Floor Statements

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.

Mr. President, the baseball field has been the setting for some of the most meaningful moments in American history. It was on a baseball field that the great slugger Lou Gehrig, shortly after learning he was suffering from a fatal disease, delivered his poignantly stirring farewell speech, in which he declared himself to be ``the luckiest man on the face of the earth.'' It was on a baseball field that Jackie Robinson broke the color line that had prevented African Americans from competing in the Major Leagues, thus triggering not only integration in professional baseball but the removal of racial barriers throughout American society as well. And it was on a baseball field 30 years ago that another significant moment took place, one that continues to resonate in the minds of millions of Americans.

On April 25, 1976, the Chicago Cubs were playing the Los Angeles Dodgers in an afternoon game at Dodger Stadium. It was early in the season; thus, not much was riding on the game's outcome. Both teams were under .500 at the time. So for the fans in attendance, there was little reason to believe at the outset that the game ultimately would be anything more than pleasantly forgettable.

That all changed during the bottom of the game's fourth inning. The Dodgers were at bat when two protestors ran out onto the outfield grass carrying an American flag. These two proceeded to spread the flag on the ground, douse it with lighter fluid, and pull out some matches. Playing centerfield for the Cubs that day was Rick Monday. As soon as he recognized that these individuals were about to burn the American flag, Monday charged towards them. As Monday--a former Marine Corps reservist--would later describe, ``I was mad. What they were trying to do was wrong. It was wrong in 1976, and I still think it's wrong today. . . . That flag represents all the rights and freedoms that we have in this country. If you desecrate the flag, you desecrate the efforts of all the people who fought and died to protect those rights and freedoms.'' Just as one of the protestors was about to put a lit match to the American flag, Monday--while running at full speed--grabbed the flag away.

The legendary Hall of Fame broadcaster Vin Scully did the radio play- by-play for the Dodgers that day. His real-time description of the incident was as follows:

There's two of them. I'm not sure what he's doing out

there. It looks like he's going to burn a flag. And Rick

Monday runs and takes it away from him!. . . . I think a guy

was going to set fire to an American flag, can you imagine

that? Monday, when he realized what [the protestor] was going

to do, raced over and took the flag away from him. . . . This

guy was going to try and perform the indignity of setting

fire to the American flag. . . . It looked like a piece of

cloth but you couldn't really tell from here what it was. But

Monday, from his angle, took one look and realized it was a

flag. And the fellow evidently was all set to set fire to

it when Monday realized it.

And Rick will get an ovation and properly so. So Rick

Monday--his alertness and quick thinking--gets a round of

applause in center field. And on the message board, it just

says, ``Rick Monday--You Made a Great Play.'' And Monday is

getting another ovation, and well he should. And now a lot of

the folks are standing, and now the whole ballpark. And he's

going to get a standing ovation.

Rick Monday's courageous and patriotic act of saving the American flag from public desecration then inspired the crowd at Dodger Stadium to spontaneously begin singing ``God Bless America.'' As Monday remembers it, ``It moved the entire crowd. I don't remember if we won or lost the game, but I'll never forget the people singing.''

Rick Monday soon began receiving thousands of letters from people all across the country thanking him for rescuing the flag. His heroic act was especially inspiring to those men and women who were serving in the military or were war veterans. For instance, Monday received a letter from a Vietnam veteran who, as Monday described:

wrote that there were two things that he had with him in two

tours of Vietnam. These two things kept him in check with

reality. One was a small picture of his wife. The other was a

small American flag that was neatly folded. The picture was

folded inside the flag and in the left breast pocket of his

uniform. He would be in mud for weeks and months at a time.

Those two things were what he looked at to connect him with

reality, other than his buddies, and some of them were lost

in battle. He wrote in the letter, ``Thanks for protecting

what those of us who were in Vietnam held onto dearly.''

More recently, Monday was visiting the U.S.S. Arizona Memorial in Hawaii when a survivor of Pearl Harbor walked up to him. When Monday went to shake his hand, the veteran--with tears in his eyes--raised his arm and saluted Monday. He then told Monday, ``What you did reaffirmed everything we did as members of the Armed Services.''

To fully appreciate what Rick Monday did 30 years ago, one must remember what the country was going through at that time. The Vietnam War and Watergate had left our country bitterly divided, and America was

struggling to regain its confidence in the tumultuous aftermath. In saving the American flag from those who sought to desecrate it, Monday conveyed through his actions that the country the flag represents, as well as the liberty and justice the flag symbolizes, are precious and worth defending. Monday's rescue of the flag thus helped rejuvenate American patriotism throughout the country. For this reason, the Baseball Hall of Fame recognizes the actions taken by Monday when he saved the American Flag as one of the 100 Classic Moments in the history of baseball.

Because of the courage and patriotism demonstrated on a baseball field by Rick Monday 30 years ago, I am pleased to introduce a resolution commemorating the 30th anniversary of the date that Rick Monday heroically rescued the American flag from being desecrated. It is a fitting way to honor a historic act performed by a man who not only was a great ballplayer but who is a great American as well.

Mr. President, I have been pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Martinez and Senator Landrieu, in introducing bipartisan legislation that will take a very significant step forward in restoring and protecting the Gulf of Mexico.

I want to highlight how important the Gulf of Mexico is to our country. The Gulf of Mexico is the ninth largest body of water in the world, and the Gulf region covers approximately 600,000 square miles. The Gulf of Mexico contains 7 of this Nation's top 10 ports in terms of tonnage or cargo value, 4 of the top 7 fishing ports in the Nation, yields more finfish, shrimp, and shellfish annually than the south and mid-Atlantic, Chesapeake, and New England areas combined, and supports a $20 billion annual tourism industry.

Sadly, over many years, the resource productivity and water quality of the Gulf of Mexico and its watershed have been diminished by nonpoint source pollution largely resulting from pollutant transport along the nearly 2,300-mile-long Mississippi River. I believe many Americans would be surprised to know that the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program, the only Federal program solely focused on protecting the health and productivity of the Gulf of Mexico, is neither authorized nor adequately funded to perform critical program functions vital to protecting and restoring one of this country's greatest natural resources.

The Gulf of Mexico Restoration and Protection Act will authorize the Environmental Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program to undertake specific nonregulatory functions, and authorize annual appropriations to support activities designed to improve Gulf of Mexico water quality and marine resource productivity. With an 18-year track record of success, the Gulf of Mexico Program proves that it is not only possible but also practical to manage our natural resources through collaborative, nonregulatory approaches that leverage support, resources, and capabilities from Federal, State, nonprofit, and private sector partners. Unfortunately, the Gulf of Mexico Program is struggling with a very limited budget and a staff comprised largely of people ``on loan'' from other Federal agencies. The historic storm season of 2005 gravely worsened the situation by placing increased demand on the program's technical services, and I expect this pressure will continue to rise as the gulf coast rebuilds.

I commend the EPA Gulf of Mexico Program and its Federal, State, nonprofit, and private sector partners for doing so much with so little for so long. However, it is impractical to expect this to continue in perpetuity. Now is the time to take actions to ensure the Gulf of Mexico is protected for continued economic productivity, recreation, and to make certain this great water body remains a place of beauty and enjoyment for current and future generations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to get an agreement for the lineup of speakers over the next several minutes. It has been cleared by both managers here in the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent that the next speakers come up in this order: Since Senator DeMint has finished, next would be 5 minutes for Senator Hutchison, to be followed by 15 minutes for Senator Schumer, to be followed by 10 minutes for myself, followed by 15 minutes for Senator Wyden after I finish speaking, and then Senator Enzi would come next, to be followed by Senator Boxer for 5 minutes.

We did not indicate a time amount for Senator Enzi. We were not able to confirm exactly how much time he would need. I think part of it would depend on how the rest of the time goes.

Mr. President, on behalf of hard-working American people, I am pleased to rise today in support of picking up this very important Tax Increase Prevention Act. I have been looking forward to this for almost a year now, and finally we have reached the magic moment. I believe we are waiting for Senator Hutchison to arrive. While she is on her way, let me just put in the Record at this point the timeline of what has transpired.

First of all, the tax reconciliation legislation passed the Senate Finance Committee on November 15, 2005. The Senate then passed the tax reconciliation bill 64 to 33, a very strong bipartisan vote. On December 8, 2005, the House passed the bill 234 to 197.

Along the way, there were many hurdles thrown up, delays, and obstruction. In fact, instead of going to conference, because of the fact that the Senate had acted first, we actually had to bring it back to the floor of the Senate and go through the process again.

On February 2 of this year, 2006, the Senate repassed the tax reconciliation bill by a vote of 66 to 31, again bipartisan, actually an increased number. Then on February 14, the Senate completed action on the debate, 10 hours of motions to instruct conferees with a mini vote-arama. But we completed our work, and conferees were appointed on February 18. Now here we are with a conference report and a bill that clearly is needed to prevent a tax increase on working Americans.

I just wanted to get the timeline in the Record, and then I will have some further comments, following the next two speakers, about the substance. At this time, I believe we are lined up for Senator Hutchison for 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I am delighted to be here and be able to respond to some of the comments we heard from the Senator from New York. I do agree with him--up to a point. I agree that this bill shows the stark differences between the two parties. One is for tax increases, that is the Democrats, and one is for preventing tax increases and supporting tax relief for all Americans--working Americans, middle-class Americans, and seniors who depend on dividends and capital gains to be able to support themselves in their retirement.

My colleagues on the other side often say: Oh, yes, we are for middle-class tax cuts. But, in fact, when they get a chance to vote on them, they almost always vote against them, or at least the majority of them. Yes, this is a good example of the difference in the two parties. As a matter of fact, the Senator from New York knows quite well that we are going to have a follow-on tax bill that is very close to being completed, and it has already been announced by the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee that it will include the relief for college students paying tuition. We are going to have that. It is almost as if he thinks that because it is not in this reconciliation tax increase prevention bill, it is gone, it will not happen. I will tell you right here and now, it will happen. It will happen soon. I have the press release from Senator Grassley, announcing that has already been agreed to.

I do find it interesting, too, that Senator Schumer, while he talks about how wonderful this tuition tax deduction is, when it was first passed in the bipartisan 2001 tax bill, he voted no. He voted no on the bill that had it in there. Now it is the most wonderful thing he has ever seen.

You know, there is a little positioning going on, on both sides. I understand that. But I think we need to look at the substance of what we are dealing with and what the impact is going to be. I do want to emphasize this point again, too. Our senior citizens are very dependent on the income they get from capital gains and also from dividends. If we allow the tax on that to go way up, back to where it was, they will feel it as much or more than anybody. So we need to be sure that we know what the true impact is going to be if we do not stop these tax increases from occurring.

With regard to the oil provisions, no final decision has been made on that. That will be considered and will be a part of the next bill, frankly. I think some of those provisions that were in the earlier bill should stay in there, personally, but we are going to work through that. But I want to go over some questions and some details of what is in the bill. I wonder, do the Democrats oppose the centerpiece of the bill, which is a $34 billion provision to ensure that the alternative minimum tax does not hit more than 15 million middle-income families this year? I thought this was something they felt passionately about. You know, we have to take action to stop the unintended consequences of the alternative minimum tax, AMT--$34 billion. This is only a $70 billion bill, and about half of it would go, clearly, to these middle- income people.

Do they oppose exempting Americans with incomes up to $62,550 from the onerous AMT? Do they oppose quadrupling small business expensing, which allows small businesses to write off up to $100,000 a year in the cost of new equipment?

There are two provisions there that, combined, take over half the bill, that clearly help middle-income taxpayers avoid the AMT and help small businesses that keep creating the jobs and moving the economy.

It prevents a tax increase for small businesses of over $7 billion from being foisted on this very important part of our economy.

What do they oppose? Do they oppose the progrowth policy of taxing capital gains and dividends at 15 percent? Or at 5 percent--get this now--5 percent for individuals in the 10- or 15-percent tax brackets? If we don't stop these tax increases, you are going to see a significant tax increase for individuals in the 10- and 15-percent tax brackets. Do they oppose that?

Contrary to the Democratic mantra, these tax cuts affect individuals at every income level. If anybody accuses my State, after being devastated by Hurricane Katrina, of being a wealthy State--we are trying to join the Union

and move up in our economic status. Yet, in my home State, over 150,000 taxpayers will see a tax increase if we don't extend the 15-percent tax rate on dividends. Nearly 120,000 taxpayers will face a tax increase if we don't extend the rate on capital gains.

That is IRS data. That is not something I put together with a pencil and a piece of paper.

The average tax increase will be nearly $200 per person per year. That is significant.

I was explaining to my own daughter this very morning about how this bill is important to her. She doesn't have a lot of capital gains. She has some dividends--not much but she is in that category which is significantly impacted by the AMT if we don't pass this bill.

I understand. I guess it is a political season and taking positions.

I don't believe Democrats oppose anything in this bill. In fact, the Senator from New York said: Well, yes, many people I guess in New York are concerned about the impact of a tax increase on capital gains and dividends. It is just that he doesn't like this one. If not this, what? If not now, when? This needs to be done. What has been the impact of these tax cuts? The economy has continued to grow astronomically in spite of all the major cataclysmic events we have been dealing with; creating jobs; the American dream at the highest it has ever been; and the number of American people who own their homes. Almost 70 percent of Americans own their homes. Yet we clearly show from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that we have had a greatly higher unanticipated increase in the revenue from capital gains than we would have had otherwise.

Do we want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg?

I don't understand why the American people are still not aware that there are so many goods things happening in the economy. Unemployment is at 4.7 percent, which is caused by 5 million new jobs being created since 2003. The gross domestic product is 4.8 percent--I was astounded by that growth--in the last quarter. Overall, household wealth is at an all-time high, reaching $51.1 trillion. Income is rising, and inflation remains in check. Lastly, but perhaps most critically, Federal revenues grew by 14 percent in 2005, reaching a record $2.15 trillion.

The problem with the deficit is not insufficient revenue. It is coming in. It is coming in because Presidents and Members of Congress-- Presidents such as Kennedy and Reagan--knew that if you cut taxes in the right way, you get important revenue. There are those who still want to deny that, but history and the statistics speak for themselves.

I think this is a good bill. It is a relatively narrow bill in terms of portions included in it. We only have about five major things, and a few little smaller points included in this bill. We are not finished. We are going to have the follow-on bill. I want to keep the economy growing. I want to do the right thing. This is the right thing to do.

I am delighted to be here to speak in behalf of this legislation and to explain what is in it and to question some of the allegations that are being made about what is in it or what is not in it. This is good for the American people because it will be good for the American economy.

I don't understand this class warfare stuff that is always going on. If you cut taxes for people who actually pay taxes, you automatically get less. When are we ever going to grow up and get over that?

I think it is good legislation. I am pleased to be here and support it. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. It will pass, and we will go to the follow-on bill which will have a number of other very important provisions, and perhaps it will be part of what we do with regard to guaranteeing people's security and their pensions for the future, also.

I do not know if I have any time remaining. If I don't, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we had an order lined up. Senator Enzi cannot be here at this time so we have agreed to go with Senator Boxer, who is here. She is ready to proceed at this time. We have some other speakers who will be here momentarily and we will get this lined up.

I yield the floor.

We locked in 5 minutes.

I ask consent the Senator from California will be allowed to speak for 8 minutes.

Mr. President, as acting manager, let me get some agreement on time so Senators can plan accordingly. I ask unanimous consent the following Senators be able to speak in this order: Senator Gregg for 15 minutes; Senator Feinstein to follow Senator Gregg for 15 minutes; Senator Thomas is next, for 15 minutes; and Senator Reed for 15 minutes.

Mr. President, I apologize for not having my microphone on earlier. We are trying to lock in the next three speakers. Senator Gregg will have the next 15 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from California for 15 minutes.

Madam President, we had speakers lined up under the unanimous consent agreement, but they have not been able to reach the floor yet. If Senator Thomas shows up or Senator Reed of Rhode Island, I will yield. I understand that perhaps Senator Akaka is on the way.

While we are waiting, I found the remarks of the Senator from California very interesting, as they always are. I found her chart particularly interesting. When you talk about the situation of the Federal budget and the deficits, I think the chart showed where the problem is. I appreciate being able to refer to it.

The problem is that entitlement spending will go from 53 percent to 63 percent of the entire Federal budget over the next 10 years. Entitlements are going to eat the entire Federal budget, yes. We are getting squeezed in the nondefense discretionary area, but it is because of the entitlements. We all say that these are untouchable. Are they? We need reform in these programs--in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security--so we can control the spiraling costs they are putting on the Federal budget.

There are those who say let's just raise taxes and we will have more money for all of these programs. No. I think that is going the wrong way. Certainly, we don't want to raise taxes on middle-class Americans. This bill would give relief, through the alternative minimum tax changes, of $38 billion to people in that middle-income area. Don't we want to help them?

Small business expensing. We want to help small businesses. We heard the Senator from New Hampshire talk about the growth in jobs creation. So we want to encourage that. That is why this bill would provide some additional tax relief, or at least prevent tax increases on small business men and women. That is why we want the alternative minimum tax to be dealt with because so many people are going to be hit with AMT, when nobody wanted that or anticipated that.

If we don't pass this bill, then middle-income America is going to be hit with this very unfair alternative minimum tax. We can deal with entitlements, but we have not been able to get the political courage to do so. Then, of course, the idea I have heard two or three times today is that President Clinton had a balanced budget during the latter part of his administration. Well, I was there. I remember what happened on the balanced budget. I remember the very difficult negotiations. I remember that we did have reform which he eventually signed. He didn't want to. We had welfare reform and he signed it. We had tax cuts to encourage growth in the economy, coupled with a reduction in Federal budget spending. He signed it. The Congress had a lot to do with that. I think he deserves credit. He was on the seat and he signed the bills. But I remember it was the Congress that drove that debate, and I am very proud of that period because I was in the leadership at that time and for 4 years, we had balanced budgets and a surplus, proving that it can be done. But you have to have both. You have to control spending, reform entitlements, and you have to cut taxes in a way that will create jobs.

I still have a novel idea. I think that people who should get tax cuts are the people who pay taxes, and to have some percentage that reflects that makes a big difference. Some people say, well, we won't give but $100 to somebody who makes $30,000 or $40,000 a year. It is not nearly as important to somebody who makes $200,000 who gets a $1,000 tax cut. But the fact is that you get tax cuts proportionate to what you pay. The people at the lower levels will get a tax cut; it won't be as big dollarwise as somebody who makes more because percentagewise, of what they do in terms of creating jobs, there is no comparison. It is part of the old class warfare that we always go through here.

If you tax the people who are producing jobs and paying the bulk of the taxes, they will change their behavior and they will quit creating jobs and paying taxes, and we will have less revenue. We are trying to encourage continued growth in the economy.

With that, I see Senator Reed from Rhode Island has arrived. I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a full committee hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006 at 10:30 a.m. in SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing will be to review the United States Department of Agriculture National Response Plan to detect and control the potential spread of avian influenza into the United States.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a closed briefing on Iran's Nuclear Program and the Impact of Potential Sanctions: An Intelligence Community Assessment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 11, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda is attached.

I. Nominations: Brett Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit; Sean F. Cox, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan; Thomas L. Ludington, to be U.S. District judge for the Eastern District of Michigan.

II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, De Wine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, for a committee hearing re pending health care related legislation. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, let me address a question to the distinguished chairman of the committee because I thought his remarks were very well done and answered a number of questions that have been put out in the discussion of this language in the media. But I think it is important to clarify a few of those points.

The first point you are making is that this is not an additional or added expenditure. This will come out of the $2.7 billion that has already been requested to go into this shipbuilding recovery effort; is that correct?

Well, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification and for making that point. I might also ask this question: The Senator was a very capable young lawyer in our State years ago, president of the young lawyer's section, and I think he understands this sort of issue. Are you satisfied that this language is such that when and if there is an insurance recovery, those funds will come back to the Federal Government?

One final point that the Senator made that I think is a very important one. If we do not allow this provision to remain in this legislation, the net cost is going to be twice as much or more.

I believe the questions that have been posed have been answered correctly and appropriately by the chairman of the committee. This provision does not require additional funds. Payments will come out of funds that have already been earmarked for shipbuilding recovery. It is not going be a process where the shipbuilder will be relieved of trying to recover from the insurance company and, if they recover, they get to keep it. It is important to emphasize those points.

Let me confess to my colleagues, this is personal with me. I admit it. This is my hometown. I grew up in the shadow of this shipyard where 13,000 men and women make their livelihood, the biggest single employer in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana and at one point of Alabamians, a critical component of our national security. They build some of the most sophisticated ships in the world--destroyers, cruisers, LHAs, LHDs, LHARs. And that shipyard got hammered by hurricane Katrina. My dad was a pipefitter in that shipyard and was in the pipe department when he was killed in an automobile accident. I don't just see statistics and numbers; I see neighbors, classmates, men and women who believe in what they do and build quality product. They have been hit a grievous blow.

I understand the effort of the Senator from Oklahoma. On many similar occasions, if I didn't know all the facts or if I weren't as intimately involved, maybe I would be doing something similar to what he is. I understand. But I don't think he has all the facts. Maybe the clarification that my colleague from Mississippi made will help him.

The magnitude of what we were hit with is the most devastating thing we have ever seen. I won't bring out a lot of charts, but so you will get some idea of the destruction, here is a picture of the shipyard right after the hurricane. This whole shipyard had a direct hit. It is right on the mouth of the river. It got hammered. Five hundred men and women put their lives at risk that night trying to keep ships that were moored there from sinking. This is what we were dealt. Everything in that shipyard was under water. And by the way, just so you will get some idea, there in the background of this picture, those cranes are actually on the water. This photo was actually taken a distance inland, and you see the kind of destruction that was brought on us.

One of the things we did in the aftermath of the hurricane was to say: OK, let's rescue people. Let's get them the basics. Then we sat down and said: What is the order of what we ought to do? No. 1, we need to get our people back to work first. Because if we can get them back in their jobs, even if they don't have a home or a truck, that will begin the return to normalcy. They will have income. Then let's get our schools open. Then let's remove the debris. So we had an order. We have not done this haphazardly.

This provision was not stuck in the bill as an afterthought. It was carefully done. It was done after looking to see what the actual impact was going to be.

Several shipyards in my area--three of them, as a matter of fact-- owned by VT Halter had ``only'' 20 or 30 feet of water. But this shipyard was completely shut down. They made a valiant effort to feed people, get people back to work. Now the shipyard is back up to probably 11,000 people working there.

Talk about getting insurance. Let me put the shipyard in my place. My wife and I lost our home. It is totally gone. I had flood insurance. I also had a household policy. My insurance company said: You had no wind damage. We will pay you nothing. After that house sat there for 4 to 6 hours being hammered by winds of 140 miles an hour with gusts at 160 and 170, they came back and said: No, you didn't have any wind damage. It is not credible. So what am I going to do? I guess I could hock everything and rebuild on that site before I get any insurance, but the ``no payment'' or the ``slow payment'' of insurance companies is retarding the entire gulf coast. They are like me; I can't rebuild until I get some insurance proceeds.

They have the problem of how much can they put into this situation without getting the plant back up to operation. They have spent $550 million to clean up this shipyard, repair the facilities, repair the ships, and cover the cost of business interruption not caused by them. They have done their part. In fact, of that $550 million, less than one-third, about $175 million, has been recouped so far from the shipyard's insurance companies. They are going to continue to pursue these insurance claims. I hope they are going to get a good settlement and they will be able to go forward with business.

But this shipyard had a billion dollars of damage. This matter is about national security. It is about the Navy. It is about the world's best ships. It is about men and women who have busted it to get that shipyard back on line.

The same thing has happened in Louisiana, where a lot of work is done on the LPDs and where they went back to work before they had a bed to sleep in. So this provision is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast recovery and to help the Navy maintain the cost and schedules for its ships.

Let me give you a couple of examples of quotes after the hurricane. After the hurricane, Assistant Secretary of the Navy John Young recognized the significant impact of that storm on Navy shipyard building and national defense. In a letter to Navy and Defense Department leadership, Secretary Young wrote that:

The Navy [should] take an aggressive and proactive approach

in helping restore shipyards and returning workers to

shipbuilding tasks. Importantly, this approach has the short-

term benefit of contributing in a significant way to the

restoration of jobs and the economy in the Gulf Coast.

Yard restoration delays, loss of the skilled workforce, and

ship delivery delays will translate directly into creation in

future years of significant new prior year completion bills

on Navy shipbuilding programs.

That was very thoughtful. He was looking at it realistically in the immediate aftermath of this terrible storm. He recommended an action that was appropriate.

Some people say it wasn't in the President's budget. Presidents' budgets don't come down from heaven. They sometimes don't include everything that should be included or maybe it will include something that should not be included. We are a coequal branch of government. We do have a say in these issues. Sometimes we can help. When it came to getting Medicaid for the States affected, we had to take the lead. When it came to getting tax incentives for businesses and industry to create new jobs, we took the lead. When it came to finding a solution for the people who had a home that was not in a flood plain--after the hurricane all they had left was a slab, no insurance, no way to rebuild, and nobody had a solution--Senator Cochran came up with a solution and the administration signed it. They didn't do it; we did it in the Congress. We are from there. We are of this situation. We understand the problems.

We are trying to be reasonable. We told our colleagues months ago about what we would need to recover. We have not exceeded that estimate. We are way under that estimate. In some categories we are not even going back and saying we need more, even though we were somewhat shortchanged. We are trying hard to help the people who have been dealt a grievous blow. If we don't do this, the people in that shipyard will be hurt, the Navy will be

hurt, and it will cost us more. I want to make sure we get the insurance recovery.

I am a plaintiff for the first time in my life. I didn't want to do that. When I met with shipyard officials immediately after the hurricane, I went out there, and they were feeding the people on a ship that was moored. There was no electricity. I said: What about insurance? They said: We are fortunate. We had insurance. We even had a clause in there so we feel we are going to get a good recovery.

Well, it hasn't happened. So we can deal with this realistically and in a sensible and thoughtful way, the way Senator Cochran has outlined, and I think we will get through it. We will keep the jobs, build the ships, help the Navy, help the workers. And we won't lose money in the end. The disruption cost, if we don't do this, will be much greater than by going ahead and doing this right now.

I beg my colleagues, bear with us. I know you are beginning to say: How much is enough? I don't know in every instance, because we are still dealing with the magnitude of this disaster. But we are going to try to be honest with you. We are going to try to be thoughtful. I believe this language is crafted well. I am proud to be a part of the effort to defend the language that is in this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3727.

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

Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I am pleased to join Senator Dodd, who is a cosponsor of this amendment.

Speaking of elections in Iraq, we also hope to have effective and fair and open elections in America.

In the Katrina area, we had significant damage to polling places and to voting machines. We lost all of them in many areas--in New Orleans, South Louisiana, and Mississippi.

This amendment would provide $30 million, through the Federal Elections Commission, for replacement of those losses.

I have checked on both sides of the aisle. I find no objection. I know that our managers have cleared it.

I, therefore, urge my colleagues to accept it. The amendment is certainly very worthwhile. It is needed, and it is needed right away in order to prepare for elections this fall.

I yield the floor so my colleague, Senator Dodd, can further elucidate.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, is the amendment pending now and open for debate by Senator Coburn with regard to the Armed Forces Retirement Home?

If I may speak on this subject, I would plead with my colleague from Oklahoma to bear with me and work with us on this. I have a feeling this is something he would like to see done. I think he wants to make sure it is done in the right way. That is my goal, too. I would ask him to hear me out a minute. Let's see if we can work this out and perhaps not force this to a vote, take up the Senate's time, see if we can accommodate everybody's concerns.

Again, this is a place that I have direct personal familiarity with. I was there when it was a high ground on the Mississippi gulf coast beach area with 200-year-old oaks, a beautiful site. In the 1970s, through the good offices and efforts, probably of Senator Stennis, an 11-story retirement home for old sailors was built on that magnificent site in 1976. I was there when the ribbon was cut, and I was so proud of that facility. It was such an exciting thing to see the look in the eyes of those at that time sailors, but it has since become, of course, the Armed Forces Retirement Home. So it is a place of last resort for retirees from all the military branches. That is how far back my history goes with this facility.

In preparation for the storm, to the credit of the leaders there, 300 of the residents were temporarily evacuated to the Armed Forces home in Washington. The rest moved in with friends and family. The facility is capable of holding as many as 500, and there was always a waiting list. When Katrina came in, the entire first floor was flooded. The exterior of the building was blasted with 150-mile-an-hour winds. The entire electrical room located below ground level was flooded from floor to ceiling.

But from that time to this, I continue to hear from the residents saying: We want to come back; we want to come home. Nothing against the Washington, DC, area, but their family, quite often, what little family they have, lives in that area and they feel so comfortable there, they want to go back.

By the way, the Gulfport facility, unlike the one in Washington, didn't lose money. It was always a moneymaker. But the rooms they had were 90-square-foot rooms, and sometimes it was a retiree and his or her spouse in this very small room. I realized several years ago that whoever designed the building had made some mistakes in terms of the size and the options of those retirees.

I don't know if my colleagues are familiar with black mold, but it is bad stuff, and it comes quickly after a hurricane. You begin to see it on the walls, and it will make you sick. If you don't get it out of there, your building will be sick. You have to go in and basically take everything out but the two by fours. You have to take out the walls in the building--just everything--and replace it with new material, or you are going to have this black mold.

I have really been embarrassed by the way the Defense Department has handled the Gulfport facility in the aftermath of the hurricane. I understand we have had a lot of things on our minds, but basically they haven't done anything to mitigate further decay. They haven't gone in there and repaired that first floor. They have not gotten the ventilation system going to dehumidify the rest of the building. They have not done anything to repair the exterior facing. They have not removed the black mold. And to make matters worse, other then some volunteer work initially done by the Navy Seabees, they basically will not let anybody else come in to try to mitigate the decay that is occurring.

Remember, this hurricane was August of last year and that 11-story building stands there today basically like it was the day after the hurricane. They are letting it just sit there. They even initially refused to let the electric company come through the gate to help restore power. This has not been one of our better moments.

Then we started asking: What can we do? I want to do the right thing for our retired veterans at this site. There have been proposals: Let's just go in and put a Band-Aid on it, clean it minimally, move things off the basement and the first floor up to the second floor. There are questions about how feasible that is. Let's just patch it up. But the projection of the costs for even that is not good.

The second alternative is to go in and do a major overhaul and make these 90-square-foot rooms bigger--knock a hole in the wall and have two-room suites, really a major overhaul. The amount of money they are talking about, again, is very high.

Then, of course, the last one is to raze the building and build something more modern, safer in hurricanes, more pleasing to the retirees and everybody involved.

My attitude has been, OK, somebody who is an expert tell me what is the right solution. I can go with any of these alternatives, but let's make sure we do it responsibly and let's not have to do it again in 3 or 4 years. And, by the way, is there some way we can control the costs? A novel idea. So that is where we are.

I met with the Pentagon officials, and I think they are trying to come up with an alternative solution. $64.7 million in appropriated funds was previously provided to study options to rehouse evacuated veterans. Mr. President, $64 million to study options? Do we need that?

What I am saying and what Senator Cochran is saying is let's take the balance of that prior money that can be reprogrammed, and let's couple that with another, I believe, $176 million and go forward.

My colleague from Oklahoma has said he wants a facility put back in Gulfport. He wants to know what it is, and he wants to know what it is going to cost. Some of the numbers I have been hearing--I don't know if I can put my finger on it right here--are proposals of $589 million for renovating it or $389 million to rebuild it. Good gravy. That is real money. I don't like either one of those.

I believe we can repair it or we can come up with this modified proposal Senator Cochran has, about which we had some input, that would be a better, more aesthetically pleasing, more livable, cheaper facility to build.

Look at the report. The report makes it clear what the committee is talking about doing: combined with prior unobligated balances, taking the $176 million the committee has recommended, which shall be used to construct a new, multi-building, campus-style facility on the site occupied by the former Armed Forces Retirement Home.

I think Senator Cochran envisions more of a three-story, military- style retirement facility, perhaps with some surrounding dormitories.

I don't want to say how this is going to be done, but the hurricane was 8\1/2\ months ago, and we are still waiting. The costs are going up, by the way. Try to get a contractor down there now and see what it costs.

So we are trying to get this done. We are making recommendations because

we haven't gotten one from anybody else. But keep in mind, this modified plan makes more sense. I think it would please everybody, and it is a heck of a lot cheaper.

If my colleague from Oklahoma has something he would like to suggest we include--I am not chairman of the committee, I am not on the committee, but I am saying, this was not designed in perfection, but I think it is a positive move that deals with the realities of a pitiful situation.

I talked with the mayor of Gulfport, MS, recently, Mayor Brent Warr, and he told me a story that breaks your heart. He picked up on the streets of Gulfport, MS, one of the former residents who was walking along the side of the road after he had made his way from Washington, DC, to Gulfport. He got tired of waiting. He went home--this is his home--to a mold-infested, mildewed, improperly air-conditioned facility.

I don't think we should do this to these retirees and these veterans. I think we need to move ahead and do the right thing to get our veterans home to Gulfport. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Oklahoma if he has some additional suggestions. I know this is an area about which he cares.

If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, taking my time back, look, I on occasion have thought of myself as a cheap hawk, too. When you see what I have seen--and the President of the United States and Senator after Senator and Congressman after Congressman looked these people in the eye and said: We are going to make you whole; we are not going to give you everything you want, but we are going to help you get back on your feet. And we said that to these old veterans, too.

I don't want to build a Taj Mahal. Unfortunately, quite often that is what we get when the Government does it. I would like to do it for less. I would like to have more for less. I would prefer the Pentagon had developed a plan 4 months ago and said let's do this. But here we sit on the sideline.

I can't speak for the chairman of the committee, but the Senator can see this is something I have paid attention to. It is something I care about. But I would be open to suggestions and working with the Senator to see if we can come up with a plan that the Pentagon, hopefully, would help us with that would do more and maybe do less. I am amenable to that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this week has been designated as Public Service Recognition Week and in keeping with the spirit of this important week I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the important contribution that the Jefferson Awards for Public Service have made over nearly three and a half decades.

I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Lugar, and Biden is submitting this resolution commending the American Institute for Public Service and the importance of the Jefferson Awards for Public Service. The Jefferson Awards were established on a bipartisan basis in 1972 by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Senator Robert Taft, Jr., and Sam Beard. The awards honor individuals for their achievements and contributions through public and community service.

Winners of the award for elected and appointed officials have included former Senators Robert Dole, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and John Glenn. Other winners include Rudoph Giuliani, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Robert Rubin. In addition, private citizens who have won the award include Walter Annenberg, Brian Lamb, and Oprah Winfrey.

The Jefferson Awards have honored award recipients at the national level by placing them on a ``Who's Who'' list of outstanding citizens of the United States and at the same time have honored at the local level recipients as ``Unsung Heroes'' who accomplished extraordinary deeds for the betterment of the United States.

The Senate fully supports the goals and ideals of the Jefferson awards and during this week of Public Service Recognition, I stand on the floor of the Senate and commend the people of this organization.

Mr President, the Gulf States from Texas to Florida have all been dealt serious blows this past hurricane season by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis. The needs are tremendous across the entire Gulf Coast in the fishing communities which were hit hardest and first. Before these hurricanes, the gulf produced about 15 percent of the Nation's domestic wild-caught seafood by weight and about 20 percent by value.

According to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report, these hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90-100 percent of the commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses, offloading facilities, net makers, recreational marinas, bait and tackle shops, and seafood restaurants and retail markets in eastern Louisiana, with similar, if somewhat reduced, impacts in Mississippi and Alabama. Most of these facilities remain closed today, 9 months later.

On September 9, 2005, Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez declared a fisheries disaster for the Gulf of Mexico under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which authorizes fisheries disaster assistance in such situations. Of the almost $90 billion in disaster funding appropriated by the Congress since these hurricanes, none has been directed at these fishing communities.

On top of the difficulty that gulf fishermen are experiencing in rebuilding their ability to catch and process gulf seafood, they are also faced with the hurdle of getting that catch into the national marketplace.

One issue that continues to hurt Gulf of Mexico fisheries products is the labeling of the coastal Gulf of Mexico waters by the media as ``toxic soup'' during the first few months after Katrina. For example, Anderson Cooper of CNN led a Katrina follow-up story with the chairman of the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board by asking him about the ``toxic soup'' in which Gulf of Mexico fish are growing.

We need to put this issue to rest and rebuild seafood markets lost due to these storms. This is critical to the recovery process. The five Gulf States estimate that their fishing industries have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since these hurricanes. They will not be able to recover unless they get help in getting this industry back on its feet and getting back into the marketplace.

The key issue that the five Gulf State seafood promotion boards face is that once the continuity of product has been lost in any marketplace, sales often are lost permanently to substitute products and reclaiming those markets is a long term challenge. Add the ``toxic soup'' concerns to the mix and the need for marketing is greater than ever at a time when the state seafood board budgets are dwindling or expended.

I will be brief because I know my colleague from Mississippi, and Senator Shelby from Alabama, who was the author of this portion of the supplemental, have already covered these issues, and Mr. Vitter did a very good job. Maybe I can contribute to the debate just by summing up how critical this is and why this particular amendment, even though it involves only $15 million, should be defeated. It is an important part of what is going on here.

First, let me emphasize, again, that from Texas to Florida, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis have devastated the fishing communities. They are an important part of our communities, our economy, and our culture. It is not just because we like to see the shrimp boats sail off into the sunset or see the oystermen out there tonging for oysters; it is because it is an important part of the economy. Fifteen percent of the Nation's domestic wild-caught seafood by weight and 20 percent of the value comes from the gulf area. It is an area that makes an important economic contribution. It is an important part of the seafood industry nationally, and it has never been properly marketed or exploited in the terms that it should be. We have already had problems with imports being flooded into the country in a way that undermines the industry, and now we have been hit by these hurricanes.

I emphasize this, too: that while we have passed some $90 billion--in excess of that--for disaster funding as a result of these hurricanes, none of it, zero, has gone to these fishermen and to the fishing industry, for a variety of reasons.

First of all, it takes time to ascertain what the damages are. But when you lose it all, when you lose the processing plants, the boats, the whole industry, it takes time to assess what we have lost and how we are going to repair it, and how do we recover from the

fact that we lost this business. Even NOAA has indicated that these hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90 to 100 percent of the commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses, offloading facilities, netmakers, the whole thing.

Once you lose that market, it is difficult to get it back--maybe impossible--but we have to make that effort. This is an important food, it is an important resource. It is an important value for the people. And the only way we are going to get it back is we are going to have to help them repair their vessels and to recover the losses they have had.

A lot of these, by the way, are minorities. In Biloxi, MS, a lot of these fishermen are Vietnamese or Slovonians or Frenchmen, but a lot of them are Vietnamese who lost their house, their truck, their boat, their livelihood. It would make you cry to see these people. This is clearly an area where we should provide this help.

So what this particular part would do would be to focus on us regaining the markets we lost. It is an important part of the recovery process. The five gulf States estimate that their fishing industries have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since the hurricanes. The key issue that the five gulf States' seafood promotion boards face is that once the continuity of the product is broken, getting it back takes effort and time. And then we add to that the bad publicity of the so-called ``toxic soup,'' which was an exaggeration from the beginning, by the way, we have to overcome that.

As a matter of fact, we find that the catch that is possible out there could be very good. The problem is we don't have the boats to get them. We don't have the plants to deal with them when they come in.

So I urge my colleagues, if there is anyplace that we ought to be providing some help, it is the fisheries industry. It is absolutely a part of the critical recovery, just as much or more so than being able to have a way to rebuild your home or repair your home. You have to have a job. For these people, there are not many other options for jobs. So I urge the defeat of the amendment. I commend Senator Shelby and Senator Cochran for including this language in the bill.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, now we are back on the pending amendment, the Coburn amendment; is that correct?

Mr. President, for some time now public officials in Mississippi have been concerned about the vulnerability and safety of the CSX rail line long the Mississippi Coast. These discussions have taken on a sense of urgency as part of the overall dialogue about how to rebuild the gulf coast region after Hurricane Katrina.

Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy, and making it less vulnerable to future destruction while also making it safer should be a priority. I am an unabashed advocate of safer roads, bridges and yes, railroads--most recently lending my support to a $700 million plan to move the Mississippi gulf coast's CSX railroad line north to higher ground, away from people and storm surges.

In the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in American history, any good post-Katrina reconstruction plan should consider moving these tracks. Given the tracks' proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and to motor traffic and flood waters, gulf coast residents and leaders would be irresponsible if we did not consider a safer place for the railroad. At some point we must move these tracks from the middle of busy, growing communities like Biloxi, Gulfport, and Pascagoula.

Let me briefly discuss the rail safety problem in the 3 Mississippi counties along the gulf coast. There are 185 highway-rail crossings on the CSX line in those counties. That is more than 2 crossings per mile. In some cases, there are more than 2 crossings in 1 mile of rail track.

In the last 10 years, 40 people have been killed in collisions between vehicles and trains. In other words someone is killed every 3 months in a rail accident along the gulf coast. Another 68 people have been injured. There have been 147 accidents over those 10 years. That's more than 1 accident per month.

This is an authorized national program. The funds for this project would

be appropriated under the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program. I was a long time champion of the legislation to create this program, and last year Congress finally passed it. This program was designed to alleviate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety and on communities. Now that funds are available for projects that can save lives, such as this one in Mississippi, the program should be utilized.

Many have asked why this qualifies as an emergency project when the rail lines have already been rebuilt. They are oblivious to the fact that this strategic railroad--actually spans the length of our Nation between California and Florida, handling vital cargo.

The simple answer is that this project is needed to prevent future emergencies. There was no way that CSX could have waited on the Federal Government to relocate the line. This project will not be completed until 2008 at the very earliest. Therefore, there was never serious consideration given to not rebuilding the line. The urgency to restore rail operations for the benefit of customers along the corridor was paramount. That is why CSX spent private dollars to rebuild the line as quickly as possible. To be clear, no Federal money has been spent to repair the existing line, as press reports lead you to believe.

It ultimately took CSX 143 days to get the line back in condition to serve customers. Six major bridges and 40 miles of track had to be rebuilt or repaired. During that time hundreds of businesses were without service, 300 CSX employees were affected. Millions of citizens, and numerous seaports depend on this critical rail artery for freight and passenger services. The gulf coast corridor serves as the Southeast's primary gateway for freight being shipped to the western United States. Even with the new construction and rebuilt infrastructure built to the best possible standards, this line would still be significantly damaged in another storm given the proximity to the storm surge.

It is also important to mention, there are significant national security and energy security benefits to moving the current line away from the Nation's highest density of defense--for example, Ingalls, Keesler, Coast Guard, CBC Gulfport, CRTC Gulfport, Stennis Space Center Federal Reservation, and energy--for example, Chevron refinery, fuel transfer pipelines--infrastructure.

The fact is this is not solely a Mississippi project. Remember, the CSX line runs form Jacksonville, FL, to the Port of New Orleans before continuing on to Los Angeles. The Federal investment required to relocate the line will benefit Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana by upgrading tracks within those states. Factually, this is a Southeast United States project, not a Mississippi project.

Our State has not asked for anything that is unreasonable or that the people in this devastated region do not deserve.

Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late and Senators have commitments. This is an issue which I feel very strongly about. It is one we have to address. These are the problems which have been created by the CSX transportation rail line across the Mississippi gulf coast. I thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for taking the initiative to address this issue.

I would like to correct several misunderstandings. First, this would provide the funds to relocate the railroad track from right along the coastline, including crossing significant bodies of water in three different places, and it would then be relocated to an area north of there, connecting several railroad tracks. It would run like this, to New Orleans, instead of all the way along the gulf coast. Keep in mind, this is a major corridor that runs from Jacksonville, in Florida, all the way to California. This issue needs to be addressed.

Senator Cochran and I and our Governor and our officials in Mississippi have tried to be restrained and responsible and conservative in the requests we have made. This Congress has been very helpful, the Senate has been very helpful to meet a lot of our needs, but we need to come to terms with this issue. That is why Senator Cochran has chosen to put it in the supplemental.

Let me make sure you understand that this is Katrina related, No. 1. Some people will say: Look, the old railroad tracks were rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina at the cost of $250 million. But it was not one nickel of Federal dollars in it. It was done by the rail company and was done with insurance money, because this is a major thoroughfare that serves a lot of companies that had to get back in business. If we make this move, it will be 2008 at the earliest before it can possibly happen. I wanted that corrected.

There has been some suggestion that it relates to the gaming industry along the gulf coast. It does not, not at all. In fact, they would probably like for it to stay in this area, which forces traffic along Highway 90, along this coastline, instead of moving it off of the coast. By moving, then, the highway which runs right along the coast, it will be north of where the gaming area is. So there is no connection there.

Why do we need this? Let me make it real clear. There are several very good reasons. No. 1, it is exposed. It does run right along the water and has been blown out several times in the past--three times. It is there because it has been there for a hundred-and-something years.

This shows what happens every time we have a major blow. This is the track. It is built in marshes and on sand. It cannot stand. It will not stand. So we are going to have to do this repeatedly.

This shows the strength of the hurricane. This is a railroad bridge. Look at how the railroad track is actually bent.

This is going to be repeated. It causes economic dislocation. They shut down for 134 days just after this hurricane. That is one factor.

The second thing is, it is a major thoroughfare. We do not have evacuation capability with the current location, where it is now. We do not have east-west rails where people can get to the north-south lines. We just do not have enough room to do that. We will take a railroad bed and turn that into a five- or six-lane road across the major county that is involved, Harrison County, MS.

It is also about safety. People are killed and injured here every year. On this chart, the circles show deaths and injuries that have occurred. I will just give you the numbers we are talking about. Over a period of 10 years, there have been 147 accidents along this trackage. There have been 40 people killed in the last 10 years. There are 185 highway and rail crossings that are involved here.

Some people say you should do it through the authorization process. That has been done. Last year, as part of the highway bill, we passed for the first time the National Rail Relocation Act. This sort of thing needs to be done in a lot of places in America, from State to State. We have an authorization in place, so it is authorized. This provides the funds through the authorization. But this is about hurricanes, it is about evacuation, it is about safety, and it is about getting track out right along the coastline and moving it north so we do not have this repeated problem.

I ask my colleagues to look at it seriously. There are also going to be some 18 amendments to follow that will knock out various and sundry things in the bill. This is an important part of the Katrina recovery. We are still going to be able to get into New Orleans with the trackage coming north and move that transportation traffic on farther to the west coast. But I just wanted to rise and speak briefly in support of what is in the bill and against the motion to strike.

I thank Senator Cochran for his leadership in providing this opportunity.

Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, first, I thank our majority leader for coming to the floor and pointing out what is happening because I think this is a miscarriage of justice, very unfair, and is an indication of what is fundamentally wrong with the Senate these days. It is important that in the light of day, the American people be told why immigration reform, on which the American people feel very strongly we should act and I believe they feel we should put great focus on border security, is long overdue.

We made runs on it in the past. I was around when we passed immigration reform, by title at least, in 1986 and again in 1996. It didn't work. We have to do more for border security. We have to decide if we want a temporary worker program, how is it going to be assigned, what are the responsibilities for it to be implemented, and exactly how are we going to deal with, again, 11 and 12 million people who are in this country.

Frankly, I have very little to say on this subject because I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I do not consider myself an authority, an expert on the substance, as is my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. He worked on it. He is on the Judiciary Committee. They discussed it, considered it for weeks and months. I have a lot of respect for the work that was done in the committee.

I have been proud that our majority leader, Senator Frist, has forced this issue to a head. Some people have said: Wait a minute, we are not ready, we haven't had time to cook this issue; there are too many problems. We should have done this last year, and our leader has been saying since January this issue must be addressed. It is overdue, and it is going to be addressed. And, frankly, he told us when it was coming up--last week. He forced an action in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe it was a forced action, but it was time we acted.

I have made the point in a variety of forums in the last couple of days that this is what the Senate ought to be doing. This is a big, important, difficult issue. The American people expect us to act instead of sweeping around the edges on salami issues and all kinds of other issues. This is a big issue. This is an important issue. This is about who we are and who we are going to be.

Thank goodness the Senate is living up to the expectations our forefathers had for us: to take up a tough issue, have a debate, have amendments, and have votes. And all of a sudden people say: Oh, we can't have votes; we can't vote on amendments on both sides of the aisles. Senators are saying: I don't want to have to cast a tough vote. Hallelujah, finally we are going to do something that matters around here.

Will we get it right? I don't know. I have been trying to listen to both sides of the debate. I want action. I hope it is the right one. But we are never going to know until we go forward and consider this issue and get it done in a responsible way.

If forced to vote on the bill that came out of the committee right now, I would vote against it. I don't think we have found a third way. I don't think we have found the sweet spot. I think we have to have more responsibility.

Illegal aliens are illegal. This is a very difficult, sensitive problem. We have to think about it. But I don't think we can say: OK, gee, say you're sorry and pay a fine and everything will be OK. It has to be more serious than that.

I was looking forward to amendments. Some people will say: Oh, vote for cloture, let's get this over with; there are too many amendments. We haven't voted on one amendment. We have been dragging around here for over a week now. Senator Kyl has tried every way in the world to get a vote, and the minority in the Senate is blocking even a vote on a critical amendment by a senior Senator in the leadership of the majority, I might add, because they don't want to vote.

Frankly, for floor people, I note there are some ways this issue can be stuffed down the opposition's throat. I don't want to do that. I thought we were going to rise to the occasion and have a bipartisan debate.

This is the Senate. This is not the House. And, by the way, I have been a party to stuffing the minority, and people didn't agree with me. I filled up the tree. I filed cloture instantly on bills and on amendments. But almost every way, almost every time it backfired on me. I admit it now. I remember filling up the tree and blocking Senator McCain from offering his amendment on campaign finance reform. I did it more than once. I told him I was going to do it. In the end, he won.

This tactic that has been employed by the Democratic leadership blocking even a vote on amendments on an issue of this magnitude is outrageous and, quite frankly, I am offended cloture has been filed by the minority leader. It is not unprecedented. It has been done 18 times in the last 10 years. Yes, I did it, too, and again, it doesn't add to anything. It destroys the potential for good will.

I will vote against any cloture motion filed by the minority leader. He does not manage the Senate. The majority leader does. And even when I disagree with him--I admire Senator McCain standing up and saying: I am not going to support that. Senator McCain has the high hand, he has the winning hand probably, but he said: Wait a minute, you can't block Senators from even having a vote on their amendments, even though he is going to vote against them and speak against them.

What have we done here? This approach cannot stand, it will not stand, and what I am going to urge our leadership to consider doing is if we don't get something worked out by sunrise, then the Senate Democrats are going to be cut out. There is a way we can get an agreement between the Republicans in the House and the Senate, the majority in the House and the Senate, and force it to the floor whole- hog and say: Vote for it, up or down. It can be done. I don't want to do that. I object to that. But when David Broder writes these articles about how he can't understand why the majority doesn't work with the minority, hey, Mr. Broder, take a look at the Senate today. This is the kind of conduct which makes it impossible for us to get our work done and makes the majority decide to just ignore the minority.

I am one of those people whose votes hang in the balance. I am not locked into a position. I probably am willing to go further toward what the Judiciary Committee did than some of my colleagues. But I am offended by this, and it may affect my overall vote on the final product.

This bill has the potential to be bipartisan. It has the potential to be a major achievement by the Senate and by the Congress and, more importantly, for the American people. I hope our leadership will say: Oh well, maybe we just didn't talk enough to each other, and let's work this out. Let's go forward. We are not going to be able to finish this legislation this week. So what. Take next week. Take next month. This issue is too big, too important. The illegal alien problem we have in this country--and the need for immigration reform--is doing serious damage to our country. There are good aspects to the bill, but there is damage being done and the relationship between people is not moving in a positive way. This is where we show whether we are statesmen or political hacks who are just trying to find a way to avoid a tough vote.

I plead with my colleagues: Let's find a way to go forward on this and get a solution we can all vote for and feel good about. Right now, we should be ashamed of what we are doing and the way we look.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up the following amendments en bloc and that they be temporarily set aside after they have been called up: amendments Nos. 2980, 2981 and 2893, introduced by Senator Ensign; amendment No. 2961, introduced by Senator Cornyn; amendment No. 3175, introduced by Senator Coburn; amendment No. 2970, introduced by Senator Sununu; and amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, and 2982, these by Senator Inhofe.

Mr. President, I believe we are ready to go forward with amendments postcloture. We did get an agreement last night to go to the Feingold amendment. I see the Senator from Wisconsin is on the Senate floor, so I yield to him to call it up at this time.

Amendment No. 2954

Mr. President I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have worked in this area to make sure that we did some things that were necessary and realistic. I think we should make it clear about gifts. We do that in this legislation. We can't accept gifts.

I am offended at the very idea that some meal is going to cause me to vote one way or the other. But it suits me fine. As I have said on this floor, I would be happy not to ever have to go to another luncheon or dinner. I would just as soon go home and order a Big Mac. But I think this goes a step further which is problematic in a way that I don't believe the American people expect us to do or that we would want to do.

Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, individuals who lobby on behalf of other entities must register as a lobbyist. In addition, organizations such as corporations, trade associations, or a labor union that employs in-house lobbyists or outside lobbying firms are required to register under the act.

However, for purposes of applying the restrictions that are imposed on lobbyists under our gift rule, an organization that employs lobbyists to represent organizations or its members' interests is not considered to be a lobbyist.

Thus, for example, the AFL-CIO employs lobbyists. But for purposes of the Senate gift rule, the AFL-CIO can sponsor a congressional factfinding trip whereas if the AFL-CIO employed an outside lobbying firm, the lobbying firm cannot sponsor such a trip.

Under the proposed amendment, for the purposes of our new rule banning

gifts and meals, the employees of the AFL-CIO would all be considered to be registered lobbyists. Janitors at the AFL-CIO would all be considered registered lobbyists. The janitors at the AFL-CIO headquarters, the secretaries in the organization, all would be deemed to be registered lobbyists.

I am the son of a shipyard worker pipefitter union member. How far would this extend? Would you not be able to go to a meal with a supervisor of a pipe department because they have a lobbyist, not to mention the CEO?

So this is not just about corporate America. It is also about union member trade associations and other organizations. We are trying to deal with how we relate to lobbyists, but now we are going to extend it way beyond. You will not be able to go to a meal with the chairman of the board of a sardine manufacturing plant. And why not, when you are in your State and you have an opportunity to go meet with workers and sit down with them? Are we going to be able to have a cup of coffee and a donut?

I think we are beginning to go from the sublime to the ridiculous. It could go on and on.

I am a big fan of Domino's pizza and McDonald's and Big Macs. I love them. They are bad for you, but they are wonderful.

What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? I assume they do. I don't think I have ever met one.

By the way, in the case of McDonald's, there are franchises. They own all the McDonald's in the Mississippi Delta, or they might own 10 or 12. Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend in the Mississippi Delta who owns those 12 McDonald's in the delta? Not only would I miss an opportunity to be with a friend, I would not have an opportunity to understand the challenges and difficulties of running a small business, or running a restaurant in these towns, problems with crime, workers' problems, workers' needs, the lack of insurance for entry-level employees.

How are we supposed to know all of this stuff? Like manna from heaven? We have to stay in touch with reality in order to serve here. We have turned ourselves into not citizen legislators but professional Senators in this room divorced of any opportunity to hear what people have to say. It is OK to talk to them so long as we don't have anything to eat. I think we are going a step too far.

Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot--not exactly dangerous places--and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.

I honestly cannot believe that we want to pass an amendment that wants to turn every employee not only in corporate America but in management and labor and other associations into registered lobbyists. But I think that is what the effect of this would be.

If the Senator wants to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.

I think we would be well advised not to accept this amendment. I reluctantly went along with accepting the amendment earlier about dealing with lobbyists, but that is OK. I am willing to do things that would prohibit improper conduct, or even the appearance of it, but I think this is a leap way too far.

I hope we would not accept this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining in opposition?

Three minutes.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of our time, except for the final 15 seconds, to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. President, I believe we have had a good debate. I know the intent of the amendment's sponsor is an honest one, but I really think we are going down a trail we should not be. And I do not see how you can start parsing it back away from it. So I would move to table the amendment at this point and ask for the yeas and nays.

All right. At the appropriate time I will move to table and will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. President, has all time been yielded back?

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

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent--and this is after extensive consultation during the noon lunch period by both sides, both committees, and Senators on both sides of the aisle. We would like to get this matter cleared up, and then I will be able to explain where we are and how

we can wrap up this important issue, hopefully within the hour.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at this time to raise one point of order against a series of amendments that violate rule XXII.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order under rule XXII against amendments Nos. 2936, 2937, 2954, 2965, 2982, 3175, and 2995.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be agreed to en bloc, with modifications as indicated: amendments Nos. 2930, 2960, 2961, as modified; 2963, 2970, 3181, as modified; and 3182.

I further ask unanimous consent that a series of technical amendments that have been cleared on both sides and that are at the desk also be considered en bloc, agreed to, with motions to reconsider on each laid upon the table.

I ask unanimous consent that no other amendments be in order other than the pending amendments Nos. 2980, 2981, and 2983.

I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of those amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill, with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, to clarify where we are, we do have three remaining amendments by Senator Ensign, and there are other Senators who are working on those amendments and discussing them with Senators who have some concerns. Hopefully, we can work out all of them or a couple of them. It may be a few more minutes.

When that is done, we will then dispose of those amendments one way or another, and we will be able to go to final passage.

I will be glad to yield the floor at this time so Senator Dodd can make some comments, maybe go over some of the items we have in this legislation, and I will join him at some point.

Mr. President, I commend and respond in the same sense and vein of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. Before I do that, and talk further about our relationship and how the Rules Committee package came together, I would like to call on my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maine, to go over the specifics of what is included in the bill out of her committee work, and with Senator Lieberman. I have never worked with a floor manager who has been more enjoyable than working with the Senator from Maine, her attitude and her help, her tenacity, and also, of course, Senator Dodd. But I thought before I respond further to Senator Dodd, I would like for us to understand the details of what was in the legislation that came out of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Mr. President, I don't want to repeat everything that has been said here because we do have the need to move forward. We have some amendments we need to dispose of, but let me take a minute to comment as to Senator Dodd and Senator Lieberman and Senator Collins and their leadership and the way we work together.

I wish to do that by reminding you a little bit of history. When we started off this year, there were problems that were reflecting on the Congress and the way we do business--the Abramoff matter, as Senator Lieberman has described. There was a feeling that we needed to address some of those concerns. We needed to take a look at our lobbying laws and the rules of the institution. There was a concern about, was this going to be a panic reaction? Was this going to be everybody taking their partisan positions and not ever actually getting anything done, just looking for political advantage?

That could have been what happened, but that is not what happened. It started off by strong leadership on both sides of the aisle. Senator Santorum was designated by Majority Leader Frist to pull together a task force to begin working on issues that needed to be addressed, and solutions. Senator Reid stepped right out and started developing a package on the Democratic side.

By the way, I think one of the ways we came to the point where we are is that there were some good things in the Reid proposal. When I brought up the chairman's mark in the Rules Committee, several of the pieces of that legislation came from the Reid ideas. Then it continued to move forward with important areas being addressed. I wound up in a meeting that was somewhat of an amazement to me because it was a bipartisan meeting that included Senator Collins, Senator McCain, Senator Santorum, Senator Dodd, Senator Obama, Senator Isakson--a large group from both sides of all different political persuasions working together to see if we couldn't come up with bipartisan legislation.

I guess it was about that time when I started talking to Senator Dodd, saying: Can we do this together and make it a truly cooperative thing? He wanted to do that, but both of us had to make sure leaders were OK with that, and they were. They told us: Yes. Do your job and operate the way a committee is supposed to act--hold hearings, have a markup, report a bill, regular order. That is what we did.

I am pleased the way this has come about.

I could go around and commend everybody who has been involved but that has already been done very legitimately.

But this is a case study of an issue that could have blown up. It was very tough. It could have produced nothing but acrimony. That is not what happened, no.

It is not a perfect bill. But we have addressed some tough issues. When you start talking about outright ban of gifts, outright ban of meals from lobbyists, taking action with regard to the flights and transparency and disclosure, saying that former Senators cannot come onto the floor of the Senate when we are debating legislation where they are registered lobbyists, and that also applies to former officers of the institution, except for ceremonial events. We also have very tight postemployment restrictions, and we address the question of earmarks.

I, for one, think that earmarks--and I don't particularly like that description, but where you have a Senator or a Congressman exercising their right to have language included in a tax bill or in a highway bill or in an appropriations bill for the benefit of some entity that they are familiar with or something in their State, I think we should have that right. I think it is our constitutional right, as a matter of fact, and I will fight for that. I will fight for it even if my colleague from Mississippi were not the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. But he worked with us on how we could deal with this issue by making sure that it wasn't just about appropriations. It was about tax bills coming out of the Finance Committee, and authorization bills, too.

I must say, while I think the language in this area still is not totally artfully crafted, we made some real progress there. This was a problem that I believe people were concerned about where there was an earmark in a conference that had not been considered by either body and there was no way to get at it--at a particular item--without a point of order, without taking down the whole conference.

That doesn't make sense. That is not the way the Byrd point of order works. So we include that here.

I think that is where we need to go. We will continue to work with Senators on both sides of the aisle, from all persuasions, to make sure that we have thought that through carefully and produced the right result. But we didn't duck the issue. We stepped up and addressed it by bringing people in and talking about the best way to deal with the earmarks issue.

But that leads me to the point that there are some amendments pending now and the only three left that do get into this particular area.

In the effort to move forward and expedite these issues and come to conclusion, I think now would be the time to move to an amendment that is pending, which I guess would be 2981. I believe Senator Ensign has an amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. President, I raise a point of order--

Mr. President, for purposes of debate only, I said in my comments before the Senator offered his amendment that I realize it is not perfect language. It has been difficult to achieve what we would like to achieve. He worked on it in the Rules Committee. Senator Cochran made some very important points, and we actually made some changes as we went forward. But I think we still have some more work to do to accomplish what we are trying to accomplish.

I will commit to work with Senator Ensign to try to find language that does what we are trying to do and which has the support of all involved in the discussions this afternoon. I am not sure what the Senator is trying to do is what we want to do. But I also realize that the language, the wording we have in there, the critical word is pretty nebulous. And we will have to work on that.

Mr. President, if the Senator wishes to proceed with his next amendment.

I thank the Senator for his approach on this.

Let me make a couple of points. Again, in a way, there is not as big a problem here as indicated. For instance, I have been assured the example that was used about ANWR, this, in fact, would apply to that and a point of order would be in order against the ANWR amendment being added in conference that had not been in the other body. We will work through this.

The second point is and one of the reasons why I was prepared to make a point of order, Senator Dodd and I, postcloture, have been very meticulous; even when there were amendments he or I or both of us supported, if they were not germane, we have not included them in the managers' package. We have held the line because once you start allowing exceptions, there is no end to it. We were trying to get through with as strong a package as possible.

With that, I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2980

Will the Senator yield?

The Senator started moving toward giving an example. So that I will fully understand exactly what the Senator is trying to get at here, can he give me a couple of examples? He has referred to military, for instance. I don't want to use any particular weapon system because I don't want to make anyone mad, but take generic helicopter. If the Pentagon or the President's budget only included 100 helicopters and a Senator of the Committee on Armed Services, in conference, said no, we are going to make it 200, would that be an example of where the Senator is trying to get this language to apply?

That is the type of example.

If the Senator would yield for a further question, the language we have would allow for that kind of designation to continue?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I have been asked by the sponsor of the amendment to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the final pending amendment.

With that, we have finished our amendments on this very important legislation. I believe we are almost ready to hear from the leaders, and then we will be ready to go to final passage.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2006, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on ``Economic Impact Issues in Export-Import Bank Reauthorization.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to hold an oversight hearing on Wednesday, March 29, at 9:30 a.m., on the impact of the elimination of MTBE.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 10 a.m., in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``U.S.-China Economic Relations Revisited.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a closed briefing on U.S.-India Atomic Energy Cooperation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 29, at 9:30 a.m., in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on the following bills:

(1) S. 2078, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act amendments.

(2) S. 1899, Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act amendments.

(3) S. 2245, Indian Youth Telemental Health Demonstration Project Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Panel I: Members of Congress, TBA.

Panel II: Brian M. Cogan to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York; Michael Ryan Barrett to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio; Thomas M. Golden to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed briefing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committe on Aging be authorized to meet Wednesday, March 29, 2006 from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Dirksen 106 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``What's in a Game? State Regulation of Violent Video Games and the First Amendment'' on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 2 p.m. in SD 226.

Witness List

Panel One: Reverend Steve Strickland, brother of Arnold Strickland, police officer killed by teenager in 2004, Fayette County, AL; Dr. Elizabeth Carll, Ph.D., Chair of Interactive Media Committee, Media Psychology Division, American Psychological Association Long Island, NY; Dr. Dmitri Williams, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Speech Communications, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL; Dr. David Bickham, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Center on Media and Child Health, Harvard Medical School Boston, MA.

Panel Two: Patricia E. Vance, President, Entertainment Software Rating Board New York, NY; Representative Jeff Johnson, Assistant Majority Leader, Minnesota House of Representatives, St. Paul, MN; Paul Smith, Partner, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC; Professor Kevin Saunders, J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Law, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on U.S.-Burma Relations.

Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on U.S. nonproliferation strategy and the roles and missions of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy in nonproliferation in review of the Defense Authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future years Defense progam.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 2:30 p.m. for a hearing entitled, The War on Terrorism: How Prepared is the Nation's Capital? Part (II).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 29 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the hearings is to receive testimony on S. 1832, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease oil and gas resources underlying Fort Reno, OK, to establish the Fort Reno Management Fund, and for other purposes; S. 2150, to direct the Secretary of Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land Management land to the city of Eugene, OR; and H.R. 3507, to transfer certain land in Riverside County, CA, and San Diego County, CA, from the Bureau of Land Management to the United States to be held in trust for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians, and for other purposes; S. 1056 to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the city of Henerson, NV certain Federal land located in the city, and for other purposes; and S. 2373 to provide for the sale of approximately 132 acres of public land to the city of Green River, WY at fair market value.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on March 29, 2006, at 3:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on Navy/Marine Corps Force structure and future capabilities in review of the Defense Authorization request for Fiscal Year 2007 and the future years Defense Program.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate March 29, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on global strike plans and programs in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness be authorized to meet on Wednesday, March 29, 2006, at 10 a.m., on Importance of Basic Research to U.S. Competitiveness.

Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues who have been speaking today and yesterday extending their heartfelt sympathy to Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia for the loss of the diamond of his life, Erma. She truly was the light of his life. On many occasions, I have eased over into the chair next to Senator Byrd, and we have talked about how blessed we are with our two wives. He knows my wife Tricia and often asks about her, typically the courtesy that Senator Byrd extends to all of us.

I have asked him about Erma and how she was doing. We talked a lot about what a difference they have made in our lives. There is no question that he is going to miss her greatly, as will all of the family, I know. To all of them, we extend our heartfelt sympathies. We know the children and grandchildren are with Senator Byrd now and with Mrs. Byrd.

I remember an occasion on a Friday afternoon standing here when Senator Byrd asked me to yield. You are not always sure what Senator Byrd is asking you to yield for because it could be that you violated some rule of the Senate. But he asked if I would yield so that he could speak on the beauty of the grandson. I had just had my first grandchild, and it happened to be a grandson. He spoke so beautifully, so eloquently, totally from memory, and ended with a beautiful quote of what a grandson means to a grandfather. I was moved by it, literally to tears. And of course, when it came out in the Congressional Record, I had it framed. It hangs on the wall of my son's home in Paris, KY. Obviously, he doesn't think much of it right now, doesn't fully appreciate it. But some day, he will read that, and I know he will think of his grandfather and where he has served.

I tell that story to remind my colleagues about the kind of man Senator Byrd is. He can be a tough adversary. He can cause leaders to have a lot of heartburn. I have had it a couple of times when I was standing here in this place. But it is because he reveres the institution, because he does care about us as individual men and women. He knows about every one of us. He knows about our families. And not only does he love the institution, but he loves knowledge and great history and poetry.

Many have quoted from his favorite poem in the last couple of days. I don't have a poem. I don't have some great saying from memory. I only rise to join all the others in saying how much I admire and appreciate this Senator who is an institution in his own right in this body. I know how much he is suffering right now.

Sometimes we get so busy these days in this institution, trying to make it move forward or trying to keep up with the mail and the constituents and the flying back and forth, we really need a few who have very firm rudders and their sails set in the right direction for the best interests of the country. I know that is true of Senator Byrd.

Again, I extend my best wishes to him. When he returns, I will join all my colleagues in paying my respects to him and my appreciation for the example he set for himself and Erma, his wife of 69 years.

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

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

Mr. President, for the information of all of our colleagues, we should be getting some indication from our leadership soon as to when and how we will proceed on the lobbying and rules reform legislation. Of course, a major part of our time this week will necessarily be involved in considering the immigration reform legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan vote on Monday night. But I do think that we should go back to this very important issue also, which has been pending now for 3 weeks.

This is a bipartisan piece of legislation from two different committees. It is one of those rare but blessed occasions when Republican and Democrat, chairman and ranking members, can work together. Senator Dodd and I worked together on this legislation, along with Senator Feinstein and other Democrats, to shape the package that came out of the Rules Committee. Senator Collins, the chairman of the very important Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, was able to get legislation out of her committee working with Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. Good work is being done. We were making progress and were about to get into a position where we could have wrapped the legislation up in a couple of days.

However, Senator Schumer proposed an amendment involving the Dubai World ports issue, and that caused the legislation to be stopped. That issue now is being dealt with by transferring the responsibility for the operations of those terminals to domestic companies. So that issue is being addressed, for now. I believe Senator Schumer has

indicated that he is willing to withdraw his amendment, and we can go forward.

The pending business then would be the Wyden amendment on the issue of holds and how secret holds could be dealt with in this body. Some Senators have some concerns about the amendment. I would like for us to step up and address that issue and work with our leaders. That is a Rules Committee issue and I have held a hearing on the issue of holds. I support the Wyden-Grassley approach, but I think that when it involves rules that directly impact how the Senate operates day-to-day, the leaders of our two parties in the Senate have to have major input in how we deal with the issue in the future.

There are other issues that are pending that have interest and support. Obviously, one of those is the amendment by Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman dealing with establishing a new Office of Public Integrity. That issue was considered in their committee, and they would like for it to be considered on the floor. I certainly understand that and would be supportive of that because it is supported by these two leaders of that committee. But we have 77 amendments filed as first- degree amendments, most of which are not germane to the bill. So I have to ask my colleagues: Are we serious about lobbying reform and rules reform?

There are some good things in here. I don't support all of them, and on a bill of this magnitude nobody is going to support all of it. But I think we need to step up and resolve these issues. We do need reform in the lobbying area and some changes in the rules especially in the area of disclosure. We also need a mechanism to deal with earmarks that have not been considered by either the House or the Senate, and then are inserted in conference reports.

We are going to have to deal with all these issues sooner or later. We can do it now or we can do it later. Some people I suspect hope this entire package of reforms will slide off the face of the Earth and disappear. It is not going to. It is here, and it is going to come back. We can do it today if the leaders give us that charge or we can come back to it later as filler or we can be the legislative yo-yo. But this issue is going to be dealt with. I hope we can come up with a way to get it done even today, if possible.

We have actually lost a full day. We could have been working on this yesterday afternoon. We could have been working on it this morning. There are other issues that are of interest and concern to the Members and to the leaders, so I understand how that goes. But if every Senator presumes to offer his or her amendment and demand a recorded vote, we will not ever finish it. Maybe the American people are not that focused. Obviously, when I was home I got a lot of questions about immigration, about taxes, but I got one call, just one, about this bill. It was from somebody who was concerned about something they hoped we would not put in the bill. Actually, it was a lobbyist, and I didn't even agree with what he was saying.

I think we should reconsider the cloture vote as soon as possible. I will support it no matter at what point it occurs. We can consider two or three of these amendments or several of them or not. But we need to step up to the issue, vote cloture, and complete this legislation as soon as possible.

I ask my colleagues: Who wants to take the blame for not getting this done? I was very disturbed about the way this was brought to a halt because I had yielded for what I was clearly told were going to be comments and all of a sudden, we were hit with a second-degree amendment that had no applicability to this at all.

We need to get together in a bipartisan way to address this issue, and we need to do it now. If we do not, somebody is going to have to explain it. The way I will explain it is not going to be positive because we have a commitment and we need to go forward with it.

I yield the floor.