programs, this one is about 50 percent more costly per person. This one costs $28,000 per volunteer for 10 months. That annualized out to $34,000 per person per year.

No. 3, no one is measuring any performance. There are no set goals. No one is saying what they are intended to accomplish? How do we measure that? Could we do it cheaper? Can we do it a better way? None of that has been evaluated on this program.

People will oppose this. I have no lack of reality in knowing we do not have an opportunity to eliminate this money. However, contrast what actually happened on the gulf coast with this AmeriCorps. We had people from all over this country go down and help. We didn't pay them a penny. We did not pay them a $35,000 annualized salary. We had college students from all across this country spend their spring breaks, their Christmas breaks, their Thanksgiving breaks on the gulf coast volunteering. We had churches, civic organizations, local charities, we did not pay them a penny. They all came because there was a need.

There is something very wrong behind the idea that we have to pay people to be volunteers. As a matter of fact, it is an oxymoron. You cannot have a paid volunteer because they are not volunteering if they are getting paid. The motivation and commitment shown by true volunteers is unmatched by any congressional appropriation. The Nation is answering the call to be Good Samaritans and treat others the way they want to be treated.

This program was started in 1993 with good goals, and the purpose was to create leadership. We may have done that, but the fact that we do not know if we have done that, the fact that we keep throwing this money--which does not go to the individual volunteers; $4,000 does, but it costs too much to operate.

I will ask unanimous consent for withdrawing of this division, but we certainly ought to have some oversight. I intend to have an oversight hearing in the Committee on Federal Financial Oversight.

I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the division.

Mr. President, I wish I would have thought of that amendment. It is a great amendment.

The Senator from South Dakota makes the point, we have to make decisions about priorities. When we have an unproven volunteer program that is more expensive than any other volunteer program, and we are putting an extra $20 million on the basis of emergency versus fulfilling the obligations to those people who have made the ultimate sacrifice and paid the price and served this country and put their lives in danger doing so, it is a no-brainer that we ought to be spending the money on the veterans rather than a program that has not proven to be effective, not proven to match a performance goal, and not proven even to be measuring itself in the 13 years of its existence.

I support the Senator's amendment.

Amendment No. 3641, Division VIII, Withdrawn

With that, I ask the pending amendment be laid aside and amendment No. 3641, division VIII, be called up.

Mr. President, I do not intend on asking for a vote on this amendment, but I highlight this amendment because of the problems implicit in this request.

In this supplemental is a request for $230 million, an earmark, for three additional Osprey V-22 airplanes. The Pentagon, in 2005, formally approved full rate production of the V-22: 360 for the Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and 50 for the Air Force. The Pentagon has ordered 90 as of today.

This plane is not yet proven, one, and I will not go into the debate on that. It cannot even have full testing and cannot be used in the battlefield.

The point is, there is no emergency need to order these planes. This plane is manufactured in Texas and Pennsylvania. The Pentagon did not request this. The President did not request it. What we have is people requesting it.

We have a plane that has not met performance tests yet, has not been battle proven, and we are adding three airplanes for which some would raise a good question as to whether it ought to be done in this way. It ought to be done through an authorization and through the regular process.

I know this is in the mark. I am not sure the chairman is supportive of it, and I will not ask for the vote, but I don't think this is the way we ought to buy airplanes, especially when it is not an emergency.

There are numerous problems. Most of them have been corrected, but there still have been numerous problems. This is the problem with earmarks. We are adding something that is not authorized, a plane that has had tremendous developmental difficulties, that the Pentagon does not want, the President does not want, yet we want. Why do we want it? Because, for some reason, we end up either employing more people on something that may not eventually work to the military's satisfaction or we get benefits from it in terms of political expediency.

I believe it is the wrong way to go. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 3641, division IX.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this division be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that division X be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up division XI.

Mr. President, I find myself bringing an amendment again against two of my friends who have a significant stake. They are both from Mississippi. They have looked at this issue a great deal.

What I want to do is raise the issues with a debate on the amendment, and then possibly talk about solutions.

During Katrina, the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Gulfport, MS, was damaged. The first floor was damaged significantly. It required and necessitated us moving those veterans to other retirement homes.

We need to remedy that. There are lots of options on the table. I talked

with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and there are a lot of good ideas coming out on how to solve that problem.

The problem I have is, we allocated $45 million for this in the last year, and $44 million of it remains in the bank and has not been spent. This bill has $176 million, but it does not tell us what we are going to do with it. It just has $176 million.

So that brings us to a quarter of a billion dollars on this retirement home that houses 600 of our best, who have proven they have been our best through their service to our country.

Now, if you divide this out, you come to almost $400,000 per room, if we created a new style. And the plans, the proposals are all in the $480 million and $490 million range that have been offered up on the different options.

Congressman Gene Taylor from Mississippi, in the debate on this issue, says we can fully restore this facility to what it was beforehand for $80 to $90 million. That is what the estimates are. Private industry estimates for a brand-new naval home facility are that it could be built to the desired standards--that means up to date for Americans with disabilities; up to date on size, doors; up to date on the ability to handle people with advanced aging and disease and long- term consequences--for $125 million to $150 million.

So the question I raise with this amendment is not whether we should do it. It is: We have $221 million, after this bill goes through, that is going to be for that, and we are not through, and there is nothing in the report language that would direct us on how we are going to make a decision on spending this money and what it is going to go for.

I will agree with the goal of the chairman that we ought to replace this facility, and those people involved in that area ought to have a lot to say about it. My concern is the cost. If you really take the $589.54 million, which is option No. 1 that is coming out for this, and the estimate that it will take 13 years to get us back to where we were, that is $1 million a room.

I want to contrast that with what we can do for $1 million. If you look at the average price of a new home in Mississippi for a single person to live in, it is less than $80,000 a year. We could buy every veteran who lives in that home a brand-new home and provide nursing care for 10 years--for 10 years--for what is being proposed in replacing this.

So my real question is, what is the plan? Where is the commonsense oversight? How much are we going to spend? And before we send more money in an emergency appropriations, we ought to know what that is, and that ought to be decided before we spend more money, especially since $44 million that has been appropriated has not been spent.

All I am saying is that we should consider that. I would hope we would wait to send additional supplemental money for this until we know exactly where it is going to go or specify exactly where it is going to go.

We do know that to be considered an emergency we need to meet the requirements. I believe we need to meet the requirements for our veterans, especially in this home because we have some of them in Washington, DC, and we have them living all across the country. But the fact is, we don't know where the money is going to go. We don't know how much money we are going to spend. We don't have a plan. Nothing is agreed to. Why not go through the regular process with this? Why not go through the authorization and appropriation process on this since we have not spent the money already and we don't know how this money is going to be spent?

So it is a simple, straightforward question: Wouldn't it make more sense to do it under the regular order since this is definitely not an emergency now? Under their five different plans they have offered up, this would not be an emergency.

I would ask the consideration of the chairman if we could do it in a better, more efficient way that is better for the taxpayer; if, in fact, we could withdraw this money at this time and bring it back through the regular order to accomplish that?

With that, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I want to see this facility replaced, too, but I have some serious questions. The Senator was not here for the debate. I want him to hear those questions because what he is proposing is cheaper than several of what the retirement board suggested. I agree. Call me cheap. What he is proposing is $370,000 per resident. That is twice what I can build a brand-new hospital for with the latest everything.

I guess my point is, for $221 million, what are our grandchildren going to get because we are doing this under an emergency, and we know we can build a brand-new facility up to code, nice as can be, with the rooms the size the Senator wants, for $150 million total. We know that is possible. So why should we spend $221 million doing it? If it is not a fixed plan now; if we send $221 million out of here, they are going to spend it.

My problem is, I would love for the Senator and maybe the chairman to work with me to get this to a more realistic idea of what the real costs should be so that we accomplish the goal they want, and we do it in a more timely manner. I agree, having a campus style is probably a little bit more expensive, but it isn't 50 percent more expensive than what it should cost.

I made the point earlier that for a new home, for a single or couple living in 1,200 to 1,500 square feet in the State of Mississippi, you can buy one of the nicest places in the world for $81,000 right now, or $72,000. We got a quote yesterday from Mississippi. So that leaves $300,000. If we bought them all a brand-new home and then hired them a caretaker at $30,000 a year for the next 10 years, we would spend less money.

Again, you bet, I am a tightwad when it comes to our grandchildren's money, and I want value for what we spend. That is the purpose of this amendment. I am willing to withdraw this amendment if I can have the assurance that we can moderate this back into a range that would look like something comparable to what we really need to spend.

I wish to make a final point, if the Senator will bear with me. We don't have this money. We don't have it. Anything we don't get good value for today because our kids are paying for it means they are going to get an exaggerated cost when they come to pay it back. That is my purpose.

I want them to have a great home. I want them to be able to come home. I know they have a tremendous camaraderie living there. I want to see that restored for them. They deserve it. Can we not do it in a much cheaper way and still give them what they want? Remember, they fought hard so we would have the money to be able to do it.

Mr. President, I concur with the Senator's desire to reestablish the site there. That is not what this is about. I am told the Senate Armed Services Committee is not for this because it only gets us halfway there, which bothers me greatly because instead of $221 million, we are going to spend $442 million, which ends up being about $800,000 per bed.

The point I make is this: If you throw money out there, they are going to build where they expend the money. How about us having a plan within a certain amount of money and living with it, rather than saying we are

going over or we are not going over? How about taking the average of the last couple that have been built where there have been any facilities similar to it and using that as a guideline? My problem is it is not $176 million; it is $176 million plus $44 million, and other people are going to authorize another $200 million, so we are going to be talking about a half a billion dollars, and that is my problem with it.

I ask unanimous consent at this time to withdraw this amendment. I appreciate the courtesies extended to me during the debate. I know the desire is right. I think the money that is out there is extraordinarily too much, especially when we have documented estimates to repair the present facilities between $50 million and $60 million and to build new ones between $120 million and $150 million. So anything above that is fluff at this time, which we can't afford. We can meet our obligations, but we can't go much beyond that and meet our other obligations. So I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3641, division XII, and I ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.

And I ask unanimous consent to withdraw division XIII.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent division XIV be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent division XV be withdrawn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw division XVI.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw division XVII.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the withdrawal of division XVIII.

Mr. President, I withdrew amendments for things I still do not agree with that are in this bill. I am not going to spend the time in the Senate now, but I will spend the time before we have the final vote on this bill to discuss what is in this bill that is not emergency, that is not an obligation by the Federal Government, that is not prudent or fiscally wise. I will not spend the time on that at this time.

Amendment No. 3641, Division XIX

I ask unanimous consent division XIX be brought up.

Mr. President, this is an amendment that removes $11.3 million from our Corps of Engineers, Sacramento River Bank Protection Project in California.

I have no lack of understanding of the potential flooding problems occurring in San Francisco and south of there in California and the way the rain patterns have changed. I am not wishing to defeat anything that will make a real difference on that.

This amendment is about a program that is 46 years old that, according to the Corps' own statement, is 95 percent complete, that we have already spent $131 million on, that $10.6 million is being spent this year, as we speak, on this program.

In this supplemental, they are asking for another $11 million for this program. I don't doubt that the $11 million will be needed. But it won't even get there under this emergency supplemental, through the Corps' own admission, until after September when the new year starts.

First of all, it does not meet the definition of ``emergency,'' that it should meet in coming through this bill.

What does this program do? This program solves and prevents levee erosion problems while providing fish and wildlife mitigation. That is what the program does. It has been going since 1960.

We had $6.3 million included in the energy and water appropriations bill last year and an additional $10.96 million. The Corps also stated that $57 million more is needed for the final completion of this project.

This says a lot about the Corps of Engineers and their ability to get things done. Although I might agree we need to eventually spend the money for this project, it certainly ought to be paid for and come out of the energy and water appropriations because the money will not get there to be utilized. They have not even spent the money appropriated on the spend-out this year.

I am not, in substance, against completing this project. It comes back to the same things we have been talking about. Is it an emergency that we do it now? And if, in fact, it is an emergency, will the money get there and make a difference? It won't.

I am asking this go through the regular process, through the energy and water appropriations, that it be authorized to the extent that the Senators from California would like to have it, and that we do it in regular order.

It would be different if we thought this money was really going to make a difference with the problems in California, but it is not. It will not change one thing in terms of how the Corps operates this program this year. By the time the money would get there, it would have to be reprogrammed anyhow.

I have some other problems with this program. Ask yourself: If we have spent $131 million plus $6.3 million, $137 million already, and the Corps says it is 95 percent complete, and then they say they need another $51 million to complete it, how can it be 95 percent complete?

This is not about the need. This is about the inefficiencies within the Corps. This is about whether we can get the money to solve a problem that is deemed an emergency at this time, but I seriously doubt whether that has been the fact.

The Corps has been cited on numerous occasions by the GAO for its inability to predict costs, stay within the forecasted budget. In fact, some of GAO's strong criticisms have come in regard to this very work in the Sacramento area.

I made the point in an earlier amendment with Senator Obama that the Corps made $5 a cubic yard on everything we removed in Katrina. That is over 30 million cubic yards. That is $150 million the Corps took out of the Homeland Security and the emergency appropriations. Why don't we spend that money on this? Why do we borrow more money against our children and grandchildren to accomplish this worthy goal?

When I ask those questions, we do not get any answers. No one answers the question, can we efficiently be good stewards of our children and our grandchildren's money? When is enough enough? If this project is, indeed, an emergency, as we are being told, we need to be asking the tough questions. How long does it take to shore up levees near Sacramento--46 years for the Corps to do this job? I have a real sneaking suspicion 10 years from now the Corps will continue to ask us for money to shore up levees in Sacramento. And if that is the case and they have not completed it, it means they will not have done a good job on the very job we ask them to do, which is something I contend anyway.

These funds may, in fact, be needed. If that is the case, the Corps of Engineers has failed miserably.

I intend, in my oversight committee, to ask for an explanation of every penny the Corps has spent on the river bank protection near Sacramento. Representatives of this city and taxpayers all across the country should be outraged regarding the irresponsibility of the Corps in carrying out this project. Forty years and over $130 million later, we are asked to give the Corps an additional $11 million in emergency appropriations, money we will have to borrow, all because the Corps cannot do its job correctly the first, third, fourth, fifth, up to the 46th time.

Enough is enough. No venture would ever continue to receive such high funding with this track record.

Two other questions I think should be asked. Does the Corps lack the resources to fund the emergency needs? According to the Office of Management and Budget, the Corps of Engineers had $4.5 billion in unobligated balances last year and has an estimate of $5.8 billion in unobligated balances this year. According to the Corps itself, as of March 30, their unobligated scheduled carryover was $1.49 billion. They have the money to do this right now.

The Sacramento Corps office will have unobligated balances by the end of 2006 in excess of $13.5 million.

I ask again: Why are we going to borrow money when we have the money? If, in fact, it is an emergency, the Corps has the money in unobligated balances to accomplish it. All we need is an authorization to do that.

How do we prioritize Federal funds in California? In fiscal year 2006, California has 549 earmarks costing $733 million. In addition, it received $10 million in earmarks for museums alone. That expenditure alone would have been enough to pay for nearly all of this requested work.

Are the following museum earmarks more important than protecting the city of Sacramento: $200,000 for the California State Mining and Mineral Museum; $550,000 for development and construction of Noah's Park at the Skirball Cultural Center; $4.35 million for repairs of Sala Burton Maritime Museum, in San Francisco; $300,000 to the city of San Jacinto for improvements to the museum/Extudillo property; $175,000 for the M.H. de Young Memorial Museum; $500,000 for the construction of a museum also at the San Francisco Fine Arts Museum.

Just the museum earmarks alone would take care of this. So instead, what we are going to do, we are going to borrow money because we do not have the money to pay for this.

Attempting to attach more funds for the project, the project in its 46th year, outside of the regular budget process, is an abuse of taxpayer resources, takes advantage of the emergency appropriations process intended to deal only with the most urgent and immediate needs of the devastated gulf region, and to provide for our soldiers in battle.

Senator Boxer said on May 1, 2005, the war should be paid for in the budget, not in an emergency supplemental. The war is known. The cost of the war was anticipated by some people that this administration fired. The cost of this war is spinning out of control.

The same can be said for this project. This project was authorized in 1960. It has received over $100 million and its future costs are known. This should be addressed in the regular appropriations process, not in an emergency supplemental.

With that, I yield the floor, and I offer time to the opponents of my amendment.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

When you were changing Candlestick Park, you did not borrow money from future generations of Americans to do that? You found it within the budget? I believe that is correct; is it not?

Will the Senator yield for an additional question?

I have said I do not deny this work needs to be done. Can you foresee that the environmental impact assessments for all this will be completed in time for this money to be used this fiscal year?

Will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Does it concern you at all that over the 46 years of this project the engineering by the Corps of Engineers for these levees is requiring them to go back now, in 29 places, and fix what they should have done right the first time? Does that concern you at all?

Will the Senator yield for one additional question?

Would it make sense to you that we could, in a supplemental, change the authorization under the emergency process so that the Sacramento Corps could use their $13.5 million they are going to have in unobligated balances at the end of this year? We could do that just as well as borrow an additional $10.9 million against our children; could we not?

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I question how we are paying for it. We are borrowing the money from future generations to do it rather than make the hard decisions of trimming something else. That is important.

Mr. President, the arguments that have been made by the Senators from California, in terms of needing to fix things, are probably accurate. But I am sitting here thinking to myself, if it would take only $11 million to take care of this, and to know that the earliest this money is going to be there is 8 weeks, if I were Governor of California, I would find $11 million. I would get that tomorrow. If it is not going to get done tomorrow, we ought to be asking why not, if the threat is that great and it imperils that much of the economy and that many people.

I still raise the same questions. I am not denying this needs to get done. I am denying how we pay for it. We are not making the hard choices to cut something else out of the bill to pay for this because it is a higher priority. No, what we are doing is taking the money from future generations because we refuse to make those hard choices.

That is what it is all about. We could have reprogrammed money within the Corps to get this done. The Governor could ask the legislature for $11 million to get this done starting tomorrow. If there are 29 sites, what we do know about the Corps is it doesn't do anything fast. In this project, we know what they have done over the last 46 years has not been sufficient because they are having these problems. We will finish the debate tomorrow morning. The point is, I don't deny that this needs to get done. If it is the case that has been made by the Senators from California, then why hasn't it already been done? If there is this impending emergency, why hasn't California ponied up to put up the $11 million that is so desperately needed right now to pay for it, rather than asking the rest of the country's children and grandchildren? If this bill had come to the floor paid for, I would not be out here. But it is not paid for. We are going to go write the bills and bonds to pay for this $11 million. Maybe that is what we should do. Maybe that is the priority we should have. But I would think that the rest of the American people ought to say, where are you getting the money?

We are not making hard choices. We are passing it down the line. I agree if something were to happen, the cost would be much greater. I am a physician and I believe in prevention. That is what this debate is all about, preventing America from becoming a second-rate economy because we refuse to make hard decisions here on how we spend money. That is what this is about. I don't deny the desire to address this issue. That doesn't have anything to do with it. But if it is an emergency as described at the present time, why doesn't California fix it? Why hasn't California ponied up the $11 million, which is a small amount there. It is the fifth largest economy in the world. They can come up with $11 million.

Yes.

I understand that.

Reclaiming my time, since it is a question, this isn't about whether you pay your share. It is about whether it is an emergency. If it is an emergency, then why wasn't it done last time? Why are we going back--why isn't a Corps that spent 46 years doing this project going back to repair what they didn't do right in the first place?

I am going back to the main point and then I am through. I will talk again in the morning. Where is the money coming from? Had the money been paid for, I would not be out here. But the money isn't paid for. It is borrowed. So when you take $10.9 million, take your calculator out and put it at 30 years and amortize it at 6 percent, you will come up to about $55 million. That is what we are actually going to pay to do this $10.9 million because we are borrowing the money. That is my point. I am not against doing it, not against getting it done, against prevention. What I am against is borrowing the money against the future of this country because we refuse to make the hard choices.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Obama for his hard work. Soon after Katrina hit, one of the things that we noticed from our Federal Financial Oversight Committee was a lack of transparency and accountability in a lot of what the Corps of Engineers does, that FEMA does. We put forward a bill which did not make it out but certainly should have, especially in hindsight, with the waste, fraud, and abuse. I am not going to go through the amendments. The distinguished Senator from Illinois has done that. The American public is entitled to some facts.

We held a hearing 3 weeks ago today in New Orleans. The distinguished Presiding Officer was at that hearing. Here is what we know: Out of $1.6 billion for debris removal, we paid three times too much. We paid the Corps on 30 million cubic yards $5 to administer it; $150 million to the Corps that was contracted through, and then they contracted with a major national corporation which then subcontracted with a regional corporation which then subcontracted.

Here is what we found. The easy work was cherry-picked. The hard work was left to the people of Mississippi and Louisiana and some in Alabama. The local people actually have to do some of the work. One of the ways to achieve recovery in a disaster is to make sure you encourage the employment of locals. What we actually saw was that when the average price per cubic yard was $32--that is what the Federal Government paid--the average price received by those people actually doing the front-end load of work and the dump trucking was $5 a cubic yard. So it was actually six times greater than what the sub sub sub sub--six levels of contractors down, the one that actually did the work--got paid. Understandably, it is a big task. It is understandable that we need somebody. But what we had was a bureaucracy that hired a bureaucracy which then hired five layers of contractors, and each one took something out of the pie and didn't contribute much except the ones actually doing the work.

In our subcommittee we have a poster that says: Accountability and transparency. There is no transparency to this. We have to dig, fight, and almost bite to get the information out of the agencies. These are four very commonsense amendments that will aid in transparency and accountability in the Federal Government.

The Presiding Officer asked during that hearing: Why couldn't the Corps have hired a contract manager or why couldn't the Corps have been the contract manager and taken some of that

profit that was consumed, which was about 60 percent, that didn't actually get to the folks in cleaning up the debris? Why couldn't the Corps have functioned that way? It was such a good hearing that FEMA didn't even stick around to listen to the people from Louisiana talk about their dealings with FEMA. That explains the real problems with FEMA. The contracting officer didn't stay for the hearing to hear the criticisms, factually based criticisms, that were very enlightening.

The second area I will discuss is the Travel Trailer Program. The American people ought to ask: When a trailer costs $16,000 to $17,000, and it costs $50,000 to install, something is wrong. But when you go to look at the $50,000, we see this layering again. We see a layer to the Corps, to a major contractor, to a subcontractor, subcontractor, subcontractor, subcontractor. The American people aren't getting value, No. 1. And, No. 2, the people who deserve to be helped are getting a delay as the process goes through.

I have a couple of pictures to show. This is what we ought to be asking of agencies. We ought to say you ought to be accountable. It ought to be transparent. You ought to be able to find the contractors. As a matter of fact, FEMA doesn't even go down more than one layer in terms of the contracts. That is policy; that is not law. They protect that information so it cannot be available to Members of Congress or to the American public to know what is going on. We ought to be able to see results. We saw that we spent three times as much money to do something over a much longer period of time than what we should have.

We know, for example, the major contracts initially were no bid, of which the Corps took something off of the top as well. There has been no priority setting and no responsiveness, and there has been no spending discipline.

We ought to make sure the moneys that go forward are under the guise of good accounting practices, transparency, and we ought to be able to put in place, as this money is spent, a way for the Congress to hold the agencies accountable on how they spend this money. It is my hope that the leadership, chairman, and ranking member will look at these amendments closely. I think they are very positive in terms of making the needed adjustments.

On homeland security, we had a tremendous number of hearings--I think 24--on FEMA. It relates all the way back up through the Corps and all the way back down. Accountability is sorely lacking. These amendments would correct that.

I thank my friend from Illinois for his insistence and hard work in this area. I yield the floor.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I have been on the floor for 4 hours today. I filed amendments, brought them up before anybody else brought an amendment up here, other than four prior ones that I brought up.

I don't want to stop anybody from offering amendments, but the way we clear them is to debate the ones already on line. Those of us who have amendments that have been out and offered, I suggest that the regular order ought to go forward, and as we finish those--nobody is planning on cutting that off or trying to limit anybody. With that, I believe the proper thing for us to do would be to go to the regular order.

Madam President, I ask that division II of my amendment No. 3641 be in order at this time.

Madam President, I thank the chairman for protecting my right to be back on the floor in regular order. But I want to go through again with the American people what is supposed to be an emergency bill by our own rules: It is a bill that is necessary, essential, and vital; sudden, quickly coming into being, not building up over time; it is an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; it is unforeseen, unpredictable, unanticipated, and not permanent but temporary only in nature.

This second division of my amendment is an amendment that removes $15 million. It is simple. In this bill is $15 million for the promotion of seafood. Seafood consumption in this country is at an all-time high. If you look around the country, look on television, look at magazines--the beef producers do this, but they get no Federal money. The pork producers do this, but they get no Federal money. The poultry producers do this, but they get no Federal money. The milk producers do this, but they get no Federal money in terms of their promotion. They pay individually to have a promotional sequence. As a matter of fact, there is a Louisiana Seafood already in existence.

So what we are going to do is take and give $15 million to a private entity of the seafood producers to spend to increase demand for seafood. That may be all right, but that is certainly not an emergency. It is certainly not something that should be in an emergency bill that isn't going to be paid for by us but by our children and grandchildren.

I am not objecting to the fact that we want to try to increase the demand for seafood, but if you look at the facts, the real problem our fisheries are having, especially with shrimp and those kinds of things, is with foreign competition. As you look at the problems associated with it, there are more in terms of competition than there are in terms of lack of supply.

This is real simple. Why should we be subsidizing for one industry what we don't subsidize for any other industry? The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is where this money is going to go. There is nothing in the bill to tell them what to do with it. According to them, ``We have no plans for how to spend this money.'' That is what NOAA said. They have no plans. It is not in the report language or in the bill. So what will happen is the committee will tell them how to spend the money. We won't know how it is; it is not published now. If we don't make a decision, we are not going to know.

Is there going to be oversight? Is somebody going to take a million- dollar salary out of this $15 million? We don't know. We don't have a mechanism in place to manage it. That is the problem. If this had come through an authorizing committee, studied by our peers, and they said this is something in the long-term best interests of our country, then I probably would not be raising this issue. But I don't think that is what has happened here.

I will be happy to yield.

Madam President, reclaiming my time, the other point I wish to make is the proponents say this is to create a new niche market to reestablish the shrimp sales of the gulf coast. I want to help the gulf coast. I want to help them recover, but I want to do it in a way that builds a long-term, satisfactory, strong fishing industry down there.

We are at an all-time high in the consumption of seafood. Where our shrimp industry has been hurt is through globalization. The fact is, the real damage done to that industry, besides what has happened as a result of the hurricane, is they are getting beat in the world market.

I ask the Members of this body to think: Do we want to start this, and should we be doing it when cattle prices are down and producing more beef? Should we do it for the beef producers? Should we do it for the chicken farmers? In other words, should they not participate in paying for this rather than everybody else in America paying for it?

I would portend this is something that is not what we should be doing and it is not just about not wanting to help those people. I want to help them, but I don't believe this is the way to do it. This is a small amount of money in this $104 billion-plus bill, but it is a principle as we walk down the line: how do we say no to all these other agricultural interests when we have said yes to one.

I am very worried with the wording in the report language that requires the committee to run this rather than requires the bureaucracy to run it when there is no instruction for the bureaucracy, which means it is not going to have sunshine and it is not going to have oversight. I think that is part of our problems with spending as well.

I see the distinguished Senator from Alabama is here. I will be happy to yield time to him for debate on this issue.

Mr. President, I will agree with the chairman we are almost ready. I just wanted to make a couple of points.

Reserving the right to object, I have 3 minutes' worth of housekeeping that I would like to get done on amendments that will make the process move faster and offer amendments without debate so they can get in the queue. I would like to do that after Senator Burr, if that is OK with the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3641, division III, and ask unanimous consent for its withdrawal.

Mr. President, I call up four amendments to place them in the queue. They are the Barak Obama-Coburn transparency amendments, four in order. I ask they be called up.

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, is there objection to setting aside the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. President, at this time I ask the amendment be divided in the form which I send to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask that this point, division 1 of the original amendment, be pending, and I will withhold my time until I have noticed both Senators Lott and Cochran--and I see Senator Cochran here--because I know they will want to be active on this debate. I would ask their guidance on when I should bring this up for consideration of this first amendment which has to do with the railroad and supplemental moneys for the movement of the CSX railroad in Mississippi.

I ask their advice and desire.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi.

I want to talk first about this. Our country is facing some pretty significant financial difficulties, and we find ourselves with a supplemental bill, as requested by the President. Basically, the whole idea of this supplemental is something the American people should reject. We have been in a war now going into the fourth year. We should have the money for funding this war as part of the regular budget. It should not be in an emergency supplemental. Of what we know about the Katrina results, that should have been budgeted this year as well, but it was not.

It is important for everybody to know why it was not. It is not budgeted because it becomes part and parcel of the debt your children and grandchildren will have to pay, without ever getting on the books of the Federal Government. So when you hear the deficit or the surplus--which it has not been for some time, as a matter of fact not since the early 1970s if you were honest in the accounting--you hear the budget numbers this year, for what the budget will be, and it will not count this money. This money will not be counted, although it will be added to the IOUs that our children and grandchildren will be paying back.

I am thankful for the leadership, in terms of giving us an opportunity this June to talk about budget process reform. Nobody would run their household this way. No business runs this way. This is a gimmicky way under which we can disguise how much we put this country in debt, and it ought not to be that way.

Most people understood that and would agree with it. Yet we find ourselves here. I am not happy we are doing a supplemental emergency bill in that regard.

The second thing is many of the things with Katrina we knew were coming before the budget came through the Senate and the House, and that should not be an emergency. Emergencies are supposed to be reserved for true emergencies, unexpected costs facing the Federal Government. This bill is loaded with things that are not unexpected. We knew the war was going to be expected. We knew some of these costs associated with Katrina and Rita and Wilma were expected. So we need to address the integrity of our process. It is my hope in June we will be able to do that.

I know this amendment will, in fact, not win when it comes to a floor vote on the Senate floor. But I want to give a little background. During Hurricane Katrina, large sections of the CSX railroad along the gulf coast of Mississippi were damaged or destroyed. One 40-mile stretch of track was completely destroyed. The railroad hugs the gulf coast and stretches from New Orleans to Mobile, AL. It is one of only two railroads that reach New Orleans from the east. The other passes over Lake Ponchartrain and runs parallel to the I-10 Twin Spans Bridge. Three railroads approach New Orleans from the west. Although the CSX railroad was significantly damaged by Katrina, it was repaired; $250 million in insurance proceeds and I believe somewhere between $30 million and $50 million from CSX to repair it and bring it back up to usable and safe status.

Governor Barber, following Hurricane Katrina, created a commission. My hat is off to him. I think he has done a wonderful job for the State of Mississippi and their response to this. This commission was to review and recommend options for recovery and rebuilding in the State of Mississippi. The report released by the Governor's commission recommended purchase of the CSX right-of-way in order to create a new east-west thoroughfare, relieve congestion on US 90, and to provide for light rail or rapid transport through Gulfport. The report also proposes to transform US 90, which runs directly along the gulf coast, into a scenic, pedestrian, friendly beach boulevard. One of the Commission's reports also states:

For many years, planners and local leaders have called for

the removal of freight traffic on the CSX railway, which runs

east-west through the region, roughly 800 feet from the

coast.

I actually went to Mississippi and visited this area after the hurricane. You can see the hurricane damage, you can see this road, and then you can see the rail.

Numerous news outlets, including the Washington Post and ABC, have stated local developers and planners have wanted this railway relocated for years. I agree with that. I think this is a great development plan for the State of Mississippi to enhance the value of their beaches, their waterfront, and the wonderful coastal assets they have. I do not object to the plans behind this. I think it is very good from a developmental standpoint.

What is unknown at this point is where the existing CSX freight traffic will be transferred. While the Governor's commission recommends in some areas the relocation of the railroad somewhere north of I-10, which is 3 to 6 miles from the coast, the Commission's final report pegs the cost of that proposal at $795 million and states the idea is no longer seen as practical. If the entire railroad right-of-way of Mississippi is purchased by the State, rail traffic heading west from Alabama would have to be rerouted northwest from Mobile to Hattiesburg, into Mississippi, and then southwest into New Orleans and Lake Ponchartrain. The additional distance of this route relative to the CSX line along the coast is approximately 100 miles. There is currently a railroad that runs from Hattiesburg into Gulfport, but if the CSX right-of-way is surrendered, it would not be possible for a freight train traveling along that line to go from Gulfport to New Orleans.

There are a lot of other things I will not go into. I think the principles that

we ought to be asking about are, is this a bad idea? No, it is not a bad idea. It is a good idea.

No. 2, is it an emergency? I would contend that this is not an emergency, especially on the fact that this has been planned and advocated for years in Mississippi in terms of the development--some for safety. Some will argue the railroad line now has 70-plus crossings. But the statistics on safety are that they are at a 5-year low in terms of injury. For 30 years it has been a declining number. It is not an emergency.

The railroad is vulnerable, where it currently lies, to hurricanes. There is no question about that. But so will a five- to seven-lane highway that is going to be put in its place be vulnerable.

The current budget resolution for 2006 explicitly defines what constitutes an emergency, and it should be noted that all of the following five criteria must be satisfied in order for something to be considered an emergency: necessary, essential, and violent; sudden, quickly coming into being and not building up over time; an urgent, pressing, and compelling need requiring immediate action; unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated; and not permanent, temporary in nature.

The proposal to move this railroad does not meet the definition of emergency as defined by the Congress. The permanent removal of a railroad to make way for permanent construction of a highway does not qualify as an emergency either, as well. While the railroad may indeed be vulnerable to hurricanes because of its proximity to the coast, it makes no sense to replace it with a highway that is going to be just as vulnerable in its proximity to the coast.

Despite the vulnerability of the railroad, CSX and its insurers quickly repaired the lines such that it was fully operational within months of its destruction.

There is no desire, I believe, by CSX to move this line, and it would be good business sense if CSX thought it was vulnerable to the point it should make a business decision to move the line interior to the State of Mississippi.

According to Gary Sease, a spokesperson for CSX:

We rebuilt that line across the gulf coast as quickly as

possible because it is a critical artery for us. It serves

our purposes. It meets our customers' needs. There is

absolutely nothing wrong with it.

Furthermore, at a time when it is important more than ever to have freight quickly delivered to devastated regions in New Orleans along the gulf coast, it is inadvisable to remove one of the only railroads into New Orleans from the east, one of two, thus forcing the remaining freight over Lake Pontchartrain.

Within the emergency spending bill, the railroad funding is provided through the Rail Line Relocation Capital Grant Program which was created in the 2005 highway bill. That program requires the Secretary of Transportation to analyze the effects of the railroad relocation on motor vehicle, pedestrian traffic, safety, community, quality of life, and area commerce. However, the language providing money for the railroad specifically prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from considering those factors as they apply to the CSX relocation.

If safety is a sufficient reason to relocate the rail, it is incredibly odd that the Secretary of Transportation would be prohibited from making judgments as to the effects of the railroad relocation on safety and traffic. We will hear today that hurricane evacuation is a reason to relocate the railroad so it will relieve congestion along U.S. 90 and allow for a better evacuation route in the potential of future hurricanes. They will also say at the same time that the railroad's current location is too vulnerable to future hurricanes. These claims are mutually exclusive and cannot be both true at the same time.

If the current location is too vulnerable to future damage, it makes no sense to build a brand new highway in exactly the same place. It will be wiped out in the next massive hurricane as well.

Both the railroad and the proposed new east-west thoroughfare are located half a mile from U.S. 90 and the gulf coast. A major interstate highway, I-10, is located only 3 to 6 miles farther to the north. Given that the railroad was completely destroyed by Katrina at least over a 40-mile section, the argument that a new road in its place would be safe is hard to fathom.

I have great respect for the Senators from Mississippi. They are great advocates for their State. They are accomplished legislators. They are experienced beyond all means in the operations of the Senate and how to accomplish the best goal that they perceive for their State and our country.

I have to say that at some point it has to stop. Americans have to ask the question:

No. 1, is something truly an emergency?

No. 2, is it truly the responsibility of the rest of the country to do an economical development project that was on the drawing table long before Katrina and to use Katrina as the justification to have the rest of us pay for it?

I don't believe that is fair for future generations of this country. I don't think it is fair for the process.

I think you can see in the wording of this bill that the very definition of emergency is not met. I think you can also see very clearly that blocking the Secretary of Transportation from making an evaluation on safety was designed because they may in fact not pass that test. It has to stop. Our children and grandchildren deserve for us to preserve the opportunities we have had. We cannot continue to borrow money from their future standard of living so we can do what we want to do today. The heritage of our country is one of sacrifice in the present generation to create opportunity for the future.

This is a good plan for Mississippi; it is just not a plan that the people of the rest of the country--especially on an emergency basis-- ought to be asked to do.

If in fact it is brought back through the proper process and channels and looked at by the full committee and this body feels it should be done in a prudent and thoughtful way, that would be far better than putting it into this bill. Mississippi will win if this happens. But the future of our country loses if this kind of thing continues to happen.

This is called an earmark. It is placed in a bill to benefit one specific area at the expense of everyone else. It has legitimate value for the State of Mississippi. It is not an emergency. And it certainly will be paid for through lost opportunities for our kids and our grandkids. Think about what $700 million could do for everybody else in Katrina. How many classrooms can be rebuilt? How many hospitals to serve the poor and helpless can be made available? How much education can we offer up that will create future opportunities and earnings?

The progress we seek to secure for the future is being limited by our own inability to make the hard decisions that aren't pleasing, aren't fun, but that are necessary to secure that future.

If you assume an interest rate on our debt--which is going to be very soon 6 percent--this $700 million relocation will balloon to more than $4 billion by the time we start paying it back. The net present value of this isn't $700 million, it is $4 billion. That is what your grandchildren will have to pay back for what we are proposing to do today.

I respect a great deal the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He has a very difficult job. Everybody asks and nobody wants to give when they come to see Chairman Cochran. Everybody has a need. He has the job to find the best way to get a bill out of his committee. This particular project just happens to lie within his home State, and he advised me that his best recommendation would be for me to withdraw the amendment. I understand why. But I cannot in good conscience withdraw what I perceive to be and many are willing to debate on the floor something that is truly not an emergency, and truly even though it will offer great benefits for Mississippi in terms of economic development is not something the rest of us in the country should be paying for.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to speak a few moments discussing why we are all here.

I ask unanimous consent to answer the questions raised in the debate by the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. President, I will do this quickly.

First of all, what is the definition of ``emergency'' by our own budget rules? Necessary, essential, vital, suddenly, quickly coming into being, not building over time, urgent, pressing, compelling need, requiring immediate action, unforeseen, unpredictable, and unanticipated, not permanent, temporary in nature.

That is the first point I would make.

The second point is the committee's own report says:

Even prior to Katrina, Presidents, business leaders and

local and State officials seriously considered relocating the

rail line from its present location to alleviate burgeoning

traffic which continually worsened as the region's tourism

industry grew.

This is $700 million. It is a great project for Mississippi. I agree. It is probably something that should be done. The question is, Is it an emergency and should everybody else in this country pay for it?

I could go into all the details. I will not do it in deference to the chairman's request that I be brief.

But Mississippi people have spoken. This was planned long before this hurricane. The fact is, if we are going to replace this rail line with Federal money which is going to come in and build a new road, that is going to be susceptible to the same hurricane damage. We have to figure out how we should go through a regular process.

The final point I would make is the committee report eliminates the ability of the Department of Transportation to say whether it is a safety issue. They specifically take it out so they cannot stop it.

The point is, we are leaving the regular process to do something which is maybe a great idea, but our grandchildren shouldn't be paying for it. If we continue to do this, this is going to be costly. This $700 million will cost $4 billion by the time we start paying it back, if we want to sacrifice the next generation--not in terms of trying to take it away from Mississippi but setting a standard of which we can behave in a manner that secures the future. That is what I am asking for.

I am sorry it is against two Senators I really like. I want Mississippi to be a hit. This is not the way for us to conduct business in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama, Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an online public database that itemizes Federal funding.

The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration.

This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization.

This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse, and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of improper payments by Federal agencies.

Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare to bloated bureaucracy. This database would ensure that such spending is better tracked and the public can hold policymakers and Government agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions.

The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop. In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health. The CRISP database contains current and

historical awards dating from 1972 to the present.

This type of information should be available for all Federal contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal agencies and departments.

It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws.

In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha, SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy ``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.''

According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was ``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls-- victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being subjected to rape for profit.''

On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.'' Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert, which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108- 25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM.

Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and ``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual intercourse without the use of a condom.

While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project officer about the particular source of the funding for the conference.''

Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General, OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC but no longer receives Federal funding.

These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public, whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations, and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers and often go completely ignored.

If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, today, along with Senators Barack Obama, Thomas Carper, and John McCain, I introduced legislation to create an online public database that itemizes Federal funding.

The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars.

The Federal Government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration.

This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving Federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of Federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All Federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization.

This would be an important tool to make Federal funding more accountable and transparent. It would also help to reduce fraud, abuse, and misallocation of Federal funds by requiring greater accounting of Federal expenditures. According to OMB, Federal agencies reported $37.3 billion in improper payments for fiscal year 2005 alone. Better tracking of Federal funds would ensure that agencies and taxpayers know where resources are being spent and likely reduce the number of improper payments by Federal agencies.

Over the past year, the Senate Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, which I chair along with ranking member Carper, has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare to bloated bureaucracy. This database would ensure that such spending is better tracked and the public can hold policymakers and Government agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions.

The Web site required by this bill would not be difficult to develop. In fact, one such site already exists for some Federal funds provided by agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. The CRISP, Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects, is a searchable database of federally funded biomedical research projects conducted at universities, hospitals, and other research institutions. The database, maintained by the Office of Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health, includes projects funded by the National Institutes of Health, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and Office of Assistant Secretary of Health. The CRISP database contains current and

historical awards dating from 1972 to the present.

This type of information should be available for all Federal contracts, grants, loans, and assistance provided by all Federal agencies and departments.

It often takes agencies months to verify or to determine an organization's funding when requested by Congress. There are numerous examples of Federal agencies or entities receiving Federal funds actually trying to camouflage how Federal dollars are being spent or distributing public funds in violation of Federal laws.

In October 2005, the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources questioned the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, assistant administrator to determine if the agency was funding a proprostitution nongovernmental organization called Sampada Grameen Mahila Sanstha, SANGRAM, in apparent violation of Public Law 108-25. This law prohibits funds from being used ``to promote or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution or sex trafficking,'' and organizations seeking Federal funding for HIV/AIDS work must have a policy ``explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking.''

According to an unclassified State Department memorandum, Restore International, an antitrafficking organization working in India, was ``confronted by a USAID-funded NGO, SANGRAM while the former attempted to rescue and provide long-term care for child victims of sex trafficking. The confrontation led to the release of 17 minor girls-- victims of trafficking--into the hands of traffickers and trafficking accomplices.'' According to this memorandum, SANGRAM ``allowed a brothel keeper into a shelter to pressure the girls not to cooperate with counselors. The girls are now back in the brothels, being subjected to rape for profit.''

On November 16, 2005, a USAID briefer asserted to subcommittee staff that USAID had ``nothing to do with'' the grant to the proprostitution SANGRAM and that the subcommittee's inquiries were ``destructive.'' Nonetheless, congressional investigators continued to pursue this matter and eventually proved that USAID money financed the proprostitution SANGRAM through a second organization named Avert, which was established with the assistance of four USAID employees as a passthrough entity. USAID has held the ex-officio vice chairmanship of Avert since inception. According to documents obtained by the subcommittee, the USAID board member of Avert voted twice to award funding to SANGRAM--July 27, 2002 and again on December 3, 2004--the last time being some 18 months after the provisions of Public Law 108- 25 prohibited taxpayer funding of proprostitution groups like SANGRAM.

Last August, HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and ``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual intercourse without the use of a condom.

While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate. In a letter dated October 28, 2005, CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding admitted that ``Although CDC was not listed as a sponsor, a portion of CDC's cooperative agreement with Utah, $13,500, was used to support the conference. While Utah informed a CDC project officer that Utah and the Harm Reduction Coalition were sponsoring the conference and shared a draft agenda with the project officer, Utah did not inform the project officer about the particular source of the funding for the conference.''

Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a number of dubious HIV prevention workshops, including ``flirting classes'' and ``Booty Call,'' orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using Federal funds for the programs. An HHS Office of Inspector General, OIG, investigation also concluded in November 2001 that Federal funds were used to finance the programs and that the programs themselves contained content that may violate Federal laws and Federal guidelines were not followed. The OIG found that the activity under review ``did not fully comply with the cooperative agreement and other CDC guidance,'' that the CDC requirement for review of materials by a local review panel was not followed, and characterized some of the project activities as ``inappropriate.'' Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC but no longer receives Federal funding.

These are just a few recent examples from only a couple agencies uncovered due to aggressive congressional oversight. While the public, whose taxes finance these groups and programs, watchdog organizations, and the media can file Freedom of Information Act, FOIA, requests for this same information, such requests can take months to receive answers and often go completely ignored.

If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability and transparency in how the Government spends our money, which will hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the Federal Government.

Mr. President, today the Senate considers The Year of the Museum resolution which asks for Congress to support the goals and ideals of the Year of the Museum and asks the President to call upon Americans to observe this year with appropriate programs and activities.

I encourage citizens to utilize and support their local museums which serve as a wonderful resource for communities. There is great value for citizens in the arts, historic collections and museums. They are a reflection of our culture and people, and are important to our history and national identity. Children and young learners benefit tremendously from art programs in the schools. These activities make for well rounded citizens, tomorrow's leaders. Museums play an important role in our lives.

The Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, which I chair, held a hearing on Federal funding of museums this week and found that Federal support of the arts and humanities, which includes museums, has increased 25 percent in the last 5 years. During a time of tremendous financial challenge, we must exercise thrift and frugality with taxpayer money.

Why not hold museum and arts funding steady at current levels? I believe that budget increases for nonessential activities during a time of great challenge to our Nation are indefensible. It is Congress that holds the purse strings and, frankly, we have been unwilling to make the tough decisions today for the future well-being of our grandchildren.

As a government we have spent over $7 billion on such programs and institutions since 2001, but where in the Constitution does it allow the Federal Government support museums and the arts by taxing citizens to pay for museums in other cities and States? Essentially taxpayers are being forced to subsidize museums they do not attend. Museums spend $21 for every visitor while only earning $5.50 in revenue per visitor according to the American Association of Museums.

I remind my colleagues that the current fiscal environment of war, Katrina and Social Security and Medicare insolvency is a very serious situation. One criticism of the President I have is that he has not asked the American people to sacrifice during wartime. We cannot, as a government, do everything we would like to do. I think the American people would be very forgiving and willing to make sacrifices if only asked. During a time of war Presidents Roosevelt and Truman slashed nondefense spending by over 20 percent. It can be done.

There are several opportunities for Federal funding of museums through competitive grants administered by the Institute for Museum and Library Services and the National Science Foundation which are peer reviewed and grantees are held accountable and must meet financial management requirements as well as other conditions.

Museum earmarks, however, proliferate, especially in the home States of members of the powerful Appropriations Committee. This year 69 percent of museum earmarks went to their home States. These museums get to cut in line and skip the competitive application. Favored projects receive money without having to compete with the other museums. These projects have not had to demonstrate their merit or worth to a community, but get a cash award nonetheless. There is something wrong with this system. What's more, several museums split their earmark requests across bills in the same year to hide the true cost. The same museums request earmarks every year, and get them. Since 2001, over 860 earmarks have been handed out to museums.

I support the ideals of the Year of the Museum, but I ask my colleagues to exercise fiscal restraint and stop focusing on political expediency and start thinking about future generations.

Given the local nature of most of the grants and earmarks, it is difficult to defend the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to benefit a small group of people in Muskogee, St. Louis, or Anchorage. If a community truly wanted such an institution or program, they would and should find a way to pay for it with local and State money, or through admission fees.

Mr. President, the spending process in the Congress is broken. Some will argue that now is not the time to debate spending reform or budget reform. They will say that now is not the time to have a debate about our country's spending priorities. They will argue that right now we need to just ``pay our bills'' for past transactions and discuss reforms some time in the future. Raising the debt limit, however, does not count as ``paying the bills.'' We are not paying our bills.

Last fiscal year, the real Federal deficit--the amount by which the Federal debt increased--was $538 billion. When we raise the debt limit, we are not ``paying our bills.'' We are merely taking out another line of credit--another loan--to allow for more spending that we can't afford. It is akin to a deeply indebted family getting a loan for a new car or getting a new credit card or line of credit without cutting up the old credit cards that got them in trouble in the first place.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Government spent roughly $2.5 trillion during the last fiscal year. Let's look at that amount of spending another way. If the Federal Government spent $2.5 trillion last year, that means that on average, $6.8 billion was spent each day, or $78,418 was spent per second by the Federal Government.

I believe that it is absolutely necessary to have an open and honest debate about our spending priorities. We are getting ready to increase this country's debt limit to almost $9 trillion. Over the past 5 years, our national debt has increased by $3 trillion, or nearly $9,000 per American. That is a lot of money. In 1990, our total national debt was about $3 trillion. That means that it took our country more than 200 years to accumulate that amount of debt--200 years to increase our debt by $3 trillion. We just added that much new debt in only 5 years.

In 2001, the share of Federal debt per person in this country was a little over $20,000. That includes everyone--not just those in the workforce. According to the Office of Management and Budget and the Census Bureau, total Federal debt per American will rise to $29,000 per American by the end of 2006. That is an increase of $9,000 per man, woman, and child in this country since 2001. But a lot of people are quick to dismiss that figure. They will say that it doesn't matter, that we only need to worry about how debt and deficits compare to economic growth or to the size of the economy. I think a better rule of thumb is how Government growth compares to the growth of wages and earnings.

If regular Americans are tightening their belts, the Federal Government should do the same instead of engaging in yet another spending binge. Since 2001, total Federal debt per American has increased by $9,000. But over that same time period, the average wages of American workers have only increased by $4,200. Over the past 5 years, the growth of Federal debt per person has doubled the growth of average wages of American workers. What makes this situation even worse is that that $9,000 increase in debt per person is just going to get bigger and bigger because we are not doing anything to cut spending or prepare for the impending fiscal crisis that will result from the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Interest on that debt is just going to get larger.

Last year, interest costs--the costs of Federal debt that the Government must pay to those who buy U.S. Treasury bonds--were about 8 percent of the total Federal budget. In contrast, the average American spends roughly 5 percent of his or her income on credit card debt and car loans according to the Federal Reserve. The Federal Government spent close to $200 billion on interest costs alone last year. According to the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, interest costs will consume 25 percent of the entire Federal budget by 2035. Let's put that figure into perspective. Twenty-five percent of the Federal budget is a huge amount.

By way of comparison, the Department of Education's share of Federal spending in 2005 was approximately 3 percent of all Federal spending. The Department of Health and Human Services was responsible for approximately 23 percent of all Federal spending. Spending by the Social Security Administration was responsible for about 20 percent of all Federal spending. Spending on Medicare was about 12 percent of all Federal spending. Spending in 2005 by the Department of Defense--in the midst of two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a global war against terrorism--comprised about 19 percent of all Federal spending. Thus, if we do not change our current spending habits, GAO estimates that as a percentage of Federal spending, interest costs in 2035 will be larger than defense costs today, Social Security costs today, Medicare costs today, and education costs today.

No family in America would ever be able to manage its finances this way. No family would be able to build up insane amounts of debt, unilaterally increase all of its credit card limits with no ability to ever pay them off, and still be able to spend, spend, spend without any accountability. We have some very serious problems to address regarding spending priorities in this country.

According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress appropriated $64 billion in earmarks for 2006, the current fiscal year. That doesn't even include the earmarks from the highway bill that was passed in 2005. We are going to spend $64 billion on earmarks and pork projects across the country this year even though it is estimated that the real Federal deficit--including the money that is regularly stolen from Social Security--will again surpass half a trillion dollars.

Earmarks are a serious problem because they put parochial interests ahead of national priorities. They put the interests of the next election ahead of the interests of the next generation. Some, however, argue that earmarks are not really a problem because they comprise a small percent of the budget. They argue that entitlement spending is the problem and that we ought to address that problem instead of focusing on earmarks. These arguments completely miss the point.

If entitlements are the real problem and earmarks are not a problem, then why did entitlement savings passed in the last budget resolution for fiscal year 2006 only amount to $5 billion? If entitlements are the real problem, why did we spend 13 times more money on earmarks last year than we saved in entitlement programs? At that rate, we will solve our country's fiscal problems some time after never. The budget resolution we passed last year created entitlement savings of about $40 billion over the next 5 years. We spent more on earmarks in 1 single year than we saved from entitlement programs over 5 years. Over the past 3 years--since 2004--we have spent nearly $160 billion on earmarks and special interest pork projects according to the Congressional Research Service.

Since 1994, the number of individual earmarks has more than tripled, increasing from 4,126 in 1994 to 12,852 in fiscal year 2006. Of those 12,852 earmarks, over 95 percent were not even included in bill language. Instead, they were hidden within conference reports. Many never even saw the light of day until they were snuck into unamendable conference reports that were sure to be rammed through at the last minute. Earmarking is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed before we can get our fiscal house in order. However, there are also other spending issues that this body should address.

The issue of improper payments by the Federal Government is one that

can and should be fixed. The subcommittee that I chair--the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management--has examined this issue in depth. We have uncovered numerous examples of improper payments that waste taxpayer money and harm those who aren't receiving the assistance they need. An improper payment is basically a payment that was either made to the right person in the wrong amount or a payment that was given to the wrong person, regardless of the amount. Improper payments include payments that were too high and payments that were too low.

According to estimates by the Office of Management and Budget, improper payments last year totaled $37 billion. That figure is larger than last year's expenditures by the Departments of Commerce, Interior, State, and Environmental Protection Agency combined. The amount of improper payments just from last year could have completely funded four major Federal agencies. Improper payments are a very serious problem. For example, 28 percent of all payments within the earned income tax credit program are incorrectly made. Thus, for every dollar we spend in that program, 25 cents are completely wasted. Improper payments within the Social Security Administration totaled nearly $6 billion. And these figures don't even take into account the seven major programs with outlays totaling about $228 billion that are not yet even reporting their improper payments.

There are some who wish to make the issue of spending a partisan issue, but it is not a partisan issue. Members of both parties are guilty of putting short-term interests ahead of long-term priorities. Last week, Members of both parties voted to ignore Senate budget rules in order to spend an additional $1 billion that is not paid for on home-heating costs even though the month of January was the warmest on record and winter will be over in less than a week. Both parties appear to lack the political courage to make the hard choices to address our impending fiscal crisis. This issue has nothing to do with Republicans and nothing to do with Democrats--it has to do with what is best for the American public.

Mr. President, the spending process in this body is broken. Our priorities are completely out of whack. Earmarking and wasteful spending are out of control. It makes no sense to effectively max out our credit cards and ask for a higher credit limit when we have no intention and no ability to ever actually pay for our debts.

I object.

I am.

Mr. President, I don't want to be offensive in any way. I listened to two talks about where we are,

and I agree with where we are financially. But there are some facts that are left out of the story. There is no question that spending has increased. There is no question the debt is going up. But who is responsible for it? We can talk about it. First, we had a recession, and then 9/11 came, and there were rosy projections we all knew for certain weren't right. But to turn around and blame our debt on the President of the United States is not only in error, it is not factually correct, and it also tends to shun the responsibility we have as a body.

The President cannot sign any bill we don't pass. This President became President in early 2001, at which time the Republicans weren't in control of the Senate. There was a divided--in 2002, that is, and there was a divided control. But during all that period of time, the bills that went to the President were voted on by Congress; both the House and the Senate passed bills. I also note that those people who have been so earnestly talking about our debt limit, which I plan on attacking aggressively--there is some credibility there with the talk.

This last year they voted for over $700 billion in new spending. So if, in fact, you want to control the spending and you don't want the debt limit to go up, you can't continue to vote for unlimited spending increases.

There is no question that we have increased revenues that are not what they probably could be if we ran the Government much more efficiently, but the very fact that we would have people who claim they are appalled at the debt limit and then every time we cast a vote for an increase of spending that is not paid for or not offset in another way adds directly to that debt limit.

The responsibility lies in the Congress for the spending. It is not the executive branch. As a matter of fact, we have sent multiple bills, and if you look at the votes on the multiple bills that have come through this body, they are not just a majority vote, they are a supermajority and many times unanimous. So to claim and lay that on the executive branch when, in fact, it is our responsibility belies the truth.

The facts that the Senator from North Dakota outlined are very accurate in terms of where we are. Here is one of the most important facts. The increase in debt per Americans since 2001 is over $8,000. The increase in the annual earnings per American workers since 2001 is less than $4,000. We are about to become the first generation of Americans to leave the next generation worse off. But as long as we are finger pointing and saying it is somebody else's problem, we are not going to solve the problem.

We had an opportunity this past year in which we slowed down the growth of Medicaid by $4.8 billion a year and over a 5-year period. That total cumulative cost is $38.8 billion. That is the savings for 5 years. But the earmarks alone that this body passed last year were $64 billion.

I am highly concerned about the debt limit, and it is doubtful that I will be voting to extend the debt limit, but I certainly am not going to stand here and let people claim that it is the executive branch's responsibility. It is not. It is ours, and we failed. We have failed our grandchildren, we have failed our children, we have failed the people who are paying taxes today in this country. We would rather get reelected by doling out earmarks and pork than solve the real long-term problems of our country, and we can see that very easily when we look at earmarks related to the size of the Federal Government.

There is a cause-and-effect relationship. As a matter of fact, tomorrow morning we are having a hearing on earmarks in the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee, the oversight Committee on Homeland Security. What you see is that in 1994, there were 4,000 earmarks and about $4 billion. Last year, there were 15,877 earmarks, and the total spending by the Federal Government was over $2.6 trillion. There is a correlation. It is that we don't want to do the hard work of making the hard decisions.

So when we have $64 billion in earmarks in 1 year and we can't get the hard savings of $4.8 billion in just slowing the growth of Medicaid from 8 percent to 7.9 percent, and we barely pass that, what we have is a refusal to do our duty.

The points the Senator from North Dakota made in terms of his financial analysis were all accurate. You can't dispute it. He points out very accurately the double standard on accounting gimmicks that the Congress is using.

It is my hope that tomorrow we will be able to discuss this more. I know the chairman of the Finance Committee would like to have the floor, and at this time I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I cannot help but make a few comments on the speech we just heard, noting the fact that over $500 billion in new spending was offered, of which over half was voted for by the ranking member on the Committee on Finance last year--new spending unpaid for-- and has the audacity to talk about the President getting us into this fix.

I mentioned earlier, this Senate and the House, the Congress, got us into this fix. The bills start in the House, they come to the Senate, and the irresponsible spending that has gone on has been a compilation of many factors. But most of it rests upon the Members of the Senate who refuse to make the hard choices in terms of spending.

I also note during last year's appropriations cycle, I offered amendments that were called sunshine amendments to make sure we knew what was in the bills we were voting on. I also note that the ranking member voted against those both times they were offered.

It is disingenuous to claim lack of responsibility. It is all of our responsibility. The Nation does not want to hear Congress pointing fingers. They want a solution to the problem. That solution comes through by restraining the discretionary accounts, rather than offering another $200 billion or $300 billion this year of new spending that is unpaid for. It also comes through working the hard issues of changing the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and reforming Social Security, like the President of this body has led on in the past.

The record should be clear that actions speak much louder than words. The actions of the ranking member of the Committee on Finance do not match up to the words that were just spoken. The responsibility lies on all. All are guilty of not doing what is in the best long-term interests of this country. That is what has to change.

We can play the political games. We can point fingers. But the fact is, I take responsibility for that, and every other Member of that Senate who has been here since 2001 should, September 11, 2001, when the economy failed, went through the tank. Since then we have been trying to build back this economy.

Quite frankly, the economy is in the greatest shape it has ever been in, in terms of growth, productivity, jobs. What we do need to address and will address in the future is changing health care overall so people can have access to affordable health care.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

In executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the Agriculture Committee be discharged from further consideration of the following nominations, and that they be placed on the calendar: PN 1079 PN, Marc L. Kesselman; PN 1329, Linda Avery Strachan; PN 1196, Boyd Kevin Rutherford; PN 1158, Gale A. Buchanan.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 402, which was submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution

be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 9 a.m. on Thursday, March 16. I further ask consent that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 83, the budget resolution, as under the previous order.

Mr. President, today we have made significant progress on the budget resolution. We had 10 rollcall votes on amendments to the resolution. The bill managers have done an exceptional job working through the process. That being said, we have many amendments filed, and Senators who have amendments should already be working with the bill managers.

Tomorrow will be a very busy day. Under an agreement reached this afternoon, tomorrow morning at 10:30 we will have a series of votes on the budget resolution and the debt limit bill. At 1:30, all time on the budget resolution will be deemed expired and the vote-arama will begin. Senators are reminded to stay close to the Chamber and plan their schedules accordingly.