Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

I understand that other Senators may be coming to speak on the amendment. But I wish to speak in general in support of the bill itself.

Mr. President, yesterday, Monday, September 11, 2006, marked the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of our country, on September 11, 2001. It was an emotional day for all of us. There were feelings of remembering the unity that it brought to all of us even here in this institution after that dreadful day. It was a day of mourning and sadness and a lot of mixed emotions. But I also think it reminded us once again that the terrible threat we saw come to fruition on that fateful day is still with us and we have more work to do.

I think it is important for those of us in Congress to point out that we have done a lot to address the terrorist threat to try to make our country safer from a variety of security vulnerabilities since then. I don't think we talk enough about what we do. But I remember very well the months after September 11, 2001, the fall of that year on into the next year, for a period of weeks--yes, even months--when we worked together. We put aside partisanship, we put aside political interests, and we decided we were going to do what was right for our country. It was a great time.

I note that the approval rating of the Congress during that period went to the highest level it has ever been before or since. The people liked it when they saw us working together and doing the right thing for our country. Of course, I should note that it has probably fallen steadily ever since then. But we have more to do.

I took the time last month to go to the west coast and look at ports, to look at ships that come in and their cargo, how the targeting works, how the random selection works, how the scanning works, how the intermodule systems work. It is an incredible thing to see, all the cargo coming into and going out of our west coast port--in fact, all of our ports.

I represent ports that serve the Gulf of Mexico and, of course, we have our very important east coast ports, too. It is a phenomenal thing to see where good progress has been made, but more needs be done.

I do not know if it is fiscally possible or physically possible to guarantee that our ports are secure. But we have done some, and we need to do more.

I point out that we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. This was major legislation. And I was very pleased we were able to get it done. It has made a difference. It has a number of provisions in it that have helped us to move toward more sophisticated analysis of cargo shipment data; cooperative arrangements between foreign ports and businesses involved; targeted deployment of nonintrusive scanning and radiation detection equipment. Great progress is being made in this area.

The next generation of these scanners is ready to come onto the market. I took a look at how one of them works. It scans a container in 12 seconds. You can pick up something as small as a pistol snuggled among the cargo. You can pick it out because I saw it. If I picked it out, just about anybody can pick it out.

But that was a good piece of legislation. Now we have this next step, the Port Security Act of 2006. I thank the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Collins of Maine, and her ranking member, Senator Lieberman. They deserve great credit for having produced a good bill--and then they took it beyond that. They worked with the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, on which I serve, to address concerns of that committee and some of their jurisdictional interests.

Then we had to go another step and work with the Finance Committee. Good work has been done. It has been done by three different committees and in a bipartisan way.

Now we have an opportunity to do something good and something that is needed, but more is needed. There is no question about that.

This bill will improve security at our seaports by including waterway salvage operations in port security plans. It calls for unannounced inspections of port facilities to verify the effectiveness of facility security plans.

I want to reemphasize I was a little surprised and impressed at what I saw at the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma--the security operation, the way the port officials work with Government officials and work with our security officials, DEA and Customs, and all the rest of them where there is a maze of entities that are involved. It seems to be working pretty well, I say to the Senator from Washington State. I went out there, frankly, not expecting much, and I was surprised and relatively pleased.

Am I still concerned and nervous? When you look at the Port of Seattle, as the Senator said on the floor, you have a city, two stadiums right there in a pretty compact area. You have ships coming in from all over the world at a steady stream. The risk of danger is unsettling, to say the least.

We need to do more. This legislation provides additional direction on the implementation of the Transportation Worker Identification Card Program. We can do that. In fact, they have already done it in the private sector. It is just the Government that is lagging behind.

It mandates the establishment of interagency operation centers to coordinate the security activities of the many Federal, State and local agencies.

I get a little nervous because I have dealt with this, too, where you have a major event. I remember one time when we had a drug cargo coming into my hometown. A pretty good fracas broke out about what was going to be the lead agency and take the credit. Was it going to be the local sheriff, was it going to be port authority, FBI, Customs or DEA?

Here is my answer: Who cares? Somebody needs to get the job done. Quit squabbling over who is the lead agency or who gets the credit or who gets the blame and make sure it is done seamlessly and effectively. I think we do that with this bill.

This bill mandates the establishment of interagency operations centers to coordinate the security activities of all these different agencies.

It mandates the establishment of an exercise program to test interagency cooperation.

It establishes a training program for ports and their workers.

It improves security in the international supply chain. That is what a lot of people say: Wait a minute, once it gets to Seattle, it is too late. Right. So what is happening at the port of embarcation? Who is looking at the situation there?

The bill ensures that following any maritime transportation security incident there will be an orderly resumption of cargo movement through our ports. It authorizes the Container Security Initiative, which examines containers at foreign ports prior to their shipment to the United States. It authorizes the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program to improve information sharing and cooperation between the private sector and the Department of Homeland Security.

Everything I was concerned about, while I was looking at these ports and ports in my hometown and gulf ports and other ports, I think this legislation addresses or moves in the right direction.

Now, I admit, some of it will include pilot programs or we are going to study this or that, and we waste so much money and so much time with that sort of thing. But when you are talking about very sophisticated, integrated, voluminous programs, like what is going on in our ports, a little thought might be a good idea.

Now, my complaint would be, why did we not do that a year ago, two years ago, three years ago? Well, sometimes the problem is us. We have to legislate. We have to do something. It is not enough that we just stand around and complain about our concerns, and then, when we have a chance to do something, we cannot follow through.

So I urge the leaders of these committees to press forward. Do it now. Let's not drag this out. There will be some good amendments that will be offered. Probably we ought to take them. Some of them are already being considered. Some of them have already been taken. There will be some amendments, really, that are just grandstanding.

Hey, that is our right. We are Senators. But I would just say we need to get this done. There is not a lot we can take credit for in terms of security in this particular Congress. This would be good. And besides that, I would hate to be the Senator who dragged this bill out or voted against this bill when an incident occurs.

This is a plus for the institution. When you do the right thing for the American people, there is plenty of credit to go around. Let's get this legislation passed and let's do it now. We do not need to be working on this at 6 o'clock Thursday night. We can finish this tonight or tomorrow. And then let's move on because it is well considered. It is bipartisan. There are some legitimate amendments. Let's take them up. Let's deal with them, and then let's go to another subject.

But overall, I feel good about the work that has been done on this bill, and I think we need to do more, and we need to do it very quickly. This will be a step in that direction.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from Maine yield for just a brief comment or question or two?

Mr. President, let me just take a moment to thank Senator Collins for her leadership and the work of her committee in this area. I say to the Senator, I have been listening to her remarks. I think it is very important we outline the risks that are involved here and the importance of our ports to the economy of America.

Like the Senator from Maine, I myself recently went around looking at large and small ports, from the gulf all the way to Seattle and Tacoma. I must

say, I was somewhat pleased with the amount of effort that has been put in place in those ports.

But it also dramatizes how much more we need to do. We do need the macro legislation to deal with this. One of the great concerns is, as the Senator outlined, what would happen if we did have an event in one of those West Coast ports? It would lock them all down. What would be the process to restart them? I am also very much impressed with the appearance of those ports and the volume of the training activities. It is a critical area.

While a lot of work has been done and money has gone to our ports, big and small, we need this legislation. There is a lot more to it than just the restart protocols. It hasn't been easy because we have three committees with interest and jurisdiction, including Commerce and Finance. The Senator worked with the leadership of our Commerce Committee and of the Finance Committee, and I thank the Senator for that.

I urge my colleagues in the Senate that we move expeditiously on this legislation and that we not play games with it in any way because this is serious business. I feel for the person who would oppose this kind of legislation, or delay it, if some incident occurs. We need to move on it. This is the time to do it. It has been a real yeoman's task to bring it to this point. I wanted to be on record early commending the Senator from Maine, and I hope I will have an opportunity to talk later about some of the substantive parts of this legislation, which is critical for our country. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, I want to take a moment and wish best of luck to an accomplished, young and promising Mississippian who is leaving federal service to pursue private sector opportunities.

Nick Walters, originally of Wiggins, MS, was appointed as Mississippi's USDA Rural Development Director by President George Bush in 2001. Since then, Nick has done a great job supporting Mississippi's communities, helping to secure resources needed for public facilities, utilities, and for economic development.

This is a key Federal position for my State. As Nick likes to say, this is the ``nonfarm,'' or ``nonfood'' part of USDA. It is about new water and waste water systems, so people can have clean, dependable running water. It is about new community centers, town halls, and even high-tech or educational assets like broadband service, telemedicine and long-distance learning.

Since taking office, Nick has presented scores of oversized checks, in countless, photos for local papers telling stories about a new water tower or a new police car or fire truck.

Some people might think these things are small, and they often are in terms of Federal dollars. But these modest services will reverberate for years to come. As Nick says: USDA Rural Development is really about economic development, helping to encourage and sustain job creation-- paving the way for communities to grow.

Nick has helped administer more than $100 million to Mississippi's cities and towns through this agency.

He hasn't sat on his laurels waiting for mayors, supervisors, town alderman or CEOs to approach him. Nick has been proactive, innovative, and he has actively sought cases and ways to meet individual community needs through USDA's various Rural Development Programs.

We've all heard the old saying: Don't tel1 me what you can't do, tell me what you can do. That has been Nick Walters' approach to public service. His first inclination is to act.

That is something we Mississippians appreciate. After Hurricane Katrina, we saw many Federal bureaucrats in FEMA and elsewhere strapped by indecision, blinded by tunnel vision, stuck on what they could not do, obsessed with the word ``no,'' when they should have been saying ``yes.''

Nick isn't that type. He has provided a great example of what someone in this office can do using its authority to the utmost, and we are working hard to find a successor who will continue this strong leadership.

Nick Walters will be missed, but my guess is that he will be back in public service one day. In what capacity? I don't know. That's a decision for him, his wife Lisa and his young children, Porter and John Garrett.

But now with this success behind him and given his previous experience in the private sector, his work with former Mississippi Governor Kirk Fordice, his stint as chief of staff for the Mississippi Public Service Commission--Nick Walters will be successful in wherever his endeavors may lead.

I hope my colleagues will join me in thanking Nick Walters for his exemplary service to the Federal Government and, more importantly, to America as Mississippi's USDA rural development director.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize and pay tribute to Dr. Walter F. Morrison, Jr., Deputy Director of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Research and Development Center, ERDC, in recognition of his exceptional contributions to the Nation. Dr. Morrison will soon retire with over 30 years service to the Nation as a U.S. Army soldier and civilian leader. His efforts over these years and his most recent leadership in integrating and restructuring the Corps of Engineers Research and Development has been exceptional and will have a significant, long-term positive effect on the lives of our soldiers in combat and the safety of our citizens.

Dr. Morrison was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army and served on active duty at the former Ballistic Research Laboratory, BRL as a first lieutenant and captain after graduating in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology Reserve Officer Training Program in 1976. Upon completion of his military service he continued with the BRL as a civilian employee. Over the next several years he took on positions within the lab of ever increasing responsibility culminating in an assignment as the chief of the Terminal Effects Division with the responsibility for advanced lethality and survivability mechanisms, concepts, and designs for future Army land warfare systems.

In 1998, Dr. Morrison was selected as a member of the Senior Executive Service and assigned as the director for research and laboratory management, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. There, he was responsible for the Army Basic Research, Applied Research programs for the Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Institute, Corps of Engineers, and Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command, as well as several Army-wide programs including Environment Quality Technology, Manufacturing Technology, and Army High Performance Computing. He also oversaw laboratory management policy for all Army laboratories and research centers.

Dr. Morrison has over 80 technical publications. He was elected a fellow of the Ballistic Research Laboratory in 1992 and has been awarded the Department of the Army Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service Award, the Department of the Army Meritorious Civilian Service Award, the Army Superior Civilian Service Award, the Army Research and Development Achievement Award, and the Army Engineer Association Bronze and Silver de Fleury Medals. He received the bachelor's, masters and doctorate degrees in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Throughout his career, Dr. Morrison demonstrated a profound commitment to the Army, the Corps of Engineers, and the Nation. He is a consummate professional whose performance in over 30 years of service has personified those traits of competency and integrity that our Nation has come to expect of its senior civilian leaders.

I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Dr. Morrison for his honorable service to the U.S. Army and the Nation. We wish him and his family Godspeed and all the best in the future.

I would be happy to yield, without losing the floor.

Mr. President, as a Member of the Senate, I must say I never know how long I am going to speak. I will not speak that long, but I may get excited and go a little longer. My guess is not more than 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I rise to speak on this very important legislation, S. 3711. But like others today, I may decide I need to comment on some other issues that will be discussed later on this week.

First, I must say that this week I have been thinking repeatedly about that great line from Rudyard Kipling's ``If.'' ``If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you''--

And it goes on. It is a great poem, it says that if you keep your head when everybody else around you is losing theirs, you shall inherit the Earth, my son.

That is what I would encourage my colleagues to do today. Let's keep cool. Let's not lose our heads. Every one of us is going to get up to speak, and there is going to be somebody on the other side of the issue or on the other side of the aisle who is going to say, That Senator lost his head. Let's keep our cool.

I just heard a speech saying we shouldn't pass this bill because it is not big enough. Yet you are going to hear a speech later this week saying we shouldn't pass one of the next bills because it is too comprehensive.

This is not a bill that is going to solve all of our energy needs. This energy problem has not developed in the past year, or 10, or 20, or 30. It has been coming for years. We have made speeches on this floor about how we are becoming more and more dependent on foreign oil. We were all worried that it would go up to 40 percent, then 50 percent, and now it is 60 percent. If we don't do anything about it, it is going to continue to go up.

Do I think it is dangerous? Yes. I believe we should address it in every way we can.

As I have said before in some of my speeches here, I personally believe that the way to deal with our energy needs is to produce more of everything--make the pie bigger; quit trying to find ways to shrink it; more gas production; more clean coal technology; more hydrogen plants; more nuclear plants; and, yes, alternative fuels--biomass, bio- diesel, conservation; the whole package.

In my opinion, the first option has always been to produce more. That is the way I was raised. You do not have to do with less. You can find more natural resources, you can find more alternative fuels, and we ought to try to do that. I think we can get together on this.

As far as I am concerned this is not a comprehensive package, we passed a big energy bill last year, a very costly bill, with several good provisions in it.

This very morning I met with people saying they were interested in several tax credits. They said they could change automobiles so they could work using propane. We have the infrastructure to do this. There are lots of good ideas out there. We are going to have our first ethanol plant in Mississippi. We are all trying to find a way to do a better job.

This bill will also help our new ethanol plant. It will produce lots more oil and gas, millions of barrels of oil, and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Why shouldn't we do that? Because it does not include all the coasts or all kinds of other resources? That is not good enough.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It will lead us toward more production which will make us less dependent on foreign oil. Why don't we do that? It will have an impact pretty quickly. It will have an impact on the futures markets. I think we can get some of that oil and gas out of the Gulf of Mexico in this designated area sooner than a lot of people think, and in larger quantities.

I urge my colleagues to quit trying to find the perfect. This is good enough. This is a magnificent effort, and it is bipartisan.

I talked to my friend, former Senator John Breaux of Louisiana, a Democrat, this morning. I said, We finally figured out how to bring together a bipartisan package without you. Twenty-two Democrats voted to move to this legislation yesterday. Seventy-two Members of the Senate said let's cut out the frivolous debate, and let's go to the substance here. This is an opportunity to get something done.

Why are we whining about it? Why aren't we high-fiving and congratulating each other and saying to the American people that it is not the end but it is a beginning? It is good. Let's do that. We need to address this overall energy problem.

I have heard some other interesting opposing ideas to this bill. One of them is: Well, if we do this, it will be cutting revenue coming to the Federal Government. Let's see. The math on that one eludes me. If we don't do this, we are not going to get any revenue from this area-- none, zero.

If we do it, we will have a substantial impact on the Federal budget with revenue coming in. Yes, some of it will go to the States in the region and some of it will go to States all over the country. However, there will be a huge impact on revenue coming in from the royalties if we pass S. 3711, to open up millions of acres in the south central part of the Gulf of Mexico.

This, once again from the standpoint of helping the Government and the people, is a winner because revenue will also be coming into the Federal Treasury.

Some have argued: Why should the States in the area benefit? We should benefit because we haven't benefitted in the past; because we have not been treated fairly; because we are the ones who take the risks. We are the ones who have a tremendous coastal impact problem which we must now address: hurricane prevention, protection and coastal replenishment. We have estuaries in Louisiana that are disappearing. We have a huge problem on our hands. With the revenue from off-shore drilling we can pay for it. We are taking the risks, therefore we should have the benefits. At least some benefit. These risks may be very minimal, but we need the revenue to take care of ourselves.

I like the fact that not all of the revenue from this area goes to the Gulf States or the Governors. It goes to the local people. Twenty percent will go to the local people, the supervisors. The individual counties will decide what part of preservation, restoration, prevention, or recovery they will put this revenue into.

For years, the royalties from on shore exploration in the West stayed within the States where drilling was taking place. They got 50 percent of it. Yet, in the Gulf where oil and gas exploration has taken place for years, we have been getting zero except for the tiny percentage we got out of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Basically nothing.

Now we would like to have something similar to what they've had out West. However, we are not saying that it all either has to go to the states or to the Federal Treasury. Part of the revenue will go to the Gulf States, part of it will be going to the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which will go to States all over the Nation, and part will go to the Federal Treasury. For the first time, the Gulf of Mexico States would be getting a fair deal. I am proud of that. All of us from that region--Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama--are supporting this package.

Without us, it probably wouldn't have happened. A lot of credit goes to the Senators from the region, particularly the Senators from Louisiana, Mary Landrieu and David Vitter.

This is also an acceptable arrangement for Florida, which has not been easy. It has been tedious. They want to protect the area that is used for military training. They want to protect their beaches, which are crucial to their tourism. I understand that. I may not agree with them in terms of how far away it has to be, but they believe this is a fair agreement for their state.

That was not easy to achieve. It has taken a lot of time and effort. It is a principled one, from an economical, energy security and environmental standpoint.

All of this drilling will not take place unless it is at least 100 miles from our coast, or 125 miles away from the Florida shore.

By the way, back in the real world, China is prepared to start drilling off the coast of Cuba, which is within 60 miles of Florida. Is that going to happen? Yes. Yet we are prohibiting the drilling for the gulf oil and gas even 125 miles away for the Coast of Florida. This legislation is a good effort. I am proud to be part of it.

Let me speak a little bit about this week. Colleagues, there will be plenty

of time and plenty of opportunity to say: It is your fault, it is this leadership, that leadership, it is Democrats, Republicans, it is this chairman, it is the House of Representatives; recriminations, blame all over the place. We need to put aside the blame game. We need to put aside our own pitiful pride, where we are defending our turf, insisting on the correctness of our position.

If it were my call, I wouldn't set this week up the way it is, but someone has to make that call, and it has been made and I support it. This could be an incredibly good week. If anyone thinks we are going to do better in the elections this year by doing nothing, you are sadly mistaken. Does anyone around here not see where Congress is rated? Between the two parties, it is a question of who is the lowest, not who is the highest.

We need to produce. We used to be able to do that. We used to be able to reach across the aisle and find a way to make it happen. That is what we need to do this week. Envision this: Dream that at the end of this week we will have passed an energy bill that will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil; we will have passed a defense appropriations bill that will help us in the war on terror, and support our troops wherever they stand vigil this very night; we will have passed pension reform that has been years in coming that is in the best interest of corporations and employees all over this country, that is good for aviation and automobile manufacturers, but most importantly of all, working people, people out there making it all happen, people who are worried about their retirement, worried whether their pensions will be there, will it be at the level they were promised? What will it be? How can you transition from defined benefits into defined contributions, 401(K) plans, IRAs? They would sleep better if this dream came through and we finished this week up passing this pension reform with the aviation pension part of it included. And the so-called trifecta.

I don't know much about betting. I must admit that I don't even know what a trifecta is, but I know it is three of something. I suspect that in a trifecta bet the return on a dollar is huge. That is what will happen if we pass this bill.

It has a minimum wage increase, $2.10 over the next 3 years. A lot of small business men and women are concerned about that. How will they cope with that? Will they take it out of the bottom line? Will they lay off people? Will they raise their prices? They are not sure, but the fact is we have not passed a minimum wage increase in 10 years. I was here when that happened. There are a lot of people who feel it is time we do this. We can debate that. We will debate that. But if we are going to get a trifecta, that is part one.

Part two is extenders. That is more Senate talk in Washington for tax provisions, but they are not just insignificant tax provisions; they are the tax credit for research and development, which is about the future of America. If we want to be competitive, we better be doing research and development because the Chinese, the Japanese, even the Russians are beginning to do things in that area.

It has a deduction for college tuition. I thought we were for that. For the first time we are on the verge of getting a fair capital gains rate for timber. I thought we were for that. That part of the trifecta has so many things that will be beneficial for working men and women of America, the people who own a few acres of timberland, for people who want to send their kids to school. We need it. It will produce I don't know how much more revenue than would be expended in tax credits or deductions. You never get finished reaping the benefits of helping your kid go to college and getting an education. It benefits the revenue of our Federal Treasury for years to come. I am one of those. I had a school loan to get through college. I paid it back a few times over through the years. So we ought to do the extenders.

We ought to do a reasonable compromise on the death tax. We will hear ranting and raving about how horrible it is that we would reduce taxes on the wealthy. I am not one of those. I don't have anyone in my blood family who will qualify. I do have a couple of in-laws who would probably qualify for it. But I have never been able to conceive but one other tax worse than the death tax. Just the idea that you work all your life, you produce, you save, you have a house, a farm, a small business, whatever, and the Government shows up when you die and says, give me a huge chunk of it--the principle is wrong. I have never talked to men, women, young or old, all kinds of different races, who say the death tax is a good idea. That is a bad idea. The only tax I know that is worse is the income tax, of course, and the day will come when we will have to fix that, too.

Can I argue about parts of it? Sure. Can I argue against some of the things in the death tax and the minimum wage and how it is constructed? Sure. But is it good enough? Will it help America? Yes.

We can have a vision this week that leads us to do these four things and leave here on a high note. That would be good for America and good for everyone who participated in the effort.

I urge my colleagues to keep calm this week. Let's hold down on accusations. Let's try not to get mad at each other. Let's try to cooperate as much as we can between our leadership. Let's see if we can't do something right for a change in this institution.

I still have faith that the majority of the Senate wants to do what is right for our country, not what is right for our party or our region to the disadvantage of other regions, and certainly not what we are told by our leadership.

Sometimes we do not agree with our leadership, but these guys and ladies have a very tough time. They have to review a lot of things the rest of us don't know about. We have to be prepared to follow. This week they may be pulling against each other, but maybe we can help get them back together and produce a final product.

I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for S. 3711. In fact, I suggest that we vote for everything this week. That would be novel.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I pay tribute to Gloria Cataneo Tosi, president of the American Maritime Congress, on her upcoming retirement. The American Maritime Congress is a research and educational organization in Washington, DC, whose membership comprises ship owners and operators having U.S.-flag vessels in both the domestic and international trades. All of the American Maritime Congress's member companies have labor agreements with the Marine Engineers Beneficial Association.

Mrs. Tosi has been with the American Maritime Congress since 1981 and has served as its chief executive officer for the past 15 years. She is a well-known maritime advocate in the Washington, DC community, including the Propeller Club of the United States. In particular, she often plays a lead industry role on issues affecting the operation of, and cargo opportunities for, U.S.-flag shipping.

While many people think of the U.S. maritime industry as only a commercial interest, it is actually a vital element of our Nation's defense. The Department of Defense could not execute its military strategies and deploy its forces worldwide without the help of U.S. shipyards, ports, shipping lines, and maritime workers. As president of the American Maritime Congress, Mrs. Tosi worked closely with the National Defense Transportation Association to ensure the maritime industry remained aligned with the Department of Defense's requirements.

Mrs. Tosi is a native of Baltimore, MD, whose family was active in the maritime industry. She came to Washington, DC, in 1969 to join the staff of

Helen Delich Bentley, who had been named by President Nixon to chair the Federal Maritime Commission. I served with Helen in the House of Representatives and know her to be an ardent supporter of the U.S. Merchant Marine and the Port of Baltimore. Mrs. Tosi remained at the Federal Maritime Commission for nearly 6 years, which means she gained invaluable experience and insight into the maritime industry at the national level. Upon leaving the Federal Maritime Commission, Mrs. Tosi was employed by the International Longshoremen's Association as the union's director of governmental affairs from 1976-1981. In 1981, she joined her current organization as its legislative and corporate affairs director. In time, her expertise and leadership qualities were recognized and she was selected to be the organization's president. This marks her 25th year with the American Maritime Congress.

I have known Gloria for many years. There has not been a significant piece of maritime legislation that has been considered by the Congress during the past dozen or so years that has not benefitted from her counsel. From the Maritime Security Act of 1995, to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998, to the Maritime Security Act of 2003, and including many provisions included in other laws, she helped ensure that the U.S. maritime industry's concerns were addressed. Equally important, she ensured that the industry's concerns were understood when legislation was proposed that would have had a negative impact on the industry.

Gloria is trusted as an honest voice for all of America's maritime world. She has devoted her professional life to enhancing the American fleet, improving its business opportunities, and establishing a better regulatory regime under which to operate the fleet. She may be retiring, but I expect she will be called on from time to time to offer her expertise as the need arises. In the meantime, she will have more time to spend with her husband Jeff.

Mr. President, I congratulate Gloria for her exemplary career and salute her contributions to the maritime industry. She is to be commended for the productive use of her insights and talents and appreciated for her years of service to the U.S. maritime industry.

Mr. President, I will be glad to defer to the distinguished ranking member of the committee. I won't be long. I will go ahead and address this very important issue.

I begin my remarks by thanking the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, for his leadership in this area. He is one of our more knowledgeable Members. After years of watching him at play, I now refer to him as our No. 1 utility player. Whatever the problem was, he can be helpful. He is knowledgeable on budget issues, energy issues, and also has a practical side: Let's find a way to get it done. Once again, he has done that with this bill.

I know he wants to work with his committee. I know he wants to work with Members on both sides of the aisle. But I know more than anything else he wants to do the right thing for our country. So I thank Senator Domenici for his leadership. He has agreed to do some things in ways he would not do it if he could do it in a vacuum. But that is what leadership is all about. In the legislative process, you don't get it 100 percent the way you want it. You have to give a little and get a little to do the right thing, to produce a product for the American people. So that is the main reason I am here. I want to thank you for that.

I also acknowledge the leadership and encouragement of Senator Martinez, the Senator from Florida, and others from Florida who have been helpful in this effort. I have a great admiration for Florida. It is more or less a neighboring State--a little bit of Alabama intervenes between my State, where I actually live, and the Panhandle of Florida-- and I haven't been able to understand why they have been so opposed to oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico. I understand the concern about coastal areas--the beaches. But there has to be a reasonable and practical way to protect the American people and their needs for this production, and shield our beaches and our tourist industry from harm.

It is easy to say: No, no, I am not going to have it at all. It takes courage and leadership to say: Well, let's work this out in a way that would be the right thing for our military bases in the Panhandle of Florida, and for our tourist industries in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas--we all have that--and take advantage of the tremendous resource that will help the American people, that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This is what this is all about.

It is not just the prices at the pump today; it is about the long- term plan. We have a problem here. It is a growing problem. Are we going to do something about it? This is a step in the right direction. That is the message here. Will this bill solve the problem tomorrow? No. It will have an impact almost immediately, because people will see we have taken some action and they will act. And it probably will have some impact on natural gas pretty quickly. But it is a clear statement to everyone that we realize there is a problem here and we are going to do something about it.

So I thank Senator Martinez for stepping up. Senator Nelson has been involved, and I hope we are going to have a unified group of Senators from the entire Gulf of Mexico area to endorse this concept. We have worked at that. Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, have met and talked on a bipartisan basis about doing the right thing. I have been proud to be a part of that.

Senator Landrieu of Louisiana has been relentless--relentless--has she not, I ask the Senator?

She has worked this issue hard. Senator Vitter has made sure we have done it in the right way. He has looked at the language very carefully. I commend them in particular. Their State has probably been more active involving this issue than any other Gulf States. Their State has also taken some of the negative impact--on the coastal areas--in recent years. Therefore, it is only right that they get a higher percentage of the coastal impact fees and that they be recognized for their effort. Senator Hutchison and Senator Cornyn, Senator Cochran, Senator Shelby and Senator Sessions also deserve to be recognized. We have all been involved.

The next point I want to make is I don't quite understand why we are finding it harder and harder to produce a result. It is has become so hard to be bipartisan. I admit it is almost impossible to get a bipartisan agreement that is bicameral. Maybe it is just a sign of the times; maybe it is the political season we are in which may be a little more testy than normal. But here we have a perfect example of a bipartisan bill. A wide margin of you vote earlier on the motion to proceed to this bill, and we are now in the debate time on that. I predict when we get to the final vote, it once again will be bipartisan, probably higher than anybody would have thought. But this is the way it can happen. This is the way it should happen. So I am glad we are working in a bipartisan way.

I want to say: Look, we made some progress last year with our Energy Policy Act of 2005. It didn't entirely address our energy needs, obviously, but it was a step in the right direction. Now, here is the next step. For years, I have been stressing that our energy policy in this country has to be balanced. I would prefer to produce our way out of our energy situation. I believe we can have more: more oil, more gas, more hydrogen, more nuclear, probably more wind and solar energy too. We can do it all. But I finally came to the conclusion we are not going to be able to just do one part of this equation; we are going to have to produce more, we are going to have to conserve more, we are going to have to look for alternative fuels, and we are going to have to be innovative. I have made that concession. After all, it makes sense. Why don't we do the whole package?

That is what last year's Energy Policy Act began to do, it made some improvements in nuclear and in hydrogen and alternative fuels. However, we can't do all of those things instantly. Very few places are ready to build a new nuclear plant. My State of Mississippi may have been one of the first to build a new nuclear reactor. That is great. We need to move towards alternatives such as liquefied natural gas, and once again, we have to build the facilities. And that won't happen tomorrow.

In the meantime, while we need to make stronger conservation efforts and come up with more alternatives and innovative ideas, and we need more oil and gas. It is that simple. Now, we can get it some way or the other from Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran or we can get our own safely. When I go to my State of Mississippi, people scratch their head and say, why is it that people from a certain part of the United States are determined we are not going to get oil out of ANWR? What is it to them, and what does it mean to the country?

For whatever reason, without impugning anybody's motives, we haven't done it. But we can do it in the gulf. We can do it in the Gulf of Mexico because we know it can be done. We think it will be in the best interests of our States and our people and we think it is in the best interests of America. It is there, it can be obtained safely, miles off the coast.

I want to emphasize right up front: This is not about putting oil rigs or

natural gas wells within the sight of the beach, although there have been natural gas wells in plain view from my front porch in Pascagoula, MS. It is not about that. We do not want our beaches to be threatened. This is going to be at least 100 miles away--in the case of Florida 125 miles away from this 181 and the other areas we are going to open. I think it can be done and it will produce very early results.

Look at what we are talking about here, freeing up 1\1/4\ billion barrels of oil that we won't have to get from some unstable government overseas, and almost 6 trillion cubic feet of gas, that is huge. Others in this country ought to be willing to do the same thing in other coastal areas. But I want to emphasize that this is not about any other coastal area; this is just about our area. We are prepared to step out, do the right thing for our country, take the risks. But we also want to get a little of the benefits, a little help in trying to deal with some of the problems we have in the coastal region.

By the way, one little aside: This bill will reduce the Federal deficit by almost $1 billion over 10 years--$1 billion--probably more. I think all of the numbers are understated. I think we are going to get more oil, more gas, more benefits, more money coming into the Federal Treasury and our States. We will do it without raising taxes or fees on anybody. So we get the benefit of additional supply, we get the benefit of impacting our Federal budget, drilling will produce hundreds of jobs, good-paying jobs. I know the people who work on those rigs out there in the Gulf of Mexico, and I know the kind of money they make. Yes, they work hard and they take risks and they are away from their families, but these will be good, new jobs for good, hard-working people--people who need a little help right now, these are the people who have been hammered by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

For decades, almost every dime generated from leasing of Gulf of Mexico areas for oil and gas all came to Washington--all of it came to Washington. Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama, the States which permit energy exploration off their coasts, reaped very little benefit, but they incurred a lot of the risks, some of the damage and some of the threats. We provide the infrastructure. These boats don't just take off from nowhere; they have to be built somewhere. All of this goes on--it is not all perfect, let me be honest about that. There are certain challenges. So we feel there should be an equitable distribution of the royalties from the Outer Continental Shelf to those of us who are on the front line.

For years States that allow energy production on Federal land receive 50 percent of the Federal revenues from these activities. Those of us in the gulf: zip--other than what we get indirectly through the Land and Water Conservation Fund and through Federal largess, which, in our area, is not much.

So we think this is important. We are trying to stand up and do what we think is right for our country, but we want to also do the right thing for our States. There is a coastal impact. We all know that. This is an acknowledgment of that. The Gulf States which will be producing this would get under this agreement 37\1/2\ percent of the Federal revenues from the new leases entered into after the date of enactment. Twelve and one-half percent, though, of the revenues would go to the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, for all of the States to use. We are not greedy, but we want our fair share for a change. There was a time when we wouldn't stand up, speak up, and fight for what is right for our people. This time, we are going to. It is a win-win. It is right for our country and it is right for us. I think this is a good arrangement.

The money that goes to the States--Senator Landrieu and I have felt it shouldn't all go to the States. Our State capitals and our State Governors are quite often not from the marshes of Louisiana or the beaches of Mississippi. We have to make them understand where we are and who we are. Once again, part of the problem over the years has been our own fault because the attitude in the south of Louisiana and the south of Mississippi is: Oh, well, we will do it ourselves. Well, we are trying to get a better rate. We are trying to make more sense. So 20 percent will go to the coastal counties that are impacted.

I know the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, is here, and he cares about those areas. I want to tell him what these monies will be dedicated to. They will not be frivolously squandered on some project that is not along the coastline. The funds are going to go to coastal conservation, coastal protection, and restoration. Hurricane protection--hello--do we need to do that? By the way, if we don't do it, we know who is going to pay our bill because when we are flat on our back the Federal Government will have to come in again with hundreds of billions of dollars. Let's be proactive. Let's try to do a better job in protecting our coastal areas and our marshes. If we do not take action, the impact on fisheries could be absolutely detrimental. If you don't have these areas of brackish water, you are not going to have the shrimp and the fish we have been trying to develop there. This money will provide for mitigation of natural resource damage.

I firmly believe this will have a great impact in our area. It is the right thing to do. These areas will be better, and in some instances they will be restored. Louisiana is losing land every hour, and although we may not have that big a problem in Mississippi yet, this problem is only going to get worse. We can take action to protect the future.

We have a chance to do some innovative work. In my State of Mississippi, we are not trying to put things back as they were before Hurricane Katrina; we want them to be better. We are coming up with innovative ideas. We are thinking about how can we be better prepared to withstand a hurricane. These funds will make a huge difference in the long run.

I want to make this clear: I think this is a great effort that we will all be able to point to in the future and say that we did something great. This is something that will make a difference. We will be saying to the American people: We understand your pain, we feel it, and we are taking steps to do something about it.

This will not be the last effort. We are going to have to do more. But now is the time to do this. Now is when the people are suffering due to higher prices for oil and for natural gas. It has made it very difficult for people. This legislation will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it will help us with our budget needs, it will provide more money to protect natural resources, and it will bring much needed funds and jobs to the gulf area which was hammered by Katrina and Rita. This is truly a plan which Congress should pass and be proud of and the President should adopt.

I look forward to working with my colleagues as we go forward in the next couple of days to complete action on this important legislation.

Obviously, people who have the time to look at this believe it has been a very unfair situation, one that for some reason or another we have tolerated for years. When they realize the way it is handled in other parts of the country, they feel very strongly it is time we step up and get some benefit.

It is also further exaggerated and exacerbated by the fact that if we believe that we are on the line, dealing with all the costs and all the potential problems that could go along with this, we ought to get some of the benefits so we can prepare for that.

I want to say that the people in the Senate and the American people have been very concerned, sympathetic, and helpful to us after the hurricane. But they know we have coastal impact problems. We need to address some of those problems now, not later, because they have become very serious. There are areas we are losing that are basically going into the Gulf of Mexico, and we can also take steps to preserve what we have and to better prepare for hurricanes, use for protection and mitigation for the future.

The people feel very strongly about it. It is not just our Governors who see this obviously as one way to help us deal with the future needs we have, but also just the rank-and-file people. We understand we need to get it done.

This proposal, which would give our Gulf States some share for our coastal impact, will give us the benefit of getting some help. Also, the people understand this is something we need to do for our country and are willing to do it

in the gulf. I wish the rest of the country would follow our lead. However, we are not going to fuss about that, we are just going to step up and do the job.

Our people do feel very strongly about it. They believe we have not been treated fairly and it is time to do something about it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the nomination of Daniel Jordan. I am glad that the President agreed with my high opinion of Dan and nominated him to the U.S. District Court for Southern Mississippi. In Mississippi, Dan's nomination has received broad bipartisan support and praise. He is a well-respected litigator, and even those who have sometimes opposed him in the courtroom feel he is an excellent choice to serve in the Federal judiciary.

Dan comes from a wonderful family that I have known for a long time. I know that they must be extremely proud of him and all that he has accomplished. I, too, have enjoyed watching him develop into an outstanding father, lawyer, and a respected Mississippian.

Dan is a cum laude graduate in economics from University of Mississippi, where he was inducted into the University's Hall of Fame. In 1993, he received his J.D. from the University of Virginia--where he was on the editorial board of the Journal of Law and Politics. He is currently engaged in the general practice of law as a partner with Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada--the largest law firm based in Mississippi.

In his private practice, Dan has gained broad experience and demonstrated the knowledge, professionalism, fairness, temperament, and skill that make him ideally suited for the Federal bench. Dan is a member of the International Association of Defense Counsel. He serves on the Executive Committee of the Mississippi Bar's General Litigation practice group. Dan is a past-president of the Jackson Young Lawyers Association. He served on the Hinds County Bar Association Board of Directors, the Mississippi Young Lawyers Board of Directors, as liaison to the Bench and Bar Relations Committee of the Hinds County Bar Association and as special prosecutor for the Board of Bar Admissions.

With Federal judicial nominations, it is important that we recognize the honorable service of those who choose to leave private practice to serve. However, Dan's service is not surprising. He has a history of public service. Before attending law school, Dan gained experience while working for the U.S. Department of Interior and later as a legislative aide on my Senate staff.

Since returning to Mississippi and entering private practice, he has continued to find time to serve his community and profession in many ways. He has served as the coordinator for

the Jackson, MS-based Stewpot Legal Clinic--an organization providing legal assistance to the homeless. He has worked with Habitat for Humanity and served as a committee chairman for the Metropolitan Crime Commission. His tireless work has prompted leaders in the Jackson, MS, philanthropic community to laud his efforts and impact.

He has been named one of Mississippi's Top 40 under 40 by the Mississippi Business Journal and honored as Jackson's Finest by the Mississippi M-S (Multiple Sclerosis) Foundation. He is an active member of Christ United Methodist Church in Jackson, MS, and is a loving husband and father of two.

The President's nomination of Dan Jordan comes as no surprise, given his education, experience, reputation, and temperament. I believe that when confirmed, Dan will excel as a fair, honest, measured, and capable judge. I am proud to have the opportunity to voice my full support for Dan's nomination, and I look forward to his confirmation.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside. I wish to comment briefly on amendment No. 4582, which I understand would reverse the Transportation Security Administration's decision to remove small scissors and tools from the prohibited items list.

I understand we want to take every precaution when it comes to security on our airplanes, in our ports, and on our trains, but this is a case where I think the Administrator of the TSA has been trying to do the right thing.

In my opinion, one of the problems with TSA is we have given them tons of money, we have demanded and expected all kinds of security instantly, and it has created certain problems. We should focus our money more wisely. I think the Transportation Security Administration should focus on higher priorities. They have been willing to do that.

I have talked to the Administrator, Kip Hawley, several times about what they are trying to do. This is an issue which does have jurisdiction in the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on which I serve. Frankly, I commended him, privately and publicly, for being willing to take some of these things off the list. How many of you have been through these outrageous processes that you have to go through or have had to go through to get on airplanes? How many times have I been ripped off of scissors or small pocket knives that are no damage at all? I just went ahead and bought them by the dozen. I mean, this is not going to an airplane take.

So common sense is what I have asked the TSA to use: Use your head. My goodness, is this a weapon? It looks pretty dangerous. It is a ballpoint pen. So it is time we have some common sense at the Department of Homeland Security, at the Transportation Security Administration. How many times am I going to have to take off my shoes because one guy tried to light the heel of his shoe? How long is it going to take us to get technology that makes these frisking processes we go through make sense?

Look, the American people don't mind being a little inconvenienced or being delayed a little bit if it makes sense. But I am telling you, I have warned TSA: This is one of the examples where you have a problem because Senators in this instance are like everybody else; when we get on a commercial airplane, we have to endure the same inconveniences and embarrassments and ridiculousness as everybody else.

So I really do oppose this amendment. I think TSA is trying to do the right thing. I go back to what I was talking about a while ago. Senators and Congressmen, you are in a line with your constituents; what are they saying to you? They are ripping us because some of the ridiculousness they have to go through they don't really think makes an airplane or train or whatever more secure.

So I just hope we will not pass this amendment. I believe the TSA has done the right thing, and I hope they will continue to make it less inconvenient, while making it more secure. Focusing on things that really are a danger will allow them to do a better job where it matters.

I just wanted to raise this point of view with regard to the decision by TSA and to object to the amendment that is pending. I hope to focus on this issue and talk about it responsibly among ourselves and with the Transportation Security Administration--that is good, but I think it would be a mistake to reverse these items which have been taken off the list.

Mr. President, I understand there are other speakers who may be in the area, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending amendment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and we return to debate on amendment No. 4560 by Senator Collins.

I am asking that the pending amendment be set aside to return to debate on amendment No. 4560.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to join in the support of amendment No. 4560 to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. I thank Senator Collins for her leadership in this area and for her willingness to work on a solution that I think will be good for the Federal Emergency Management Administration, as it is now known, in the Department of Homeland Security, and result in a better effort by the successor to FEMA in the future.

Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the support of my colleagues in the Senate as we have gone through the aftermath of Katrina and we have come to the floor three or four times asking for help in a variety of areas to help us with the recovery, to get funds for the different Federal agencies, to get funds even to the Federal Emergency Management Administration to help us recover. A lot of progress has been made. I want to acknowledge that.

In 3 years or 5 years, we are going to look back and say that the aid we received from the Federal Government was absolutely indispensable and allowed us to get through this very difficult process.

In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, there were wonderful stories that could be told about the actions of the Coast Guard specifically, let me point out, and by other military installations, faith-based groups, volunteer groups, charitable organizations, by corporate America that sent aid, supplies, money, people. The utilities worked laboriously to get power back on and telephones operative. It was a monumental undertaking.

For those who want to be critical of the recovery effort--and I am one of those--you have to first acknowledge that this was a devastating disaster of Biblical proportions, more than any of us could have comprehended, more than any of us who lived in the line of fire from Hurricane Katrina understood even in the immediate aftermath, including me.

I was there in the immediate aftermath. We lost our house. We are like everybody else along the coastline of Mississippi and Louisiana. It is a very difficult experience. But our people have been resilient, they have been determined, and we are making progress.

We did get through the preparations for the hurricane, saving lives immediately after, getting basics to people who needed them--just basic water and ice. We have gotten almost all of the debris removed, except in some of the swamp and water canals and channels that still has to be removed. We are seeing rebuilding start. Just yesterday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development released $3 billion for the home grants through CDBG so that people who lost their home, had no insurance, and had a mortgage and probably lost their job and their car, their truck, or their dog will have some way to get up to $150,000 to get their homes repaired or rebuilt. So we have made a lot of progress.

I think it is time that we look even more to the future: How are we going to get through the rebuilding period? We are working with elevations, heights that FEMA is requiring; we are dealing with small business loans, all that goes on with the rebuilding effort.

But I am worried about the next disaster. There were some very disappointing results at FEMA. And I want to hasten to say that FEMA, which became a dirty, four-letter word, has a lot of good people in it and has done a lot of really good things, but it could have been and it should have been better. And what troubles me so much, as a Congressman and Senator and even before that as a staff member--I have dealt with the recovery effort after five hurricanes, two major tornadoes, two major ice storms, and a flood. I have dealt with disasters. I have dealt with the emergency arm of the Federal Government, going back to 1969 after Hurricane Camille, when the disaster effort and recovery was carried out by the Office of Emergency Preparedness, OEP. Its offices are right across the street from the Old Executive Office Building, run by a general, a retired Army general, and reportable only to the President of the United States.

They did a marvelous job after Hurricane Camille. The chain of command was short. In those days, the Corps of Engineers brought in the heavy equipment, the trucks, the bulldozers, the front-end loaders, the Bobcats. They cleaned up the debris. Now you have to go through Treasury, a check goes to FEMA, FEMA goes to the Corps, the Corps of Engineers goes to the contractor--out of State probably--and the contractor goes to subcontractors, to sub-subcontractors and, meanwhile, a lot of money is frittered away as everybody takes their bite, on down the line.

Of course, one of the most difficult things was getting the trailers, the temporary housing to people in the area. The logistics of getting trailers is not a big problem, but getting them to the people turned out to be a huge problem. The insanity of how it was managed was inexplicable. I won't go through how difficult it was.

We are still dealing with that. We still have some people who are living in tents because FEMA said: We won't deliver you a trailer if you are in a flood zone. If that is all the property you have--you could bring a trailer into a flood zone, and if you had to, you could hitch it up and pull it out. But people are still living in very difficult circumstances.

I believe we made a mistake when we were creating this huge, new, mammoth Department of Homeland Security where we put all of these different entities, agencies, and bureaus into that agency that wound up having 150,000 or more people in it.

I remember when we were discussing creating this Department of Homeland Security in an office right down the hall. Senator Stevens and Senator Collins and some of us raised questions about how the Coast Guard was going to be handled, and we wound up carving out a special arrangement for the Coast Guard. I won't get into the details of it at this moment. But I raised questions about FEMA, too: Are we sure we want to put our emergency management organization into this big, mammoth department and maybe become overrun by homeland security and terrorism? And the answer was: Oh, absolutely. They need to coordinate manmade disasters, natural disasters, disaster preparation, disaster recovery; it needs to be seamless and they all need to be operating under the same authority.

Well, I relented. I think it was a mistake. I think the emergency management organization has a unique responsibility in preparation for disasters. Yes, they can be manmade as well as natural disasters, but also in the recovery. But I think the chain of command was out of control. The number of officials who were meeting in a room, they would fill up the room and identify all the problems: Oh, we have a flood main broken here. We have schools where the wall is falling in. We have debris in the road. They would get through with the meeting, everybody would leave, and somebody would say: Did anybody get any assignments? Did they agree to do anything? No.

The people that did do something, though, were in the Coast Guard. They helped move people out before the hurricane, rescued people during and after the hurricane, and generally did a magnificent job. Do you know why? Because they had this carved-out, unique position, even though they were in the Department of Homeland Security. They didn't have to go through the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to do what was necessary.

Another example was the Seabees at Gulfport, MS. When they went to these meetings with all of these muckety-mucks, all of these different agency heads, to hear the problems and do nothing about it, the Seabees would make lists of things they could do and they went out and did it. They went out and stopped the leaky water main. They went and removed the debris so you could get into a neighborhood. They went to the school and they took action to tear down or repair or fix a wall so it would at least be safe for their children. You know what. They just did it.

By the way, they could have gotten in trouble because if FEMA hadn't agreed to reimbursement, they would have had to eat the cost of what they did, and some captain in the Seabees could have been in real jeopardy. But, thank goodness, they worked through it. They got reimbursed and did well.

So I think that is part of the problem. I asked the Seabees: Why were you able to do that?

They said: Well, the chain of command was so long and laborious, we decided we would find the things we could do and we would just go out and do it.

FEMA, I think, meanwhile, had been sort of pushed back into the back 40 part of Homeland Security. They had been underfunded, undermanned, and had not been really getting the involvement and the attention they needed. Plus, I was shocked one time when I heard the Secretary of Homeland Security complaining that the head of FEMA was going around him directly to the President. Yes, he should have. You shouldn't have the emergency management and recovery people having to check with the Assistant Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Secretary, the Chief of Staff, the OMB, to get to the President. This is an emergency. It is a disaster, for heaven's sake. So I don't think it worked well.

I don't blame a lot of the good men and women at FEMA; I blame us. We did it. We created a system that didn't work.

So I introduced legislation to move FEMA, like its predecessors, back into a role as an independent agency with specific authorities for natural disasters, reporting only to the President. I was joined in sponsoring that legislation by the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, who knows something about how the predecessor to FEMA worked under its Administrator at the time, James Lee Witt, who also had a little experience with disasters, although the ones he dealt with on 9/11, as the Senator from New York knows, were manmade. Others joined in cosponsoring that legislation.

I still believe that is the best way to go. I think it should be independent.

In the House, you have two separate approaches. You have the independent approach and you have the approach that would keep it locked in Homeland Security. But it seemed to me that there was a third way. There is always a third way, if you will just look for it. I think that is one of the things we have lost in this institution. We get locked into the Republican position, the Democratic position, or some other division, and then we won't talk to each other.

So Senator Collins, to her credit, on her own initiative, said: Can I come talk to you about the proposal that Senator Lieberman and I have, which was to keep it in the Department of Homeland Security, with some changes, and some recommendations I thought would have been positive but still was not the solution I thought we needed. But she came and took the time to explain it to me. It had some attractive features to it. She gave it more authority.

But then I thought about it for a while and I went back to her and I said: Let's find this third way. I think maybe the thing to do is to carve FEMA out into a position like the Coast Guard but within the Department of Homeland Security but with an independent authority, the ability to report directly to the President of the United States. Yes, they could be involved in coordinating and in the preparation for disasters of all kinds, but set them up basically independent within the Department of Homeland Security.

I think it will work. An example is the Coast Guard. So much of the language that we have in this amendment came from the Coast Guard language. I know Senator Collins has taken the time to explain the details of what is proposed here, and I am painting a broader picture of what is involved. But we were able to come to an agreement. Her staff was cooperative. My staff, which has had a lot of experience with this sort of thing, worked with them, and we came to an agreement. By the way, I then went to Senator Clinton and said: I think we can get something done if we do this, rather than just having a big fight. Do you want a big fight or do you want a result? The new hurricane season is upon us.

Now, the media made it sound like on June 8, or whatever the date was that hurricane season begins, we would get hit immediately. Well, those of us who are hurricane pros know that hurricanes generally don't hit in June and July, but they will come in August and September, and this time it may not be Mississippi or Florida; it may be Maine. But it will come somewhere. I don't want to be sitting around here complaining about what it was like because FEMA did not have the authority they needed, didn't have the money, didn't have the power they needed 6 months or a year from now. So we needed to get something done.

Senator Clinton understood what I was trying to do. It is part of the way I think we need to do things around here. It is part of being honorable with each other. She had been a cosponsor. I thought I should explain what I was working on doing. So we came to the agreement that has been produced with this amendment. I think it makes good sense. I think the House will find some wisdom in it, and the most important thing is we will get something done.

It is so difficult to move something through the Senate anymore. Do you think we could really move a whole new, freestanding bill through the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, get it to the floor of the Senate, all kinds of amendments--and let me tell you, I would be one of the ones waiting here with lots of amendments. I have lots of other things stuck in my craw about the hurricanes that I am worried about for the future--or could we go with an amendment, which seems appropriate to me, to the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, get it to the House, get their input, and get a result. Even then, it won't be perfect, but I believe it will be better. This is something we should do.

I will be coming back, until the last day I serve in this institution--whenever that may be--to talk to my colleagues about lessons we learned and things we can do that will hopefully help our people be more secure; that will help people who will be hit with other kinds of disasters such as tornadoes, earthquakes, crickets, or whatever, but we will do it better because of what we learned from Hurricane Katrina.

So I am delighted to be here to support this amendment. In a perfect world I might do it differently, or I might still insist that it can be a separate entity. The amendment even proposes that it be renamed the Emergency Management Administration, I believe--EMA. It is something we can say, and it is not a four-letter word. I think while that is not going to cure a single problem, it is part of creating a new atmosphere and a different mindset, hopefully.

I think the Administrator of FEMA that we have in place now, Mr. Paulson, is a good man. I think he is going to move toward trying to get professional disaster-experienced people in FEMA throughout this country, and I certainly hope he will.

So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and then support this appropriations bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the way the American people responded to the loss and suffering wrought by Hurricane Katrina was probably unprecedented and surely unforgettable. We in Mississippi, and our neighbors elsewhere along the gulf coast, will always remember the aid, the labor, the rescues, the prayers--everything our fellow citizens did to bring us through that terrible ordeal.

I wish it were possible to acknowledge every individual who came to assist us when we most needed them, but that honor roll is far too long for the Congressional Record. Moreover, their names, I am sure, are inscribed in a more important book, and their lasting reward will be much greater than our praise.

I do want to take note of one particular group of volunteers from the State of North Carolina. On short notice, on September 2, 2005, more than 90 health care professionals left their homes and their jobs to come to Hancock County, where Katrina had left the towns of Waveland and Bay St. Louis in ruins. Because Hancock Regional Hospital was flooded, the Carolina volunteers created a field hospital that operated for 2 months and cared for more than 7,000 patients. During that time, more than 400 doctors, nurses, paramedics, and other health care professionals rotated through the facility, caring for local residents until Hancock Regional Hospital could again admit patients.

These men and women selflessly served the people of Mississippi during one of the worst disasters ever to confront our country. One of them, I should point out, is part of the Senate's extended family. Chris Ogden, an RN, is the daughter of our own Joy Ogden, manager of the Senate's Appointments Desk at the North Door of the Capitol.

To Chris, and to the more than 400 like her who brought hope and comfort to Hancock County, I offer the heartfelt gratitude of all the people of Mississippi.

Mr. President, I congratulate the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation on Senate passage of S. 2012, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006. The chairman has worked very hard to gain the consensus necessary to pass this bill to reauthorize marine fisheries conservation and management programs. The Commerce Committee report on this bill provides a wealth of information concerning the bill's provisions. However, I would like to ask the chairman to clarify two provisions in the bill.

Mr. President, section 104(a) of S. 2012 would amend section 303(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in several places to require the collection of certain economic information from fisheries participants and require that fisheries management plans and amendments analyze the economic and social impacts of such plans' or amendments' conservation and management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for, fisheries participants and fishing communities affected by these plans or amendments.

Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee intended, for the purposes of this provision, that only the economic impact of direct participants in the fishery that engage in fishing or fish processing be subject to this economic information collection and impact analysis? Does the chairman agree that attempting to consider such economic impacts on persons such as consumers of fish or suppliers of fishing sectors would add unwarranted complexity to this analysis and would detract from the proper focus on only those persons who have a direct economic stake in the fishery?

I thank the chairman for that response. Additionally, section 105 of the bill would amend section 303(b)(2) of the Act to provide additional direction on the authority of Regional Fishery Management Councils to close areas to fishing, or restrict fishing in areas of the waters under their jurisdiction. Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee intended, for the purpose of this provision, that any restriction or closure under this authority will be of the minimum size, and include the minimum restrictions on fishing, that are necessary to achieve the intended conservation and management benefits?

Mr. President, again, I thank the chairman for his clarification of these provisions of S. 2012. I also thank him for his years of work to improve the framework through which our Nation's marine fisheries are conserved and managed. I can think of no other Member of this body who more deserves to have his name included in the name of the law that governs marine fisheries conservation and management.

I thank again my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Craig for allowing us to go ahead and introduce this legislation and make brief statements. It is very generous, and we thank him for it.

I am delighted to join my colleague, Senator Dayton, tonight in cosponsoring this legislation. He was kind enough to invite me to do so and even said: Why don't you be the lead sponsor? And I said no, but I will be glad to cosponsor it.

I think this is an important statement here tonight. Honesty is the best insurance policy. It has a good ring to it. It is not going to revolutionize the world, but it could make a real difference. This is a time when once again, in many parts of the country and particularly in my home area, we are very sensitive to the threat of disasters because in only 8 days, on June 1, the next hurricane season will begin, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts four to six major hurricanes in the upcoming season. So once again people are struggling with situations of having lost their homes or having their homes badly damaged and being told: No, your insurance policy didn't cover your damage. You didn't have flood insurance because, well, you weren't in a flood plain, and oh, by the way, your house was washed away. It wasn't blown away even though we had winds of 140 miles per hour with gusts of 160 or 170 miles an hour, so therefore you didn't have any wind damage. I must say it has been a disappointing shock to me, the insensitivity and the decisions of certain insurance companies and the positions they have taken. Sometimes they will say: Well, wait a minute, we told you in the policy we don't cover this, we don't cover that.

I represent a blue-collar community. Most people work in the paper mills and the shipyards and are fishermen in my area. They have high school educations, but they are not lawyers. They get a house insurance policy and they think: I am covered. Now, go back and take a look at your insurance policies. If you really take a look at it, you will find that this is not covered, that is not covered, this is not covered, and the next thing you know, you haven't got much coverage, but your premium still goes forward. The standard policies, for instance, don't cover earthquakes and floods, and depending on where you live, hurricanes may not even be covered. That is going to be determined in legal actions. Sometimes they say: Well, unless the policy specifically says the hurricane was covered, then it is not covered. Well, that is an ingenious argument, too.

So we have found that there are lots of problems here, and it breaks my heart, what I have seen happen to thousands of my constituents and people in the neighboring States of Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. They are being told: No, you didn't read the small print in your policy, you are not covered, or because it didn't say you were covered, then you are not covered. That is why I have joined in sponsoring this bill. Surely we should have honesty in everything, including insurance coverage. At least we should find a way to help the people understand.

So this is what this bill does. It is not all that complicated. It would require that insurance companies include a noncoverage disclosure box--a noncoverage disclosure box--restating in the body of the policy, in font twice the current size of the text, all conditions, exclusions, and other limitations of coverage under that policy. In other words, make it clear. Don't hide it in legalese and gobbledegook. Make it title size, make it bold, where people can go and see what they are not getting.

Some people say: Wait a minute, this may be damaging to the companies. No, I think it will help the companies. It will increase consumer confidence. It will avoid disagreements or conflicts about what is covered. You will have a clarification here, and if you have questions, then at least you can clear them up. It would be in their interests.

One other criticism, and that is, what is it going to cost the Federal Government? Answer: Nothing. And very little to the companies. They have these exclusions woven in there, but they are quite often way down in the body of some long policy, incomprehensible to the minds of normal and sane men and women.

So I think this is something which would be good. Frankly, I agree with the Consumer Federation of America. This small requirement could have saved many people pain and suffering and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, after Katrina. So I think it is a good idea, and it is one I am glad to cosponsor. I hope that as we continue to look at what we do in the aftermath of recent disasters and how we do a better job compared to future disasters, this can be worked into the body of legislation. So I am delighted to join as a cosponsor. I thank Senator Dayton, and I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn for allowing us to do this.

I thank again my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Craig for allowing us to go ahead and introduce this legislation and make brief statements. It is very generous, and we thank him for it.

I am delighted to join my colleague, Senator Dayton, tonight in cosponsoring this legislation. He was kind enough to invite me to do so and even said: Why don't you be the lead sponsor? And I said no, but I will be glad to cosponsor it.

I think this is an important statement here tonight. Honesty is the best insurance policy. It has a good ring to it. It is not going to revolutionize the world, but it could make a real difference. This is a time when once again, in many parts of the country and particularly in my home area, we are very sensitive to the threat of disasters because in only 8 days, on June 1, the next hurricane season will begin, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicts four to six major hurricanes in the upcoming season. So once again people are struggling with situations of having lost their homes or having their homes badly damaged and being told: No, your insurance policy didn't cover your damage. You didn't have flood insurance because, well, you weren't in a flood plain, and oh, by the way, your house was washed away. It wasn't blown away even though we had winds of 140 miles per hour with gusts of 160 or 170 miles an hour, so therefore you didn't have any wind damage. I must say it has been a disappointing shock to me, the insensitivity and the decisions of certain insurance companies and the positions they have taken. Sometimes they will say: Well, wait a minute, we told you in the policy we don't cover this, we don't cover that.

I represent a blue-collar community. Most people work in the paper mills and the shipyards and are fishermen in my area. They have high school educations, but they are not lawyers. They get a house insurance policy and they think: I am covered. Now, go back and take a look at your insurance policies. If you really take a look at it, you will find that this is not covered, that is not covered, this is not covered, and the next thing you know, you haven't got much coverage, but your premium still goes forward. The standard policies, for instance, don't cover earthquakes and floods, and depending on where you live, hurricanes may not even be covered. That is going to be determined in legal actions. Sometimes they say: Well, unless the policy specifically says the hurricane was covered, then it is not covered. Well, that is an ingenious argument, too.

So we have found that there are lots of problems here, and it breaks my heart, what I have seen happen to thousands of my constituents and people in the neighboring States of Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama. They are being told: No, you didn't read the small print in your policy, you are not covered, or because it didn't say you were covered, then you are not covered. That is why I have joined in sponsoring this bill. Surely we should have honesty in everything, including insurance coverage. At least we should find a way to help the people understand.

So this is what this bill does. It is not all that complicated. It would require that insurance companies include a noncoverage disclosure box--a noncoverage disclosure box--restating in the body of the policy, in font twice the current size of the text, all conditions, exclusions, and other limitations of coverage under that policy. In other words, make it clear. Don't hide it in legalese and gobbledegook. Make it title size, make it bold, where people can go and see what they are not getting.

Some people say: Wait a minute, this may be damaging to the companies. No, I think it will help the companies. It will increase consumer confidence. It will avoid disagreements or conflicts about what is covered. You will have a clarification here, and if you have questions, then at least you can clear them up. It would be in their interests.

One other criticism, and that is, what is it going to cost the Federal Government? Answer: Nothing. And very little to the companies. They have these exclusions woven in there, but they are quite often way down in the body of some long policy, incomprehensible to the minds of normal and sane men and women.

So I think this is something which would be good. Frankly, I agree with the Consumer Federation of America. This small requirement could have saved many people pain and suffering and hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, after Katrina. So I think it is a good idea, and it is one I am glad to cosponsor. I hope that as we continue to look at what we do in the aftermath of recent disasters and how we do a better job compared to future disasters, this can be worked into the body of legislation. So I am delighted to join as a cosponsor. I thank Senator Dayton, and I thank Senator Leahy and Senator Cornyn for allowing us to do this.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, Program Reform Act of 2006. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Pryor, who serves on the Commerce Committee with me.

Since being introduced in the 1970s, CAFE standards have been controversial. The effectiveness of these standards is often debated as is their effect on safety, consumer choice, and the automobile industry.

CAFE became so controversial that it essentially was frozen for many years.

The stand-off over CAFE finally eased a little bit when a Congressionally commissioned National Academy of Sciences review of the CAFE program was released in 2002. Although that study found that CAFE had in fact reduced energy consumption, the Academy was critical of how the program was structured and found that there was a negative impact on safety.

Just this spring, the Department of Transportation issued new reformed CAFE rules for pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs. This rule is a radical departure from prior CAFE rules in that it applies different standards to different sized vehicles rather than a uniform standard across the whole fleet. The Department's approach addresses many of the criticisms in the academy's study.

The recent rule did not, however, include new standards for cars. Those standards have been the same since 1984 and there is considerable legal ambiguity about the secretary's ability to increase the existing standards. It is clear, however, that the law does not allow the secretary to ``reform'' CAFE standards for cars, since that part of the statute is written differently than for light trucks.

As chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine, I held a hearing on reforming CAFE standards last week. We heard from Secretary Mineta, as well as the automobile industry, safety advocates, and fuel economy experts. After listening to what our witnesses had to say, I am convinced that ``reform'' is a necessary approach.

After that hearing, Secretary Mineta transmitted legislation to Congress asking for the authority to reform CAFE standards.

The bill we are introducing today is very straightforward. The main feature of the legislation is that it gives the Secretary of Transportation the authority to reform the CAFE program in a manner similar to the rule that he issued for light trucks. The bill puts the responsibility of setting CAFE standards where it belongs--and that is with the scientists and technical experts at the Department of Transportation.

The reformed CAFE program authorized by this legislation will address many of the past criticisms. For example, the legislation specifies that the Secretary must take motor vehicle safety into consideration when developing new CAFE standards. The legislation also allows the trading of CAFE credits between a manufacturer's passenger car and light truck fleets. This gives manufacturers the flexibility to increase CAFE where it is most cost effective to do so.

Let me briefly address one issue that is potentially controversial. That is the issue of what is being called ``backsliding.'' The concern is that under a reformed CAFE program, manufacturers could simply stop manufacturing some of their smaller cars since these cars are no longer needed to ``average out'' the larger, less fuel efficient models. The manufacturer's overall fuel economy average could then end up

being below where it is presently. Although this is very unlikely to happen and that isn't the intent of a ``reformed'' CAFE system, I understand the concern. Senator Pryor and I have included a provision in our legislation to address that problem. I know that there are many opinions on how to deal with this backsliding issue, and some people may not feel that our approach is strong enough. On the other hand, if the provision is too strict then the benefits of reform are potentially wiped out.

In the past, many in Congress have played politics with CAFE-- offering bills that try to set unrealistically high or arbitrary CAFE standards. On the other side are those that have simply opposed doing anything. This has resulted in a stalemate and lots of finger pointing. I hope this doesn't happen again, because we really do need to get tougher standards in place as soon as we can.

Senator Pryor and I are committed to improving the fuel economy of our vehicles without reducing safety and reliability or losing jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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