Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (Senate) Page S10764-S10816 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. Res. 445, which the clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 445) to eliminate certain restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Pending: McConnell/Reid/Frist/Daschle Amendment No. 3981, in the nature of a substitute. Bingaman (for Domenici) Amendment No. 4040 (to Amendment No. 3981), to transfer jurisdiction over organization and management of United States nuclear export policy to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion. We the undersigned Senators in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the standing rules of the Senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate to the pending amendment on S. Res. 445, a resolution to eliminate certain restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, John Cornyn, Craig Thomas, James Inhofe, Mike Crapo, Conrad Burns, Norm Coleman, Tom Daschle, Lamar Alexander, James Talent, Wayne Allard, Gordon Smith, Larry Craig, Robert Bennett, Pete Domenici, Susan Collins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate debate on Amendment No. 3981, offered by the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. McCONNELL, I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are necessarily absent. Mr. REID, I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bond). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 88, nays 3, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 204 Leg.] YEAS--88 Akaka Alexander Allard Allen Baucus Bayh Bennett Biden Bingaman Bond Boxer Breaux Brownback Bunning Burns Byrd Cantwell Carper Chafee Clinton Cochran Coleman Conrad Cornyn Corzine Craig Crapo Daschle Dayton DeWine Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Durbin Ensign Enzi Feingold Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Graham (SC) Grassley Gregg Hagel Harkin Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Levin Lincoln Lott Lugar McConnell Mikulski Miller Murkowski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Nickles Pryor Reed Reid Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Sarbanes Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Specter Stabenow Stevens Talent Thomas Warner Wyden NAYS--3 Collins McCain Voinovich NOT VOTING--9 Campbell Chambliss Edwards Graham (FL) Hollings Kerry Leahy Lieberman Sununu The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 88, the nays are 3. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. The assistant Republican leader. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be temporarily set aside. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 4035, As Modified Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4035 for the majority leader, Senator Frist. I understand a modification to the amendment is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the modification be accepted. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLARD). Is there objection? The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. HARKIN. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Mr. HARKIN. I object. Mr. HATCH. I cannot make a unanimous consent request. Mr. HARKIN. I object. Mr. HATCH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 1 hour and after that the quorum be reinstituted. Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, his hour will be counted against the time for the cloture; is that right? Mr. HATCH. No, because I am not speaking on the bill. Mr. REID. I object, then. Mr. HATCH. That is fine. Mr. REID. I objected. Mr. HATCH. Fine. Your request is fine. Mr. REID. The hour will be counted? Mr. HATCH. Fine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 1 hour. Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished minority whip and, of course, my friend from Iowa for their courtesy. I have been wanting to give these Senate remarks as in morning business ever since yesterday. [...] Amendment No. 4027 to Amendment No. 3981 Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4027. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an amendment numbered 4027 to amendment No. 3981. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in the Committee on the Budget) At the end of Section 101, insert the following: ``(e) Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the congressional budget process, including: (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional Budget Office; (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional Budget Office; (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables; (4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices; (5) the timetables for Presidential submission of appropriations and authorization requests; (6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals''; (7) the process and determination by which impoundments must be reported to and considered by Congress; (8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as GAO review and lawsuits; and (9) the provisions which affect the content or determination of amounts included in or excluded from the congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts, including the definition of terms provided by the Budget Act.'' Amendment No. 4041 To Amendment No. 4027 Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4041 to amendment No. 4027. Mr. KENNEDY. Point of order, Mr. President. Parliamentary inquiry: As I understood it, the Senator from Arizona yielded for points of discussion. I ask the Chair if he would not rule. I ask if he asked consent if he would be able to yield, for the point of discussion, to other Members here? As I understand it now, the Senator is offering an amendment. That is not discussion. I make a point of order. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yielded for a specified period of time. Mr. KENNEDY. And not for discussion only? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Simply for a specified period of time. Mr. KENNEDY. What is the request now that is before the Chair? Several Senators addressed the Chair. Mr. McCAIN. What is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has the right to call up an amendment. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, what is the request? Mr. McCAIN. What is the pending business before the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has called up an amendment and has sent it to the desk, and a second-degree amendment as well, which is his right. The Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I believe I was recognized. For the information of my colleagues, to help clarify, I believe I understood the underlying Domenici amendment was set aside. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do not believe the pending amendment was set aside. It required unanimous consent. Mr. NICKLES. My understanding--I will ask the Chair, but it is my understanding the Domenici-Craig amendment was set aside. Under the unanimous consent agreement that was entered into yesterday, there were several amendments to be pending, that are in order. One of those amendments is an amendment I had, dealing with the budget office. I am just trying to get in, too. I have modified it at the request of the chairman of the Government Operations Committee. This is not a significant amendment, but it is an important one and I am trying to advance the movement of this bill, to have a pending amendment. I have now modified it. I have a second- degree amendment pending to it, that Senator Kent Conrad and myself are cosponsoring. It now means that would be the pending amendment to the underlying bill when we go to the regular order on the bill. I would like for us to finish this bill. I know some people wish to speak at length because they happen to be upset about the Homeland Security bill. I may support them in their efforts. That remains to be seen. But I do think it is important we finish the bill that is pending, and there are four or five amendments that are out there. Maybe two or three of those amendments will be agreed to and we can finish the Homeland Security bill in a very short period of time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Mr. McCAIN. Before I yield to the Senator from Kentucky--I mean Massachusetts---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the second-degree amendment. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an amendment numbered 4041 to amendment No. 4027. Mr. NICKLES. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Mr. HARKIN. I object. The assistant legislative clerk continued with the reading, as follows: Strike all after the first word, and insert the following: ``Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the congressional budget process, which are: [[Page S10782]] (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget Committee; (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional Budget Office; (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables; Mr. REID. Mr. President, it does not take consent to stop reading. I seek recognition. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want the attention---- Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, Mr. President. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor. Mr. McCAIN. Has the time of the Senator from Oklahoma expired? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Oklahoma has expired. The Senator from Arizona has the floor. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Massachusetts was waiting to say a few words. I ask unanimous consent to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for 5 minutes for the purpose of discussion, followed by the Senator from Nevada for 2 minutes, with my right to regain the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to speak before Senator Kennedy for 1 or 2 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I direct this to my friend from Oklahoma. I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Oklahoma. But it is not appropriate when neither manager is on the floor to send an amendment to the desk. It is not the way we do things around here. I ask unanimous consent that the action taken by my friend be vitiated. That is not fair. I say that with all due respect. We have been here for the last 3 or 4 days. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. McCAIN. Once, shame on you; twice, shame on me. The Senator from Massachusetts was recognized. Mr. REID. My time is not up. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the action taken by the Senator from Oklahoma be vitiated, and that we go back to where we started before he offered his amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. NICKLES. I have no objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my friends and colleagues from Iowa, Florida, and Louisiana have outlined very briefly some of their concerns about how they felt the minority had been treated in an arbitrary way in the conference committee. I want to remind the Senate that we had a 78-to-15 vote in the Senate to tie the tobacco buyout with the FDA regulations, and that particular proposal came back. We had not asked that the tobacco buyout be in the tax bill. But, nonetheless, the House decided to put it in the bill. Then when it came back here, the decision of that conference was made to take care of the tobacco companies and give short shrift to the children of this country. I think it is going to be appropriate that many of us talk about that and make sure the American people understand that. Finally, we have also had the issue on overtime. Three times we saw the decision made in the Senate to repeal the administration's overtime--twice in the House of Representatives. This was given 6 minutes in the conference committee. I think the working families of this country have a right to understand and know what is in that FSC bill. I for one intend to use my time to make sure that they do. I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to say again I am not sure that the situation on Monday, or Tuesday, or midnight tonight, or Wednesday, or whatever, is going to be any different than it is now. I have been assured by the leader that we could have any amendment within reason considered, debated, and voted on in a reasonable length of time. I hope my colleagues will consider doing that. Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to. Mr. DURBIN. If I am not mistaken, it is possible to amend the conference committee report which was sent to us for consideration on the floor of the Senate. The Senator suggested amendments several times. I ask if he would please clarify that. Mr. McCAIN. I think the Senator knows that conference reports are not amendable. But I would also respond by saying as frustrated as many of us are with conference reports, especially appropriations conference reports coming out with little things in them that we never anticipated, if you want to delay it 1 day, or 2 days, or a week, the result is basically going to be the same. I think we all know that. Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question by the Senator from New Hampshire. I am learning. Mr. GREGG. The Senator has spent some time there, and we appreciate it. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Arizona if he would be willing to allow me to go forward with a unanimous consent request which the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and I have agreed to which would extend the higher education bill and which would in addition allow us to save the taxpayers $100 million from money that is now being paid out to banks that are getting unconscionably high rates of return on student loans, and take that money and apply it so that teachers who go into underserved districts or in matters such as special education could receive a much higher forgiveness of their loans, raising their forgiveness from $5,000 to $17,000. I was wondering if the Senator would allow me to offer a unanimous consent request. I believe it has been signed off on by both sides. Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to. I wonder why the Senator missed this one. What happened? Are we asleep at the switch? Everything else is in here. Mr. GREGG. That is a good point. Mr. McCAIN. There is all kinds of fun in that. I don't know why you missed that one. Of course, we have homeland appropriations coming down. That is loaded with pork. The Senator from New Mexico just mentioned they changed the formula on milk to the tune of about $2.4 billion. Mr. DOMENICI. They haven't yet. Mr. GREGG. This is within the jurisdiction of my committee, and the Senator from Massachusetts and I have worked on this. We think it is important for existing students who are paying this ridiculous interest rate--the Government is paying this ridiculous interest rate--and use the money to help teachers who are going into underserved areas. Will the Senator allow me to do that? Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to. Mr. KENNEDY. I am in strong support. Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield for a question by the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator agree with me that even though I might strongly support what the Senator from New Hampshire has stated, I would like to defer action because my friend and colleague Senator Harkin is not here at the moment. He may or may not object. He objected to it earlier. I hope the Senator will address this later on in the afternoon or evening. Mr. GREGG. Will the Senator from Massachusetts yield the floor at this time? At some time I would like to put the body on notice that we need to handle it today. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the work of the Senator from New Hampshire and the Senator from [[Page S10783]] Massachusetts on this issue. I have been reading a lot about it. I think it is disgraceful and outrageous, and I think every Member of this body agrees with it. I hope we can get this done today because it is as egregious as the Senator from New Hampshire described. I have little doubt about the outcome of this vote, but I will continue to remind my colleagues that the so-called reorganization resolution is a farce. The hypocrisy was bad enough when the resolution was laid down Wednesday evening. Since that time, Members' parochial interests have whittled away the little new oversight authority that would be transferred to the renamed homeland security and governmental affairs committee. The result is nothing more than a name change for the committee. I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Voinovich, who made some comments last night when he further exposed this sham for what it is. We should adopt this proposal to not rename the committee but keep it the Governmental Affairs Committee since we really are not making any substantive changes. In today's Washington Post, there is an excellent column by David Ignatius. David Ignatius says in the article: ``It's outrageous. The American people should be angry,'' says former Senator Bob Kerrey, who was a Member of the Sept. 11 commission and for eight years served as a member of the Senate intelligence committee. He argues that it would have been better to drop the executive-branch changes if Congress was not going to reform itself. ``These are secret agencies,'' he explains. ``Unless you put in place strong oversight, it isn't going to work.'' In fact, Senator Kerrey and others argue with the consolidation of power we are making it more dangerous because there is no oversight. We may have not only remained in neutral here as far as increasing congressional oversight, but since we are consolidating power, what this proposal does is even more dangerous to America than the status quo. The 9/11 Commission in its report described congressional oversight of intelligence as ``dysfunctional.'' They did not say it needed improvement; they did not say the system could use a tweak here or there; they said it was dysfunctional and that it needed comprehensive change. So we in the Senate supposedly committed to doing just that. We formed a working group, held discussions--they were interesting discussions, by the way--committed to bringing a bill to the Senate, and now we are here. What have we done? Have we embraced comprehensive change? No, we haven't. We haven't even embraced a modicum of change. We have said that the status quo is fine with us, and as far as the Senate is concerned, September 11 never happened. It never happened, if you look at what is being done in the name of responding to September 11 and the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Now, we are tinkering with the oversight responsibilities of the Intelligence Committee but certainly nothing substantive. When I go home to Arizona and I say: My friends, we have really reformed intelligence; we have changed the Intelligence Committee from a B committee to an A committee. How do you like that? They are going to be overwhelmed when they hear that we have changed the Intelligence Committee from a B committee to an A committee. I can see the Scottsdale Rotary Club rising to their feet in applause for this incredible change we have made in the way we carry out our intelligence oversight responsibility. I apologize for engaging in a little bit too much hyperbole. We took away from the new committee jurisdiction over immigration, then the Secret Service. I have to relate to my colleagues a funny story in case they missed it. I was on the Senate floor with the two sponsors of the amendment that would keep the Secret Service under the Judiciary Committee when they said: You know, the Secret Service really wants to be under the Judiciary Committee. I have encountered hundreds of Secret Service agents, and I have never had a single one come up to me and say: Senator, please put me under the oversight of the Judiciary Committee. Never. I guess I have not spoken to the right agents. Anyway, all that is remains of the committee on homeland security is the name. I wouldn't be surprised if someone objected to that on jurisdictional grounds. The new committee, as the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Connecticut will attest, the new committee will have responsibility over 34 percent of the budget and 3.9 percent of the employees. About all that it will be responsible for is FEMA and the Office of the Secretary. That is right, over 96 percent of the employees of the Department of Homeland Security will fall under the jurisdiction of other committees, not the committee on homeland security. So much for real reform. One of the recurrent themes has been the overload of the Department of Homeland Security because of the number of committees they have to testify before during the course of a year. The number, as I remember, is 88 different committees and subcommittees, et cetera. I hope the Senator from Maine will assert exactly how many committees and subcommittees under this revolutionary new reorganization the Department of Homeland Security will have to testify to. Now, a word about the Department of Homeland Security, the White House, and the administration. While we were trying in our amendment to move the TSA--a radical idea--to move the Transportation Security Administration under the new Department of Homeland Security, which I think garnered 22 of my colleagues' votes, along with myself, while we did that, we got these calls: Way to go, we are with you, we are with you. This is a great thing to do. You have to move the TSA into the Department of Homeland Security. I said: Fine, will you issue a statement saying that? No, no, no, we cannot do that. We cannot issue a statement saying we support such an amendment. We might make somebody mad. We saw the result of that outrageous attempt to move the organization called the Transportation Security Administration under the jurisdiction of the committee on homeland security. I will admit in retrospect I cannot imagine why anyone would assume that the Transportation Security Administration should fall under the committee on homeland security. Anyway, we aren't changing things here. We have decided the status quo is good enough, and we are sticking with it. I again quote from David Ignatius' article in the Washington Post this morning: Senators were patting themselves on the back yesterday for passing some of the intelligence reforms recommended by the 9/11 Commission. I was one of those. I was praising the work that was done as far as executive reorganization. It was landmark legislation, the first major reorganization of Government since 1947. It was an incredible job. But behind the scenes, the legislative process has been an egregious example of congressional politics as usual. Legislators have embraced the commission's call for a national intelligence director and a national counterterrorism center that would, in theory, coordinate intelligence efforts in the executive branch. But they have ignored or gutted the commission's proposal for similar reforms in the way Congress oversees intelligence. ``Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important,'' the commissioners stressed in their final report. They urged that Congress give its intelligence committees control over both authorizations and appropriations--so that the committees would finally have the muscle to provide real oversight. Why did the Senate bill scuttle these internal reforms of what the commission called ``a dysfunctional'' system? Because they would threaten the turf of powerful legislators. To be blunt, the Senators put their own perks and prerogatives ahead of the Nation's security. That is a pretty tough statement. ``It is outrageous. The American people should be angry,'' says former Senator Bob Kerrey. By the way, Senator Bob Kerrey left part of his leg on the battlefield at Vietnam and received the Congressional Medal of Honor and was also a member of the 9/11 Commission and for 8 years served as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He argues that it would have been better to drop the executive-branch changes if Congress was not going to reform itself. ``These are secret agencies,'' he explains. ``Unless [[Page S10784]] you put in place strong oversight, it isn't going to work.'' Because the real power lies with the appropriations, the intelligence agencies know they can safely ignore pressure from the Intelligence Committee. Indeed, major contractors that do business with the intelligence community, such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and TRW, are said to spend little time lobbying the intelligence panels because they know the appropriators have the power of the purse. CIA Directors recognize the same reality. They can ignore the intelligence committees as long as they keep stroking the appropriators. We will have a status quo Intelligence Committee without combined authorization and appropriations power, a committee that handles only a tiny fraction of homeland security issues, and we will be right back where we started. So let's be honest with ourselves and with the American people. We aren't changing things here. We have decided that the status quo is good enough, and we are sticking with it. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Democratic leader. Mr. REID. Mr. President, no matter how many times you say something that is not true, it does not make it true. I am not going to belabor the point other than to say we have spent a lot of time doing what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Did we do everything they asked? No, we did not. Did we do 90 percent of what they asked? The answer is yes, as I explained on the floor on more than one occasion with the charts where we checked off what they asked for and we did. Again, I repeat, it does not matter how many times you say something that is not true, it does not make it true. Now, people can minimize all they want. The committee on homeland security will be created as soon as we complete this cloture fiasco we are now involved in. As I read on the floor here yesterday evening for half an hour, only getting into two directorates, the homeland security committee that will be formed could hold hearings every day next year and still not complete all the policy decisions that are made regarding terrorism in this country. Yes, they may not have all the employees, but they have the policy that is important to make our country safer. We start out with the basic Government Operations Committee, and we do not change that one iota, and we add to that four directorates. For three they have total 100 percent responsibility, and for the fourth one they have partial responsibility. I repeat for the third time today, no matter how many times you say something that is untrue, it does not make it true. You cannot have it both ways. We have people telling us that we may establish nothing out of this committee, but yet we have people here grousing from 10 different committees saying we gave them too much. You cannot have it both ways. Now, I know there is some disappointment on the part of the Senator from Maine, and I have heard very little from the Senator from Connecticut. I know he has been away for religious observances, but I have kept in close contact with him. I think he realizes the glass is not half empty, it is half full. This committee is a good committee. It is going to be one of the most significant committees in this Congress. It is going to increase the brawn and muscle of the Government Operations Committee tenfold. We took jurisdiction from 10 standing committees and gave things to the new committee. Now, as an example, let's just take my committee. I have been chairman on two separate occasions of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We have wide-ranging responsibilities in that committee. But one thing we have that is most important is the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I have spent a lot of time on that committee. When I served in the House of Representatives, Congressman Al Gore was chairman of a committee called Investigations and Oversight, and we spent weeks doing investigations regarding FEMA. I know a little bit about it. It is a very powerful institution. The new government operations/expanded homeland security has complete jurisdiction over that, except for flood control. Flood control has always been with the Banking Committee. It took all day yesterday to work something out so that the new Government Operations Committee could still have that. So, Mr. President, when we complete our work on this--and we are going to complete it pretty soon--people will be striving to get on the committee that will be chaired, at least for the next couple of months, by Chairman Collins; after that maybe Senator Lieberman. But the point I want to make is I know people have been putting in the mind of the distinguished Senator from Maine that she got nothing. Isn't it terrible what they did to you? The fact of the matter is, I read only partially here on the Senate floor last night the responsibilities of this new committee. The responsibilities are terribly significant. We still have work to do on this resolution. I am disappointed that it has not been completed. I want the record to be spread with the fact that Senator McConnell and I did not do a perfect job, but we did the best job we could do, and we have worked for weeks trying to do something that was very hard to do; that is, change what this body does. Everyone hates change, as when I started my remarks, whether it is a change in your family relationship, as I explained when my daughter left to go to college, or whether it is a committee you feel strongly about. I talked to a Member of the Senate today, and he said: Today was a big change in my life. I said: What? And he said--I am not going to embarrass him and use his name; this happened at lunchtime--he said: I have been using the House gymnasium for 22 years. He said: I switched; today I started using the Senate gym. He said: You have no idea how hard that was for me to do because even though I am a Senator now, I have used that gym for 22 years. People hate change. They fight change. And I have to say, I have never changed; I still use the House gym. So I am sorry, because I have talked to her personally, and I am sorry the Senator from Maine is disappointed in the jurisdiction she has. I am sorry we could not give her more jurisdiction. But, believe me, she will do a good job, because there is so much to do. I have worked here with a lot of different Senators in the years I have been in the Senate, and I have found very few people as competent and as resourceful and who work as hard as the Senator from Maine. I know when she gets this committee, even though she feels slighted that she did not get more, she will have her hands full doing what she will be doing very competently. So the main point I want to make here, for the fourth time--and I am not going to apologize to anyone for the work I did on this. Not to anyone. I worked hard. It was hard to get where we are. And I repeat, if people think we did nothing, why have I been berated the last few days about: How could you do this? How could you take this from me? And I used, every time, the example of FEMA. FEMA is no insignificant matter. We took significant matters from 10 standing committees and have given them to the new government operations, expanded homeland security committee. I am going to continue to support the legislation. I have kept the 9/ 11 Commission advised. This is not an end run we have done on the 9/11 Commission. Oh, isn't it surprising? Why didn't Reid keep us informed? Reid kept them informed. Now, I wrote a book, published a history book, and people criticized my book. They can if they want. I defend what is in my book, and they defend what is in their report. The 9/11 Commission--I have said on this floor, not on one occasion, not on two occasions, I cannot count how many occasions I have complimented my friend, Congressman Lee Hamilton, and Governor Kean. I know Lee Hamilton very well. I have known him for 22 years. I do not know Governor Kean very well, but I surely like him. I know how competent he is. I know Roemer, who served there; Slade Gorton, an outstanding Senator whom I served with; Bob Kerrey, one of my good friends, whom I think the world of. They did a wonderful job. We have given the 9/11 Commission and the people of America, as I said, most everything the 9/11 Commission [[Page S10785]] recommended. The 9/11 Commission, by the way, did not tell us how to reorganize the Senate. What we are doing here does not take the President to sign off on. We do this on our own. This is what we are doing. This is one of the most significant changes in the history of this Congress. Now, people say: Well, big deal; it is not a very big change. I think it is a significant change. Remember, we got rid of a subcommittee on Appropriations. We created a new subcommittee. We gave a lot of muscle to the new Intelligence Committee. I checked off here yesterday all the things we gave to the new Intelligence Committee. We got rid of term limits, which they complained about for so long, increased staffing and made it bipartisan, so now it is not divided 3 to the minority and 23--I don't know the exact number, but about that--33 to the majority. It is now divided 60/40. That is the way it should be. Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. Congressional leaders are best able to judge what committee should have jurisdiction over this department and its duties. This is not something I dreamed up. This comes directly from the 9/11 Commission. Page 421 of the 9/11 Commission, what did they say? They said: Congressional leaders are best able to judge what committee should have jurisdiction over this department and its duties. We did that. Now, is it in keeping with what my friend for 22 years, Senator McCain, thinks we should do? No. He thinks we should do things differently. But we made decisions he does not agree with. That does not mean we are all right, but that does not mean he is all right either. I mean, he is all right--not right on this issue. So we did as the 9/11 Commission said we should do. Again, it is not as if we were doing something that was significantly more important anyway. But I read yesterday all the many responsibilities that this committee has. I want to find this again. I am turning to my loyal staff here. This is directorate No. 1. The responsibilities are very significant. And for someone to say this is not important, I defy reason to say this is not important. This committee has jurisdiction over this: To access, receive, and analyze law enforcement information, intelligence information, and other information from agencies of the Federal Government--and it always says ``State and local''--to integrate such information in order to, A, identify and assess the nature and scope of terrorist threats to the homeland; B, detect and identify threats of terrorism against the United States; and, C, understand such threats in light of actual and potential vulnerabilities of the homeland. No. 2, to carry out comprehensive assessments of the vulnerabilities of key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States, including the performance of risk assessments to determine the risks posed by particular types of terrorist attacks within the United States, including assessment of the probability of success of such attacks and the feasibility and potential efficacy of various countermeasures to such attacks. I say through the Chair to my friend from Maine, if you spent 6 months of the next congressional session having congressional hearings on this, you would have your plate completely full just on this. But we didn't stop there. I have gone through two of the obligations, responsibilities they have. But there are 17 more, such as: To integrate relevant information--I am skipping a little bit--analyses, and vulnerability assessments in order to identify priorities for protective and support measures by the Department, other agencies of the Federal Government, State and local government agencies; to ensure the timely and efficient access by the Department to all information necessary to discharge the responsibilities. No. 5, to develop a comprehensive national plan for securing the key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States, including power production, generation, and distribution systems, information technology, telecommunications systems, including satellites, electronic, financial, property record storage, transmission systems, emergency preparedness communications systems, and the physical and technological aspects that support such systems. I say, these responsibilities may not be very glamorous. You may not be calling people in that are part of the 41,000 Transportation Security Administration, but it sure is important to my family and the people of the State of Nevada that we do some good work to find out about a national plan for securing our electricity, our satellites, our electronic and financial records storage and transmission systems. That requires some congressional hearings. If somebody is chairman of that committee and ranking member or a member of the committee, I think that is something they should focus on, at least for a little while. No. 6, to recommend measures necessary to protect key resources and critical infrastructure of the United States, in coordination with other agencies of the Federal Government. No. 7, to administer the homeland security advisory system, including exercising primary responsibility for public advisories related to threats to homeland security; to review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements in the policies and procedures governing the sharing of law enforcement information, intelligence information, intelligence-related information, other information related to homeland security. No. 9, to disseminate information analyzed by the Department to Homeland Security, agencies of State and local governments, and private sector entities with such responsibilities to assist in the deterrence, prevention, preemption of, or response to terrorist acts against the United States. I think that is a pretty heavy responsibility. To say this is nothing, you haven't given us anything. No. 10, to consult with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency--right now we still have a CIA Director--and other appropriate intelligence, law enforcement, or other elements of the Federal Government to establish collection priorities and strategies for information relating to threats of terrorism against the United States; to consult with State and local governments and private sector entities to ensure appropriate exchanges of information, including law- enforcement-related information; to ensure that any material received pursuant to this act is protected from unauthorized disclosure; to ensure that any intelligence information is shared, retained, and disseminated consistent with the authority of the Director of the CIA. So for someone to say: What is this? You wasted all of our time here. We should not have done anything. It is an insult. I told people this is, if not the hardest thing I have ever done, one of the hardest in all the time I have been in Congress. For someone to stand and say, You didn't do anything, what I would suggest to the Senator from Maine, if she doesn't like this committee, turn it over to somebody else. I will bet a lot of people would like it. The ranking member right under her, I bet they would love to have this committee. To request additional information from other agencies of the Federal Government, State and local government agencies, and the private sector relating to threats of terrorism against the United States; to establish and utilize, in conjunction with the chief information officer of the Department, a secure communication and information technology infrastructure, including data mining, and other advanced analytical tools, in order to access, receive, and analyze data and information. Again, there are not a lot of employees involved in this, but if we depended on that--I don't know the number of employees we have in the Federal Government; it is over 2 million, millions anyway--how many employees were involved, you would just ignore the FBI. There are only 11,000, only 11,000 out of approximately 2 million. I don't know that exact number, a very tiny percentage of what the FBI makes up of the overall workforce, but it is still real important. What I am talking about is, that is going to be the responsibility of this committee, and it is also important. I am still only through No. 13. We have six more to go in the first directorate. I have three more directorates to go through to show what this new committee that a small minority here think doesn't amount to much, I am [[Page S10786]] saying it amounts to plenty. If this committee does its job--and I say without any hesitation that I know that Senator Lieberman and the distinguished Senator from Maine will do a good job--they will have a lot to do. They make sure to listen in one ear about all they don't have to do, but let's also listen with the other ear about all they have to do. Some people like to denigrate anything we try to do about this institution. Some like to tear it down. No. 15, to ensure, in conjunction with the chief information officer of the Department, that any information databases and analytical tools developed or utilized by the Department are compatible with one another and with relevant information databases of other agencies of the Federal Government; B, treat the information in such databases in a manner that complies with applicable Federal laws on privacy. That is one of the biggest issues. I did a poll in Nevada a few years ago, and my staff, when they came to me, was stunned. In Nevada, the most important issue was not health care, it was not education, not the environment, not jobs--it was privacy. People in America are extremely concerned about privacy. We have all these electronic tools to do all kinds of things. And we want to make sure people's privacy is protected. One of the obligations of this committee is to see what can be done, with all the electronic apparatus we have for collecting intelligence and protecting the homeland, that it doesn't interfere with my family's privacy. That is a responsibility this committee will have when we complete it. No. 16, to coordinate training and other support to the elements and personnel of the Department. No. 17, to coordinate elements in the intelligence community with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the private sector, as appropriate; to provide intelligence and information analysis, and support to other elements of the Department. And who does this cover? Who does this committee look to, to gather information? One of their defined legislative responsibilities--it is in this Record right now, we are making legislative history with the jurisdiction of this committee, but this is also in the underlying amendment that is now before this body, covered agencies: The Department of State, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Security Agency, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and any other agency of the Federal Government that the President considers appropriate. This is the legislative history that we are making to establish what this committee has to do. For someone to say their dealing with the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the DIA is not important, well, that is too bad because it is important. We also have another directorate, and I will only cover a couple because there are four. The fourth one doesn't have total coverage over that. That is the one where immigration--they only have part of that-- relating to security. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over immigration as it relates to policy matters, as I understand it. They have security matters. I may not have defined it as policy, but they don't have 100 percent of the other directorate. One of the directorates they have is emergency preparedness and response. I already talked about FEMA being part of their responsibility--and a big responsibility FEMA is, Mr. President. It is one of the most important agencies we have in the Federal Government today. As we speak, they are doing gallant work in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia as a result of the hurricanes. We lend that agency to foreign countries because they are the best in the world when there is an emergency. I have learned over the years that the most important thing they work on is water-related emergencies across the country, with flooding and those kinds of things. Floods are caused by lots of different things. So what does the FEMA have to do? They do this: All functions and authorities prescribed by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistant Act, which is carrying out its mission to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the Nation from all hazards by leading and supporting the Nation in a comprehensive, risk-based emergency management program--A, of mitigation, by taking sustained actions to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to people and property from hazards and their effects; B, of planning for building the emergency management profession to prepare effectively for, mitigate against, respond to, and recover from any hazard; of response, by conducting emergency operations to save lives and property through positioning emergency equipment and supplies, through evacuating potential victims, through providing food, water, shelter, and medical care to those in need, and through restoring critical public services; of recovery, by rebuilding communities so individuals, businesses, and governments can function on their own, return to normal life, and protect against future hazards. Mr. President, I first became aware of the work that FEMA does when we had a disastrous flood in northern Nevada. We don't get much rain in Nevada, but we had a lot of snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. We had early rain. That water came down without warning. And as I traveled to Gardnerville and Minden in Douglas County, one of my friends there, a farmer who had lived there for a long time, said: Look out here. A little river that a child could walk across most of the time was like a raging river. Cottonwood trees that were 100 years old were being thrown down the river path like toothpicks. By the time I got to northern Nevada, coming in a different airport because the regular airport was closed, FEMA had already set up operations and started life-sustaining operations, feeding people. They had already set up locations for businesses that had been devastated to come and make their claims. If we did nothing else other than transfer FEMA from the Environment and Public Works to the new homeland security committee, that is a tremendous new responsibility for that committee--in addition to the page after page of other stuff I read that is their responsibility. For the fifth time, people can come on this floor and keep saying what we have done is inconsequential and doesn't mean anything, but saying that doesn't mean it is true. I want everybody within the sound of my voice to understand some of the things we have transferred to this committee. Remember, this was already an A committee. It had lots of work to do. That is why some people around here are saying, What are people complaining about? It is already an A committee. They are getting a lot of stuff to do, other responsibilities from 10 different committees. What more do they want? Well, I guess they want more. I say the glass should be half full, not half empty. It may not be perfect, but it is certainly pretty good. We have to complete this legislation. There are six amendments, a couple maybe we can work out. Some of them probably we will not be able to work out, and a couple will be withdrawn. We are close to being able to finish. As I understand the parliamentary aspect, first of all, sometime tomorrow, if all time is used, we will vote on the amendment now before the body. After having completed these amendments, then we will vote on the underlying resolution--invoke cloture on that and, of course, there are 30 hours to run on that. When that is completed, this will be done. The Senate, without having to go to the House of Representatives or the President, will have made one of the largest changes in the history of this body by reorganizing the legislative branch of Government. So, again, we transferred matters from Agriculture, Armed Services, Commerce, Energy and Natural Resources, Environment and Public Works, Finance, Foreign Relations, and Judiciary, so I think we have done a good job. I am disappointed that my friend from Maine is apparently disappointed in thinking she is not going to have enough to do. I want her to know that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and I did the best we could. Remember, this is not a dictatorship we have here, it is a legislative body. We cannot just suddenly decide what we want and it happens. It is a process that I talked about last night. [[Page S10787]] Legislation is the art of compromise. That is why you don't see much reorganization in the legislative branch of Government, because it is hard to do. As the President said in the last debate: This is hard work. It is hard work what we have done. Again, I am disappointed that she is disappointed because I have the highest respect for her. I want her to know that I have only touched, this afternoon, on a very few things that she has to do. There are so many other things that this committee has. As I said, in years to come, what we have done this afternoon and what we will do on this legislation will be laid out before the Senate, so it will be easy for referrals and other things this committee will do. This is one of the directorates, emergency preparedness and response: The Secretary, acting through the Under Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response shall include: Helping to ensure the effectiveness of emergency response providers to terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies; coordinating other Federal response resources in the event of a terrorist attack or major disaster; aiding the recovery from terrorist attacks and major disasters; building a comprehensive national incident management system with Federal, State, and local government personnel, agencies, and authorities, to respond to such attacks and disasters; consolidating existing Federal Government emergency response plans into a single, coordinated national response plan; and finally, developing comprehensive programs for developing interoperative communications technology and helping to ensure that emergency response providers acquire such technology. So please do not tell me this committee does not have a lot to do. This committee will be one of the most important committees there is. I say, in closing, to my friend from Maine, when I first came to the Senate, I received a phone call from Howard Metzenbaum. Howard Metzenbaum said: We finished--I think it is called the Steering Committee--and you are going to the Appropriations Committee. I was so excited about that. He said: You have a choice of two other committees you can go on--either Environment and Public Works or Government Operations. I said: Senator Metzenbaum, I am so thrilled about being able to be on Appropriations. You decide which one I should go on. He said: It does not matter. They are both great committees. He chose for me Environment and Public Works. One reason he chose that is because in those days--I don't know if it is still the same way--a member of the Government Operations Committee, even though you were a new member, you were entitled to a staff person, someone assigned to you. They figured they would give that plum to someone else. My point being, the Government Operations Committee has always been a good committee, but it is going to be a really good committee now. I think it will be on the par of Armed Services. I think it will be on the par with any committee we have. I will sleep well knowing that my friend, the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and my friend, the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, will be the two leading that committee. I know they have the ability to do a good job in meeting all the responsibilities this new committee has, including all the responsibilities they had to start with. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Maine. Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I was listening to the Senator from Nevada, it brought back memories of the night when he started reading from a book he wrote. I think it was about, if I remember correctly, Searchlight, NV. I was listening that evening to him, and much to my surprise, I actually got caught up in the story of Searchlight, NV. It was delightfully told, and although the Senator was clearly killing time that evening, I learned a lot about his upbringing and his talent in telling a story. This afternoon, I feel we have once again seen his talent in telling a story. I think it is unfortunate that the Senator from Nevada is personalizing this debate. This debate has nothing to do with the Senator from Maine. The authority over homeland security could have been given to a brandnew committee or some other committee. What is important to me is that we try to address the recommendation made by the 9/11 Commission. I want to read that recommendation because it is very clear, it is very straightforward. It says: Congress should create a single, principal point of oversight and review for homeland security. It goes on to say: Congress does have the obligation to choose one in the House and one in the Senate. . . . It certainly says the congressional leaders are best able to judge which committee should have jurisdiction over this Department and its duties, but it makes very clear that it should be a single committee, and we have not come close to doing this. I admire the Senator from Nevada. He was extremely helpful to me when I was managing the intelligence reform bill over 10 days' time. I looked to him often for advice. I admire his experience and his knowledge, but the recommendation is very clear. It says ``a single, principal point of oversight.'' It says ``choose one.'' It does not say which one. It did not have to be Governmental Affairs. It could have been a new committee. It could have been some other committee. But it says ``choose one,'' and we did not choose one. This plan does not even come close to choosing one. We know that between the House and the Senate, the Department has to report to some 88 committees and subcommittees. Here in the Senate, I think it is around 26 committees and subcommittees. We reduced those by maybe one or two. We still have the Judiciary Committee with significant jurisdiction. We still have the Commerce Committee with jurisdiction over the two largest agencies within the Department of Homeland Security--the Transportation Security Agency and the Coast Guard. You can make a case that the Coast Guard has a lot of nonhomeland security functions, but certainly the homeland security functions of the Coast Guard should have been transferred to the new committee. And certainly the TSA, the largest agency within the Department of Homeland Security with 51,000 employees, should have been transferred. Under the proposal of the Senator from Nevada and the Senator from Kentucky, certain responsibilities were transferred from the Judiciary Committee, but those have been reversed in the course of this debate. In fact, the first amendment on the floor had to do with a Customs responsibility that had been transferred, and before either the Senator from Maine or the Senator from Connecticut were even given the courtesy of a phone call about that amendment, it was adopted by the managers of the bill. They immediately transferred away from the new committee some jurisdiction. Then they went on to suggest the adoption of other amendments as well. My point is this: This jurisdiction does not have to come to Governmental Affairs, but what it should go to is a single committee. We should not pretend we are fulfilling the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission--the very specific recommendation of the 9/11 Commission-- that Congress should vest this responsibility in a single committee because we have not come close to that. That is the issue. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs is the right committee. The issue is not whether Governmental Affairs has other jurisdiction. The issue is, are we going to try to follow the recommendation--the very strong recommendation--of the 9/11 Commission to consolidate oversight of the Department within one congressional committee. Are we going to follow the advice--no, the plea--of Secretary Tom Ridge that we consolidate jurisdiction so he and his top officials do not have to be constantly racing up to the Hill to testify rather than concentrating on the security of our country, because that is what this is about. This is not about turf battles--this should not be about turf battles. This should not be about power plays. This should not be about power grabs. It is about how we can best improve congressional oversight over a department that is critical to the security of this [[Page S10788]] country, and that is the Department of Homeland Security. The Senator from Nevada referred to the Senator from Connecticut. Perhaps he missed some of the debate yesterday. He is extremely attentive to the floor, but at times did step out. The Senator from Connecticut could not have made clearer yesterday his disappointment with this resolution, and he argued against the amendments that even the modest transfers provided in the Reid-McConnell resolution. The staff of the Senator from Connecticut has told me they are certain the Senator from Connecticut would want me, since he is not able to be here today, to make very clear to his colleagues in the Senate that he shares, indeed he mirrors, my concerns. The Senator from Connecticut has worked very hard to make sure the major recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are implemented, and that is not what we are doing here. At best, we are taking a very modest step forward, but let's not pretend that we are in any way implementing the recommendations for a single congressional committee in the Senate to have jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG. I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for a period of 5 minutes. Mr. REID. No objection, as long as the time continues to be counted against the 30 hours. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2823 Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 711, S. 2823. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? (Several Senators addressed the Chair.) Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Idaho. Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, you can see by my unanimous consent request the alarm I brought to the Senate floor just now. The reason that happened is because I was attempting to bring to the floor a very critical issue that this Congress and this Senate have refused to address this year. It is a bill called AgJOBS. It is a bill that has more than 60 Members of this body as cosponsors, and yet it is a bill that nobody wants to talk about right now and nobody wants to deal with in the final hours of this 108th Congress. The reason I brought it up now, and I worked it through the Rule XIV process over the last several weeks, is because when we talk about homeland security, we are talking about border security, we are talking immigration reform, we are talking about identifying 8 to 12 million undocumented foreign nationals in this country. We have seen this Congress, this Senate, toil mightily over the last 2 weeks to try to address the 9/11 Commission's study and to reshape our intelligence community, to enhance our national security and homeland security. But this Congress has left one part of that effort unfinished. This year, we have refused to address one of the greatest problems in our country, and that is an immigration policy that has resulted in 8 to 12 million undocumented workers. For the last 5 years, I and others have tried to deal with one small aspect of this issue, those foreign nationals who come to our country in agriculture. There are about 1.6 million individuals in our agricultural work force, and most of them are undocumented. Yet they come here to work and harvest our fields and to process our foods, to allow this great agriculture of ours to be the most abundant in the world, and yet we will not give them a reasonable and legal status so they can continue to work, continue to return home across our borders with a degree of fluidity, without fear to go to their families. The current system has effectively locked them inside this country, in the shadows. We have created for ourselves a monstrous problem, and the American public knows it. It is all about homeland security, and it is all about border security, and yet, oh, my goodness, we just could not get to it this year. I have worked for several years to produce the AgJOBS legislation. It is bipartisan. Senator Ted Kennedy is my primary cosponsor, and we have worked very hard to keep it bipartisan. The numbers on the same bill have grown rapidly in the House, because this is an issue whose time has come and yet somehow we just do not have time to get to it. So I thought it was important one more time, in the waning hours of the 108th Congress, to try to bring it to the floor and at least talk a little bit about it. When I risked bringing it to the floor, my goodness, papers flew and chairs tipped over as people rushed to the microphones to object. Is it a matter of timing? Is it a matter of opposition to reform? Oh, no, it is a matter of, gee, we just do not want to talk about this issue this year. Let me serve notice to the Senate right now--I do not oftentimes do this--but when there are more than 60 Members of this body who are ready to debate an issue and vote on it, We will get a vote. With a bipartisan coalition nationwide of more than 400 groups that have come together, from the American Farm Bureau to the United Farm Workers, saying, for goodness' sake, Government, get your act together, solve this problem, create a program that moves us forward, that gives a legal status for people to work in this country who do the kind of work that many Americans would choose not to do, we will get a vote. That is what the AgJOBS is about. It means the reduction of illegal immigration by a reasonable program that allows that kind of safe, productive, economically beneficial movement in our country. Of the nearly 12 million undocumented population, the vast majority do not create or even pose any threat. They are here, they are hard working, they work 12 and 14 hours a day, and they save their money, because they want to feed their families, they want a better life for their children, they want the same opportunity that has always beckoned hard working people to America. Some of them would like to be U.S. citizens; many would not. Many want to go home to their families across the border or overseas at the end of the work season. They are here to better themselves and to better their families, something all Americans can understand. By their presence, they better us. They make our lives better, and in this issue with American agriculture, there is no question, they help to produce the abundance on the supermarket shelves and the family tables of America. When I said ``serve notice,'' here is what I am serving: I will not give up on getting a vote on this bill and passing it. The bill is ready to move now. Its time has come. I have been trying to move it this year. If we don't move it this year, when we get back this next Congress, this bill will move. We will vote on this issue. If not the old Congress, then the new Congress will face this issue. They will face it in a variety of ways. Some will say, let us do a large, all-inclusive immigration bill. Fine, while the committees are spending the 10 or 12 months or 2 years to try to figure that one out, we are going to vote on this one because it is a small piece of a very large puzzle, but it is the right piece. It will show we can cooperatively do what we ought to do in a fair and responsible way to create an earned status so these folks can work here in a legal way and can move freely back and forth across the borders, dominantly between the United States and Mexico, but clearly with other countries of the world, too. We want to eliminate these human hazards of the kind that have been created along the Mexican-American border, where last year more than 300 people died, many of them in the deserts, in the hot sun, or being smuggled in the back of trucks, trying to get here to work, because we have a program that does not function. That is why I came to the floor, and I am sorry if I caused undue alarm on the part of some of my colleagues. I was quite confident that at some point someone would object because some would argue this issue's time has not yet come. It will come. It may be January, February, or March of 2005, but it will be on this floor for a full, constructive, and positive debate and a vote up [[Page S10789]] or down, possibly with the opportunity for some amendments, because this is legislation that now demands our consideration. Americans want our borders controlled. They want undocumented foreign nationals identified in our country. This is a small step in the right direction of that effort to accomplish that goal. Amnesty is not the solution. It has been tried before and it has failed. The current system has not worked either, and opposition to amnesty should not be an excuse for tolerating a dysfunctional status quo. AgJOBS avoids the problems and limitations of past initiatives and other proposals. AgJOBS is the only proposal that addresses the problem for both the short term and the long term. In the long term, when willing American workers can not be found to work in our fields, that shortage would be addressed through a reformed H-2A program. The current program is so burdensome and costly that it now supplies only about 2 percent of our farm workers. It will take time to implement reforms that allow H-2A to meet our needs with legal guest workers. In the short run, while H-2A reforms are being implemented, the earned adjustment program in AgJOBS would stabilize our current agricultural work force. Trusted, proven workers who have already been working here in 2003 and 2002 and before would be allowed to stay and continue to work. A reformed H-2A program, made workable with the red tape cut out, would meet future work force needs and mean the earned adjustment program would not have to be repeated. A realistic, workable guest worker program actually would reduce illegal immigration. The last time the United States had a substantial agricultural guest worker program, apprehensions of undocumented workers actually plummeted, from almost 900,000 in 1953 to a low of 45,336 in 1959. Whatever other aspects of this so-called ``bracero'' program were subject to criticism, history proved that its 500,000 farm workers entered our country legally, worked in jobs citizens did not want, obeyed our laws, returned home at the end of the work season, and dramatically reduced the demand for, and supply of, undocumented labor. Increased enforcement of our laws is part of the solution, and we've made progress. In the last decade, we have tripled the number of agents enforcing border and immigration laws. Worker identification checks have intensified. Apprehensions have skyrocketed above 900,000 a year and formal removals have increased sixfold. High-tech initiatives are coming online. We are poised to take up the FY 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which again increases resources in this area. However, more enforcement is only part of the answer. This is demonstrated by the fact that, despite more enforcement, over the last decade, the undocumented population has more than doubled. The self-described ``experts'' who say, ``Just round them up and deport them,'' are only proposing an excuse, not a solution, while the situation just gets worse. That is the cruelest amnesty of all. Instead, we must manage our borders and our immigration system better. AgJOBS is a critical part of doing just that--managing our borders better and improving our homeland security by bringing hundreds of thousands of individuals up out of the shadows and into a legal system. We can never neglect the humanitarian side of this, as well, that we should treat with dignity and humaneness those who labor to put the food on our families' tables. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY. It is a privilege to join Senator Craig today in urging the Senate to pass this important jobs bill for immigrants in agriculture. We have been struggling for decades to find a solution to the heart-wrenching problems facing so many farm workers for so long. The Agricultural Jobs, Opportunity, Benefits, and Security Act-- AgJOBS--is an opportunity to correct these long-festering problems. In a landmark agreement, both the United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry support this solution. It gives farm workers and their families the dignity and opportunity they deserve, and it gives farm owners a legal workforce. The bill is a compromise, and it has 63 Senate sponsors, with almost equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans. More than 400 organizations across the country support it. They include advocates for farm workers, such as the United Farm Workers, the Farm Labor Organizing Community, and the Farm Worker Justice Fund. They include business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Council of Agricultural Employers, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and the American Farm Bureau Federation. They include civil rights groups such as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Latino organizations such as the National Council of LaRaza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. It is a bill whose time has come. In fact, we should have passed it long before now, because the need is so great, and the current situation is so untenable. For economic, security, and humanitarian reasons, Congress ought to complete action on this legislation before we adjourn for the year. The AgJOBS bill is good for both business and labor. The Nation can no longer ignore the fact that more than half of our agricultural workers are undocumented immigrants. Growers need a reliable and legal workforce. Workers need legal status to improve their wages and working conditions. Everyone is harmed when crops rot in the field because of the lack of an adequate labor force. The AgJOBS bill provides a fair and reasonable process for these agricultural workers to earn legal status. It reforms the current visa program, so that employers unable to obtain American workers can hire the foreign workers they need. Undocumented farm workers are easily and unfairly exploited by unscrupulous contractors and growers. Their illegal status deprives them of bargaining power and depresses the wages of all farm workers. Our bill provides fair solutions for undocumented workers who have been toiling in our fields, harvesting our fruits and vegetables. The bill is not an amnesty. To earn the right to remain in this country, workers have to demonstrate past work contributions to the U.S. economy, and also make a substantial future work commitment. These men and women will finally be able to come out of the shadows, identify themselves, and provide evidence that they have worked in agriculture, so that they can continue to work hard and play by the rules. Hard-working migrant farm workers are essential to American agriculture. We need an honest agriculture policy that recognizes the contributions of these workers and respects and rewards their work. The legislation will also modify the current temporary foreign agricultural worker program, and it does so in a way that preserves and enhances key labor protections. It strikes a fair balance. It also benefits employers, by streamlining the visa application process and reducing paperwork for employers. This legislation will also unify families. When temporary residence is granted, a farm worker's spouse and minor children will be allowed to remain legally in the United States, but they will not be authorized to work. When the worker becomes a permanent resident, the spouse and minor children will also be granted that status. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, we can no longer accept policies that fail to protect our borders. Congress has periodically invested millions of dollars to increase the number of immigration border patrol agents, improve surveillance technology, and install other controls to strengthen border enforcement, especially along our southwest border. Yet, almost everyone agrees that these steps have failed to stop illegal immigration. The proof is in the numbers--several hundred thousand people a year continue to enter the United States illegally, and a significant part of the workforce in many sectors of the economy, especially agriculture, is undocumented. [[Page S10790]] One major unintended effect of our border enforcement strategy has been to shift illegal border crossings to the harsh desert and mountain terrains along the border, causing significant increases in deaths. According to the U.S. Border Patrol, since 1998 nearly 2000 people have died attempting to make the difficult journey across that border. Desperate migrants are being drawn into criminal smuggling syndicates, which increase the danger of violence to border patrol officers, border communities, and the workers themselves. As Stephen Flynn, an expert on terrorism, noted at a recent Congressional hearing, these ``draconian measures'' have produced chaos at our borders, which ``makes it ideal for exploitation by criminals and terrorists.'' The AgJOBS bill will make legality the norm and reduce illegal immigration. It provides reasonable rules that are realistic and enforceable. It replaces the chaotic, deadly, and illegal flows at our borders with orderly, safe, and legal avenues for these farm workers and their families. A workable and legal program for foreign workers crossing our borders will strengthen our security, substantially reduce crime and enable immigration enforcement authorities to focus their resources on terrorists and criminals trying to enter the country illegally. We need laws that recognize reality, so that legality is the rule, not the exception. In this post-9/11 world, we cannot afford to ignore the fact any longer that so much of today's agricultural workforce is undocumented. The AgJOBS bill enhances our national security and makes out communities safer. It brings undocumented farm workers and their families out of the shadows and makes it possible for them to pass thorough security checks. It shrinks the pool of law enforcement targets and enables law enforcement officers to give priority to terrorists and criminals. It will make our communities safer, because once immigrants become legal, they will no longer fear deportation if they report crimes to law enforcement officers. Reducing the size of the undocumented population also reduces the ability of suspected terrorists to hide. The half million or more undocumented farm workers eligible for this program will undergo rigorous security checks when they apply for legal status. Future temporary workers will be carefully screened to meet security concerns. Law enforcement resources will be more effectively focused on the highest risks. Opponents of this legislation offer no workable solutions to the serious problems of current law. Yet they have blocked our efforts for a genuine debate on the issue. We cannot be complacent any longer. I urge my colleagues to support this needed legislation. It is long past time to end these dangerous conditions, and to do it in a way that not only improves the lives and working conditions of all farm workers, but also enhances the security of our Nation. I urge my colleagues to approve this legislation, and I look forward to its enactment into law as soon as possible. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request? Mr. ENSIGN. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada wishes to speak; also the Senator from Louisiana. Even though there has not been a lot of order here today, I wonder if we could attempt, at least for a short time--how much time does the Senator wish to speak? Mr. ENSIGN. I would like to speak for 10 minutes in morning business. Mr. REID. The Senator from Nevada, 15 minutes in morning business. The Senator from Louisiana, 15 minutes. So 15 minutes to the Senator from Nevada, Senator Ensign, followed by the Senator from Louisiana, 15 minutes, and then we would return to a quorum. Is that appropriate? I ask consent. Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object. Mr. REID. It is 15, 15, go back to a quorum. Mr. HARKIN. OK. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Nevada for allowing us to cooperate to get some time to talk about a couple of issues that are related to what we are talking about today. I want to talk about the Duelfer report that has been reported widely in the papers are in our national news in the last several days. The Duelfer report proves one thing--Senator Kerry was right about the coalition of the bribed and coerced. They were the countries that opposed the war in Iraq. They were the corrupt members of the U.N. Security Council who were brought off by Saddam Hussein. Back in June, when I introduced the Oil-For-Food Accountability Act, I stated that I believed Saddam Hussein, corrupt U.N. officials, and corrupt well-connected countries were the real benefactors of the Oil- for-Food program. I noted there was evidence that they profited from illegal oil shipments, financial transactions, kickbacks, and surcharges that allowed Saddam Hussein to build up his armed forces and live in the lap of luxury. The just-released 1,200-page CIA report confirms those allegations and details even more. The report states that some $10.9 billion, that's billion with a ``B'', was secretly skimmed from the U.N. oil- for-food program for Saddam to use as he pleased. The report outlines how Saddam Hussein used lavish gifts of oil vouchers and contracts to secure the support of countries to lift U.N. sanctions on Iraq and oppose American initiatives in the Security Council. And this might be the most important point I make today--an Iraqi Intelligence report indicated that one nation--France--was bribe to use its veto in the U.N. Security Council againts any effort to use armed forces in Iraq, and France later threatened to do just that. France was not the only culprit in corruption. France was joined by Russia and China--also permanent members of the U.N. Security Council-- as the top three countries in which influential individuals, companies or entities received oil vouchers. According to the report, Russia received 30 percent of the vouchers, France 15 percent and China 10 percent. The real ``coalition of the bribed and coerced'' is the three members of the U.N. Security Council that were bought and sold by Saddam Hussein. The three members of the Security Council that profited immensely as long as Saddam Hussen remained in power. The oil voucher system used by Saddam through the U.N. Oil-For-Food program was clever in that the vouchers were negotiable and could be resold to oil companies or other buyers at profits of 10 to 35 cents per barrel. A voucher for 10 million barrels could generate between $1 million and $3.5 million to the holder of those vouchers. The report notes that Benon Sevan, the former top U.N. Official in charge of the oil-for-food program was himself a recipent of Saddam's scheme. The report says that Mr. Sevan was allocated 13 million barrels of oil, of which 7.3 million were cashed in. There is also information about how Saddam's illicit oil profits were used to rearm Iraq. The report details how Saddam's deals with Chinese companies helped Iraq improve its missile capabilities. Russian companies provided barrels for antiaircraft guns, missile components, and missile-guidance electronics. French military contractors offered to supply Saddam Hussein with helicopters, spare parts for fighter aircraft and air defense systems. On the WMD front, Duelfer reports that using the Oil- for-Food program, Saddam Hussein was making a point of procuring the resources and establishing the networks to start a massive effort to produce chemical-weapons production just months after sanctions were lifted. With Saddam's coalition of the bribed and coerced in place as three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, no amount of coalition-building by an American president was going to preserve the sanctions on Saddam Hussein. No amount of diplomacy was going to get those countries to enforce Security Council resolutions by force. They were permanent members on Saddam's payroll. The CIA report notes that Saddam had succeeded: to the point where sitting members of [[Page S10791]] the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council. So when I hear talk about some kind of a global test, or the need for UN Security Council approval for the use of force this Senator turns away in disgust because, with the release of the Duelfer report, we have names, dates, and amounts of bribes to prove that our critics, including the UN, do not have the moral authority to judge our actions. They are not motivated by security interests, humanitarian needs or any other noble cause. They are motivated by greed. America's freedom to use force wisely and justly is truly the world's best hope for peace and security. God bless President George W. Bush for having the courage to stand by his convictions. He is doing his job. It is time, now, for the U.S. Senate to follow the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I think under the unanimous consent agreement that I am entitled to speak for the next 15 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. TAX RELIEF Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Senator from Nevada makes some interesting points. I will have more to say about that specific issue later, as will other Senators from this side. But I am glad that he brought up the point of greed because it is actually something that I am going to speak about myself but as it relates to a different aspect, a different bill, and a different issue, but basically the same ``sin,'' if you will. Unfortunately, it is not our allies who are committing this sin, it is us right here. We are debating now, over the course of the next several days, and have actually been debating for 2 years, a tax relief bill prompted by the World Trade Organization's decision that some of the things in our U.S. Tax Code were contrary to the free trade principles that most of us--not all of us but most of us--espouse. So that decision set in motion a very necessary effort to address that decision by changing some things in our Tax Code. Of course, anytime you open up the Tax Code there are many people interested in changing the words, the letters, the titles, the paragraphs, and the provisions. Sometimes a change in one word could mean a $1 billion windfall for a particular company, or millions of dollars of windfall for particular entities. There is a lot of interest every time this body opens up a tax bill. Two years ago when it came to the attention of some of us that a tax bill would be opened, and then as the 9/11 tragedy happened and as we saw men and women from our States going to the front lines to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq, and as we watched some of our health units, particularly in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, right here in Washington, DC, and Virginia respond to some very tough casualties that this country experienced, some of us began to think: What could we do in this tax bill to honor the men and women who are on the front lines? Not being on the Finance Committee, I wasn't aware of all the specific aspects, but I knew there would be maybe hundreds or thousands of entities, corporations, big and small, groups that thought they were entitled to some sort of tax break. For the life of me, I didn't think we would have any trouble at all when a group of us got together--Senator Boxer being one, Senator Mikulski, Senator Murray, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, Senator Bond, the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, and many others--and thought, having been to a lot of parades and flag-waving ceremonies for our troops, maybe there would be a way we could help them in this tax bill. I know it is not the focus, but we figured--or I thought--there would be lots of other people who were trying to get in. So why don't we try to get our troops in? The good part of this story is we did in the Senate, with the help of Senator Grassley, Senator Baucus, and many members on the Senate Finance Committee who worked long hours, many weeks, many months negotiating a bill that would correct the original problem that the World Trade Organization had, and provide some tax relief, according to their views and other people who wanted tax relief; we put in a tax benefit of $2 billion for the men and women who are actually on the front lines, the guardsmen and reservists who have become a larger and larger component of our fighting force, who leave their regular jobs, leave their families, and leave their regular civilian life, put on their uniforms and go to the front lines. We know from reports which we have read and from our own experience representing our Guard and Reserve in our own States that 40 percent of these men and women take a cut in pay to go to the front lines. Not only do they take the bullet, not only do their Humvees get blown up on patrols, but they also take a cut in pay to go. Some of us had the notion that maybe in this bill, whether it was going to be $350 billion or $75 billion or $100 billion, now it is $137 billion--I would like to show you what that looks like. This is only part of it. This is what a bill looks like that has tax relief provisions of $137 billion. This is just part of it. I am going to get the rest of it because it is a lot of pages. Some of us had the foolish notion that maybe the Congress could find one page, one paragraph, one letter to include tax relief for American businesses that are doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, by filling the pay gap that these men and women are experiencing. When they leave their civilian life and they put the uniform on, and they pick up their paychecks from the Army, Air Force, or the Navy, they get a substantial cut in pay. Some of the employers are making them whole and doing the right thing, the patriotic thing. We thought surely in this tax bill we could give a tax credit to those small businesses because times are not good everywhere in some States and communities. Really, the whole economy is weaker than we had expected and these small businesses are struggling. But I don't know why Chairman Thomas from California who wrote the bill, and the House leadership of Congressman DeLay and Speaker Hastert, couldn't find one page or paragraph to include them. So they were left out. They weren't in the top of the list, they weren't in the middle of the list, and they were not at the bottom of the list. They are not on the list. We stand here and talk all weekend about our intelligence reorganization to secure ourselves. We talk about spending and the investment in our defense to secure ourselves. Let me just ask anyone who would want to come to this floor, or Chairman Thomas, if he is listening to me, what could we be thinking if we are not even keeping the paychecks of the men and women on the front lines whole? No bonus, no extra, just keep their paycheck whole, just to keep their house payments up, just to keep the car notes for their spouse who is at home so they can continue to work and transport the children, just keep the children's trust funds moving along so they don't have to make that up when they come home--what could they be thinking? They weren't thinking very well on the House side. They took it out. If we could afford $2.5 trillion in tax cuts in 2001, I think we could at least allocate one-tenth of 1 percent to our troops on the front lines who are protecting us today. I want to say another thing to the businesses that are in this bill. I have a lot of companies in Louisiana that are going to benefit from this bill. I have not a word to say about that. I am happy they are in. I am sure they have good reasons. I am sure it is going to help create jobs. But I have a word to say to the businesses in the United States of America. No business would be here, no business could operate, no business would have international trade, no business would have stockholders, no business would have a profit sheet, no businesspeople would be paying taxes on profits they made if it were not for the men and women in uniform who go to the front lines every time we have a conflict, a peacekeeping mission or a war to undertake to protect their commercial interests. I am confident that the businesspeople who are represented in this bill know that. I know they are not going to blame me for taking a few days to talk about it. I know they will say, Senator, you are right. We are [[Page S10792]] grateful to the men and women in uniform. We are actually a little embarrassed because we are in the bill and they are not. It is not their fault. It is nobody's fault. But the House leadership who wrote the bill left them out. We have in this bill help for investors who want to invest in a subway system in Paris. I like NASCAR. Lots of people in my State go to NASCAR races. We have tax relief for NASCAR. We have tax relief for ceiling fan importers with Home Depot. I shop at Home Depot. I like Home Depot. But we left out the Guard and Reserve. I don't know. I am just starting to think that unless the cameras are on nobody remembers the truth. It is only the photo opportunities or the rallies or the parades that everybody goes to. We wear the pins and the flags, but when it comes to the budget and to the tax bill, we leave them out. I don't think our troops need a lobbyist. I thought we were their advocates. Mr. President, $137 billion and we could not allocate $2 billion, not $1 billion, not half a billion? I will speak about this as often as possible for the next couple of days. I tell my leadership, I don't want to make people's lives miserable. I am happy to talk with our leadership and the Republican leadership about any time agreements that make people's weekends convenient, but I could not in good conscience not spend some hours-- whether it is 2, 5, 10, or 30--talking about the 5,000 men and women who have been deployed out of Louisiana, who are on the front lines, whose employers, whom I know personally, are making their paychecks whole. We had the chance to help out small business, to help our National Guard and Reserve. Somebody, somewhere, on the other side of this Capitol made a decision that is immoral, unconscionable, and most certainly not justifiable. I will present for the record some names of families. I will present some hardship cases so the record is clear about the kind of families we have turned our backs on and the kind of employers who are doing the very best they can. While they are hiring a replacement, because they obviously need the job done, and sending the paycheck overseas, the Government of the United States, which is supposed to be on their side, decides we do not want to help them because we have higher priorities. What higher priorities could we possibly have in the Tax Code at this time? If any one of my colleagues wants to explain to me and anyone else what could be a higher priority, I would appreciate it. If there is something else in here for the Guard and Reserve, for the military, to support our troops directly, please tell me. Maybe I didn't get to read the whole report. I was on the Armed Services Committee for several years. Eventually, I hope to be on Defense Appropriations where I can do more work along this line. I know one thing, last year the Guard and Reserve, despite the fact these are the most dedicated and patriotic men and women--they will go the distance. They do not complain. They do not even like to say what is wrong because they feel sacrifice is what they do. I understand that. They came 5,000 people short of their retention goals. Could it possibly be because, although the soldiers do not mind making the sacrifice, they are getting belly sick of their spouses and their wives and children making sacrifices more than the rest of us are making? Why can't we sacrifice and help them? Why do they have to continue to make the sacrifice? When we have the opportunity, we say no. Drastic pay cuts, bankruptcies, foreclosures--these aren't exactly the kinds of challenges members of the American military reserve signed up for when they volunteered to put their life on the line for us and for a country as great as this. For all of our pompous talk about how patriotic we are in this Congress, the least we can do is keep their paycheck whole. Let me talk about three families I actually know. I will be in the Chamber talking about more. Janet Wright is from Hammond, LA. Her husband Russell is in the Marine Corps. I have the Marine Corps pin on today in honor of our men and women. He makes $60,000 a year in the civilian world. He was activated and made only $30,000. He took a 50-percent pay cut. Mrs. Wright said that after a couple of months she started to put water in her children's cereal while her husband was gone because she had to count every penny. That is what happens when we give out $137 billion: We cannot help the Wrights. We don't have enough money to help the Wrights, so they have to put water in the children's cereal bowls. Scott is a Navy reservist from California. He lost his home when he was activated and he lost nearly $1,000 a month in pay because the Navy job was different than the civilian. People say, Senator, that is impossible. There is a law that protects people from losing their home. I know that. You cannot foreclose on someone's home when they are on the front line. But the problem is, the bills add up and when they have to come home, if they have not paid those monthly notes and they cannot pay it within a certain amount of time, the foreclosure happens. I don't understand how we don't have any money to fix it. How can I go home and tell my Guard and Reserve, I'm sorry, we didn't have any money, but here is $137 billion we gave out to everybody else? I am not going to do it. I can't go home. So I would as soon stay here because I don't have a thing I can tell them, not a thing I can say. I will tell more stories about real people. They are calling my office right now and sending letters. We are getting a lot of e-mails. I will come down here until I hear from Chairman Thomas. We are sending a letter to the President at 6 o'clock today. Let me say on the record I don't think the President of the United States knows they were left out. He has a lot on his mind. I understand that. And I know this is only one of a thousand things he has to consider, literally, weekly. But I am sending him a letter to let him know. I cannot amend this bill; it is beyond my power to amend it. It is against the rules. But the bill could be vetoed and this could be included. Or the President could send a message to his House leadership that says, you must have made a mistake; we should have included this. We obviously could afford it and he could promise to fix it. I hope that is a response we will get over the next couple of days. I don't know. I know he is very busy on many other things right now. There will be a big debate tonight, but this is something I had to bring to our attention. Over 410,000 members of the National Guard and Reserve have been activated since September 11. Secretary Rumsfeld has predicted that number may go up to 640,000. That is a lot of families dependent on us to make good decisions for them. This was not a good decision made by the House leadership. I will do everything in my power to get them to change their mind, to change the bill, or to promise they will put in this $2 billion or $3 billion--whatever it will cost to close this pay gap--so the men and women who leave your State of Illinois or my State of Louisiana or the Senator's State of Ohio or the Senator's State of Massachusetts, when the soldiers leave to go overseas, they have confidence that when we have a chance to help them keep their pay whole, keep their benefits intact, give them some support in the spousal support program we have established, we are there for them. I understand the Senator from Massachusetts will speak and I understand the Senator from Iowa will yield the time to make that possible. But if my colleagues are wondering why the process has slowed down, why we are having a hard time getting a schedule for the next couple of days, this is one of the reasons. This is the reason I am voting against the bill and will be speaking about it as the days go forward. I yield the floor. Mr. REID. It is my understanding that the majority has people who want to speak. I know the Senator from North Carolina is here and wishes to speak for 10 minutes and the Senator from Massachusetts wishes to speak for up to 30 minutes. This would be as if in morning business. Senator Kennedy will speak for up to 30 minutes. Of course, the time counts against the 30 hours we are working under now. And we would ask that the majority be recognized for up to 30 minutes, to match that of the time for Senator Kennedy, [[Page S10793]] with the first 10 minutes being for the Senator from North Carolina, and that time also be counted against the 30 hours. I ask unanimous consent that be the order. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, while my good friend the Senator from Louisiana is in the Chamber, I commend her for the enormously persuasive case she has made and say I agree with her 100 percent and will certainly do everything I can to support her. The point is, we passed this underlying bill in June, and the conferees were appointed in July by the Senate of the United States. The House of Representatives did not even appoint their conferees until the end of last week, and did not have their first meeting until Monday of this week, and we are trying to jam this legislation through the Senate late in the afternoon on a Friday, and the cloture motion was filed the first thing this morning before there was 1 minute of debate on it. Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes. Mr. KENNEDY. I say that both in terms of the substance, which is so powerful, and the process and the procedure in standing for the Guard and Reserve, I commend the leader. There is an arrogance among the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and the Republican leadership that ends up and results in this kind of a situation where they say: Well, there won't be people over there who will stand for the Guard and Reserve. We will send it over there late either last night, which they would have done if they had been able to get these printed up, or we will have it over there on Friday morning, and they will all want to take off on Friday, so they will go ahead and pass it. That is the view. I commend the Senator from Louisiana for the substance and commend her for the process as well. And I will take the time not just at this moment but also to comment about the same legislation, how Chairman Thomas and the Republican leadership are prepared to take care of the tobacco companies but not take care of America's children. That was the choice. You could have done both. I would have supported looking out after tobacco farmers who are having difficulties on that. I would have supported having the tobacco companies pay for that particular bailout. But it should have included the protection of America's children, and the Republican leadership refused to do that. It refused to look out after American workers. We have passed--three times in the Senate, twice in the House of Representatives--a prohibition against this administration's repeal of the overtime provisions that affect 6 million of our fellow workers, primarily the first responders. Police and firefighters and nurses: They are three of the largest groups that were going to be affected. We passed that three times. The House of Representatives passed it twice. We had 5 minutes of discussion on it from the proponents of it in the same conference. I was there. So that is certainly one of the reasons that we speak and we are so concerned about those provisions. We will have a chance to address those matters. But I do want to speak to the Senate on two other matters briefly this afternoon. Afghan Elections Madam President, one is the greatest intelligence failures in our history occurred on 9/11, and the seeds of that disaster were planted long ago in Afghanistan, whose people will participate tomorrow in the historic election to select their next President. I know my colleagues share my deep respect for the Afghan people and the many others who worked so hard in recent months to make these elections possible. The elections already have been postponed three times, and the parliamentary elections that were to be held this weekend have now been delayed until next year. President Karzai has shown tremendous courage and determination in the face of multiple assassination attempts. He and the vast majority of the Afghan people have demonstrated an impressive commitment to a free and democratic Afghanistan. Yet Afghanistan still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity. Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad of problems that face the people in Afghanistan. Those problems will still be there the day after the elections, and the Bush administration, Congress, and the American people cannot afford to be distracted from the ongoing efforts that will be required to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. We made that mistake once before in Afghanistan, in the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, and the result was a failed nation that became the breeding ground for the terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001. We cannot afford to allow Afghanistan to fall into chaos once again. Unfortunately, because of its misguided war in Iraq, the Bush administration may bring us perilously close to doing just that. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, President Bush rightly spoke about the need to put Afghanistan on the right course. He welcomed then-Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority Hamid Karzai to the White House in January 2002, and said: The United States is committed to building a lasting partnership with Afghanistan. We will help the new Afghan government provide the security that is the foundation for peace. Instead of finishing the job, however, President Bush foolishly and recklessly diverted America's attention from the real war on terrorism in Afghanistan by rushing to war in Iraq, a country that had no operational links to al-Qaida terrorists. We now know that President Bush began planning the invasion of Iraq from the earliest days of his administration. Finding a rationale to get rid of Saddam Hussein was on the agenda from day one of this administration. Barely 3 months after the most vicious terrorist attack on America, the President already began concentrating on Iraq, not Afghanistan. On November 26, 2001, he said: Afghanistan is still just the beginning. And 3 days later, even before Hamid Karzai had been approved as interim Afghan President, Vice President Cheney publicly began to send signals about attacking Iraq. On November 29, he said: I don't think it takes a genius to figure out this guy [Saddam Hussein] is clearly . . . a significant potential problem for the region, for the United States, for everybody with interests in the area. The shift was all but sealed by the time of President Bush's State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. Karl Rove had told the Republican National Committee that terrorism could be used politically. Remember that speech, that terrorism could be used politically? That is Karl Rove in 2002: Republicans could ``go to the country on this issue.'' In the State of the Union Address, President Bush unveiled his ``Axis of Evil''--Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Those three words forged the lockstep linkage between the Bush administration's top political advisers and the Big Three: Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. What did President Bush say about bin Laden in the State of the Union Address that day? Nothing. What did he say about al-Qaida? One fleeting mention. What did he say about the Taliban? Nothing. Nothing about bin Laden, a fleeting mention of al-Qaida, nothing about the Taliban in that State of the Union Address. With those words, we lost our clear focus on the most imminent threat to our national security--Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. The President had checked the box on Afghanistan and was poised to use the 9/11 attacks to advance his Iraq war agenda of a war on Iraq. The consequences of that decision have been severe for the security of Afghanistan and for the security of the American people. Without a doubt, the war with Iraq has distracted us from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The administration botched the battle at Tora Bora in December 2001. By outsourcing the job to warlords in Afghanistan, he let Osama bin Laden escape. Instead of sticking with the job of capturing bin Laden, the administration launched a war with Iraq. Reports indicate that the Bush administration shifted special operations soldiers and [[Page S10794]] Arab language specialists from Afghanistan to prepare for the war in Iraq. And it recently pulled the State Department's extraordinarily talented assistance coordinator for Afghanistan, William Taylor, out of Afghanistan and sent him to Iraq. Saddam Hussein is behind bars, but he did not attack America. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden is probably hiding somewhere in the ungovernable tribal region between Afghanistan and Pakistan planning another attack on America. Security outside of Kabul is tenuous because we and our allies are overstretched in Iraq and cannot commit sufficient troops in Afghanistan. We have 140,000 troops in Iraq and our allies, another 20,000. It was al-Qaida operatives who trained in Afghanistan who attacked America. Yet America has seven times more troops in Iraq than in Afghanistan. We obviously do not have enough soldiers to secure Afghanistan. It was the lowest troop-to-population ratio of any postconflict country during the past 60 years. President Karzai asked for 20,000 new troops for election security at the NATO summit last June. The U.N. reportedly estimated this summer that it would take somewhere between 5,000 and 15,000 additional troops to secure this Saturday's election. Sadly, what NATO and the United States eventually provided fell far short of that requirement--3,000 troops total. Spain agreed to send a battalion to Afghanistan for election security only after the Government pulled its troops out of Iraq. Our allies can't meet NATO requests for a minimal increase in troops for Afghanistan because they too are bogged down in Iraq. This administration's lack of credibility with the international community has made it almost impossible to obtain the necessary troop commitments to win peace in Afghanistan. Because the international community is unable to provide adequate security in Afghanistan, the forces of the Taliban and al-Qaida continue to strike regularly. Most experts believe that elements of the Pakistani security services continue to support the Taliban and that Taliban forces are able to move freely between Afghanistan and Pakistan and can launch attacks on American and Afghan forces before retreating to their sanctuaries in Pakistan. The Bush administration's Ambassador to Afghanistan admits what has become the obvious truth on the ground: The Taliban ranks are growing in Afghanistan. Our Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad told reporters in September: With regard to Taliban, I have to say that there may have been some growth in the numbers of their people that are active. There has been some effort, obviously, at recruitment, increased effort at recruitment in the refugee camps and in the madrasas. Ambassador Khalizad also tells us that he still sees a ``strong link'' between al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Three years after our invasion of Afghanistan to deny al-Qaida its sanctuary under Taliban protection, the Taliban and al-Qaida still retain a strong relationship in Afghanistan. How did the Bush administration ignore the fact that America cannot be safe until Afghanistan is stable and al- Qaida no longer has a haven there? As a result of the poor security, President Karzai still does not have full control over his country and is forced to negotiate with warlords who control private militias with forces numbering in the tens of thousands. A recent report by Human Rights Watch summarized the issue well: Political repression by the local strongmen is the principal problem. Through the country, militarized political factions . . . continue to cement their hold on political power at the local level, using force, threats, and corruption to stifle more legitimate political activity and dominate the election process. Our inability to secure Afghanistan means that opium production is at record levels. Funds from the drug trade are being used to finance attacks against our troops and against the Afghan people. They are being used to operate the private armies of the warlords and rebuild the ranks of the Taliban. They are pouring fuel on the fire of instability and terrorism. Yet the administration failed to give a priority to shutting off the drug trade in Afghanistan, and the result has been predictably destructive. Two weeks ago, Robert Charles, our Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, painted an ominous picture in his testimony in the House International Relations Committee. He said: On the narcotics front, tied like a ball and chain to security, justice and economic development, we stand in the darkness of a long shadow . . . President Karzai and other Afghan officials have said that drug trafficking and the corruption it breeds may be the biggest threat right now to Afghan's long-term security and democratic future. The CIA and the United Nations estimate that the crop of poppies for 2004 will be 20 to 40 percent greater than last year. That means 500 tons of heroin. No wonder Afghanistan now accounts for 75 percent of the worldwide production of opium. The long shadow that Robert Charles described is the shadow of our misguided war in Iraq. The forces and resources we are pouring into Iraq could have been used and should have been used to end the drug trade in Afghanistan, regain control of the country from the warlords, and dismantle their militias. Last month, LTG Walter Sharp of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told the House International Relations Committee that less than half of the approximately 40,000 people targeted in Afghanistan for disarmament had actually been disarmed. The operations manager of the U.N. disarmament program on the ground in Afghanistan told the Financial Times that fewer than 10,000 of the targeted individuals had been disarmed. Clearly, the effort to dismantle the private militias has fallen drastically short with dangerous consequences for Afghan stability. In June, local militias killed five aid workers from Doctors Without Borders in a brutal attack. In July, that distinguished nongovernmental organization pulled out of Afghanistan after 24 years of helping the Afghan people. Their loss is a sad commentary on the continuing violence and the Bush administration's misguided handling of Afghanistan. The failure to crack down on the narcotics trade, the continuing domination of much of the countryside by warlords, and the inability of this administration to provide sufficient troops to stabilize the country are major setbacks to the war on terrorism. Clearly some progress has been made. I hope the elections tomorrow will proceed without incident. But if we had not rushed to war with Iraq, much greater progress could have been made and certainly would have been made in Afghanistan, and America would be safer today. Yet President Bush continues to deny this obvious reality. Incredibly, he told a campaign rally in Ohio last week that as a result of the U.S. military, the Taliban no longer is in existence. Representative Ron Paul, a Republican Congressman from Texas, does not agree. As he said on September 23: A picture of Afghanistan has been painted, I think, overly optimistic. You read the newspapers, what you're talking about doesn't even exist from the reports that I have read about what's really going on. And when you hear about the Doctors Without Borders leaving, after having been there through the Russian occupation. The U.N. wants to leave. Protection of the president is very precarious. We don't know what will come of that. The airport's getting bombed. There's estimates that 90 percent of the country, at least a very large percent of the country, is under the occupation of the Taliban and the warlords. We have a serious disconnect here and we have to be--as Americans and as members of Congress, we have to be realistic and not hide from the realities of what is happening. That is from a Republican Congressman from Texas. I couldn't agree more. In the aftermath of 9/11, it was clear that America had to deal effectively with Afghanistan as the highest priority for our national security. It was clear that America could not be safe if Afghanistan remained unstable. Instead of finishing the job, we rushed off to fight a different war, the war in Iraq. We squandered the tremendous worldwide good will that flowed to America after 9/11. We alienated longtime friends and leaders in other nations on whom we heavily depend for intelligence for support in the ongoing war against terrorism. Distrust of America has soared throughout the world. We are especially hated in the Muslim world. The past 2 years have seen the steepest and deepest fall from grace our country has ever suffered in the eyes of the world community in all our history. [[Page S10795]] All this is the heavy price our country has paid because of the war in Iraq that America never should have fought. We cannot afford to continue down this dangerous path of incompetence in foreign policy. We know that America has to do better. As I have said before, the only thing we have to fear is 4 more years of George Bush. Madam President, how much time do I have? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining. Unemployment Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, earlier today, the Department of Labor issued its report on the state of unemployment in the country. I want to just comment on this. It is official now that President Bush will be the first President since the days of Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression--over 70 years ago--to preside over a net loss of jobs during his Presidency. Today's job numbers show that only 96,000 were created last month, which is even lower than economists had predicted in order to keep up with population growth. Even worse, a third of the jobs created were in temporary positions. Another third were government jobs, which means the private sector job creation is far from recovering. The official unemployment rate is 5.4 percent, but the real rate of unemployment and underemployment is 9.4 percent. More than 400,000 workers have stopped looking for work because they are so discouraged. They are no longer counted in the official rate. Another 4.5 million are working part time because they cannot find full-time jobs. Part-time workers and temporary workers earn less money than full- time permanent employees and often do not even receive benefits. America's workers have been out of work for months. They have finally found a job, but it is part time or temporary, so they take a huge cut and have no health insurance. Temporary workers earn about 40 percent less a week than the rest of the workforce. Of the 8 million unemployed workers, nearly 22 percent are long-term unemployed; they have been out of a job for more than 6 months. This long-term unemployment rate has been over the 20-percent mark each month since October 2002, 2 consecutive years, which is the longest streak since this data has ever been collected. Despite these record highs in long-term unemployment, President Bush allowed the unemployment insurance program to expire last December. These workers have worked hard, played by the rules, and paid into the unemployment trust fund, which now has $20 billion in it. But the President had said no to extending unemployment benefits for these workers. Do we understand that, Madam President? You don't get unemployment compensation; you are not eligible unless you have worked and contributed to the fund. The reason the fund was set up was for just this kind of condition, where workers have been working, want to work, and need to work, but the economy slows down, so they receive unemployment compensation for a period of time, generally 26 weeks. It has been extended 13 weeks in particularly high unemployment areas. It is just enough to cover the mortgage and put some food on the table and put gas in the automobile. It is interesting that Bush No. 1 extended the unemployment compensation three times, when we never had the economic and adverse economic conditions we have at this time. But this President will not extend it to help these workers. The job situation is even worse for people of color. The unemployment rate for African Americans is more than 10 percent--almost double the national average--and for Hispanics, it is 7 percent. And women are not faring well in this economy. The income of low-income single mothers has gone down by 3 percent every year in the Bush economy--3 percent constantly down. But President Bush and the Republican Congress refused to raise the minimum wage, which would benefit primarily women--7 million of our fellow citizens, men and women of dignity, who work hard, clean out the great buildings where American industry is housed, help as assistant teachers, work in nursing homes--primarily women; and many of them have children, so it is a women and children's issue, a family issue. It is also a civil rights issue because so many of those who earn minimum wage are men and women of color. It is a civil rights, family, women and children, and a fairness issue. Americans believe if you work hard 52 weeks in the year, you should not have to live in poverty. Why is it that the Republican leadership has refused to let us have a vote on increasing the minimum wage? I offered to increase the minimum wage on the TANF bill. What did the leadership do? They pulled the bill. I offered it on the State Department reauthorization bill. They pulled the bill so the Senate could not vote. Here you see the results of that: no long-term unemployment compensation, no increase in the minimum wage. Now we hear, as I heard on the Joint Economic Committee, about how the hurricanes have really impacted things. We heard other testimony that because of the hurricanes more people are working to try to deal with the problems. All of this is against a background where those workers are facing the perfect storm: the lack of an increase in the minimum wage, lack of unemployment compensation, and the fact that this administration has put in the regulations to deny overtime for up to 6 million American workers. So they are going to work longer and harder-- because that is the record if you don't have that protection--and they will make less. You have those three coming at you and, at the same time, you have college tuition going up 38 percent. Health care premiums are up 59 percent. Gas, 40 percent. If you can believe it, milk, in Cape Cod, MA, last week was $4.05 a gallon. It is a little less in other parts of Massachusetts, maybe a little over $3. But it is $4.05 a gallon there, and we cannot get an increase in the minimum wage. So American families are working and working long and hard. What happens after all this? We have a proposal on the floor of the Senate called the JOBS bill--how much time remains? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 \1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. KENNEDY. The JOBS bill was meant to initially deal with the $4.5 billion problem at the World Trade Organization. What has happened is the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives sent over a $143 billion program that benefited the tobacco companies at the expense of the children, and also increased financial incentives to drive more American jobs out of the country, rather than bring them home--outsourcing. My friend, the Senator from Florida, Bob Graham, will address this issue during the course of this debate. We see how this legislation disserves American workers even more. This is a fierce record and everybody on Main Street knows it. This economy is working fine for Wall Street. It works well for the elites, the elite corporations and the elite individuals. In this economy, we have had four tax breaks--at a time when we are fighting two wars--for the elite corporations and elite individuals. But for the working families on Main Street, they are suffering. Hopefully, they will have an opportunity to express themselves on election day. I yield back the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wonder if the Senator will yield for a question. Mrs. DOLE. Yes. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I understand the Senator from North Carolina is speaking as in morning business under a block of time allocated to the other side by prior agreement. I ask unanimous consent that following the Senator from North Carolina--if nobody is on the floor--that I be recognized for 15 minutes as in morning business, preserving the remainder of the 30 minutes allocated to the other side. If other speakers on that side are here to follow the Senator from North Carolina, I suggest that I follow them at the end of the 30-minute period. Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator modify his request that for whatever time he uses, the majority have equal [[Page S10796]] time, subsequent time, and that the time the Senator from North Dakota uses and the time of the majority following him be charged against the 30 hours. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from North Carolina. Connection Between Iraq And Al-Qaida Mrs. DOLE. Madam President, in our post-9/11 world, most Americans would agree that to defend our Nation and the freedoms we hold dear we must continue to succeed in the war on terror. As many of my colleagues and I have said, Iraq is the central battleground in the war on terror. The terrorists certainly know what is at stake, which is why they are pulling out all the stops to derail our efforts there. They know that a free and democratic Iraq is a serious blow to their interests. Collaboration of Iraq's former regime with terrorist groups and its funding of them have not been in question. Democratic cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, former Congressman Lee Hamilton, told reporters that there were connections between al-Qaida, and Saddam Hussein's government. Still, few naysayers have passed up the chance to contest links between Iraq and al-Qaida, links that have existed for more than a decade. Charges have been made that Iraq was not a haven for terrorists before the war, this statement being made just days after terrorist followers of Zarqawi, arguably the most dangerous terrorist in the world today, kidnapped and beheaded American civilians in Iraq. Reports strongly suggest that Zarqawi himself committed the atrocities. He and his men trained and fought with al-Qaida for years. Not only was Zarqawi in Baghdad prior to Saddam's ousting, but nearly two dozen members of al-Qaida were there as well. One al-Qaida associate even described the situation in Iraq as ``good'' and stated that Baghdad could be transited quickly. Then there is Abdul Rahman Yasin, another terrorist who was in Iraq long before the war. Yasin was a member of the al-Qaida cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb. Documents discovered recently by U.S. forces in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit show that Iraq gave Yasin both a home and a salary until the eve of the war in Iraq. When a Newsweek reporter interviewed Yasin's Baghdad neighbors, they told the reporter that Yasin was ``working for the government.'' Is this not a clear example of Iraq not only having a relationship with al-Qaida but also harboring and rewarding a terrorist, a person who was directly involved in a terrorist attack on our soil? What about a link between Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader himself, and Iraq? The 9/11 Commission Report states that Iraqi intelligence officials and al-Qaida members met in the spring and summer of 1998, and that an Iraqi official offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. In its 1998 indictment of bin Laden, the Clinton administration asserted that al-Qaida and the Iraqi Government had an understanding that they would not work against each other, and on projects such as weapons development, they would work cooperatively. Is this not evidence of bin Laden and al-Qaida having a collaborative relationship with the Iraqi Government? In a recent interview with a French newspaper published August 29, 2004, Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's mentor, Abdullah Azzam, said the Iraqi regime and al-Qaida had worked together closely before the war. He said: Saddam Hussein's regime welcomed them with open arms and young al-Qaida members entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation. Azzam said that al-Qaida members came into Iraq from Afghanistan, across mountains in Iran, with the help of Kurdish militants. And once in Iraq, Saddam strictly and directly controlled their activities, according to Azzam. Here is yet another example of al-Qaida members infiltrating Iraq and being given safe haven prior to the entrance of coalition forces. Let me be clear, despite recent political criticisms and media reports that have clouded or even misrepresented the facts, there is ample evidence of terrorists operating out of Iraq prior to the war, and there is compelling evidence of a longstanding link between al- Qaida and Iraq. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report informs us of this, as does the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report. Again, let me emphasize, Iraq is the central battleground in the war on terror. Recently, before a joint meeting of Congress, Prime Minister Allawi spoke of the challenges and continued progress in his country. He offered eloquent words of gratitude for America liberating the Iraqi people. I close today with a simple, but significant, statement that he made without much notice or fanfare. In talking about Iraq he said: We are fighting for freedom and democracy--ours and yours. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from North Dakota has 15 minutes. Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I believe I asked for 15 minutes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. JOBS Bill Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I came to the floor because we are going to have a great deal of business in the final days of this legislative session. Some of the legislation will be very significant. This is one piece of tax legislation that originally came out of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It rests on all of our desks. It is a large unwieldy piece of legislation dealing with, in some cases, arcane portions of our Tax Code. There is much in this conference report on what is called the FSC/ETI bill, which is the shorthand way we talk around here. Others call it the JOBS bill. There is much I commend, much that I support, and much that I think represents good work. But I want to talk a moment about some missed opportunities as well. I am mindful of what Mark Twain once said. It is always easy to be negative. Mark Twain once said, when asked if he would debate: Of course, if I can take the negative side. They said: We haven't told you the subject. He said: It doesn't matter, the negative side doesn't require preparation. I am mindful of that when I am trying to pick apart some pieces of this bill, but I think it is important to talk about missed opportunities at this late date. I am going to vote for this bill, but I will tell you what is not in it and should be. We are drowning in debt in this country. We have the largest budget deficit in the history of America, and add to that the largest trade deficit in the history of this country. We are neck deep in debt. We are spending money we do not have, in some cases on things we do not need. We send our men and women to war and say, by the way, we will not pay for that, we will have them pay for it when they come back. We are drowning in debt. One part of dealing with that debt in fiscal policy is to try to get the revenue into the coffers of the Federal Government that is owed by those who are required to pay taxes. Let me describe a couple headlines from recent days: House Negotiators Reject Tougher Tax Shelter Penalties. Those House negotiators said: No, we do not want to get tough to shut down tax shelters and tax dodgers. I am talking now about very large corporations that make billions of dollars and decide they want to do everything they can do as an American citizen, except they do not want to pay taxes. They do not want the obligation of paying taxes. Madam President, $40 billion would have been raised as a result of the provision that was objected to by the House negotiators. That's $40 billion saved in taxes that will not be paid by companies that should have been full taxpayers. October 7: How Big Tax Shelters with Cities Shortchanges the Federal Treasury. This is about people buying a sewer system. Can you imagine someone wanting to own a sewer system? But cities are now selling their subways, city hall, and the sewer system. Why? Because if they sell it to a corporation, a corporation can depreciate it, and then they can each share in the tax writeoff because a city does not have a tax write off because it is not taxable. So we see these things being sold to [[Page S10797]] private investors so that everybody wins, except the taxpayer loses, and our debt goes up and up because entities that should be paying taxes are not. Let me talk just for a moment about the issue of missed opportunities with respect to runaway plants and moving American jobs overseas. This morning there was an announcement about the number of jobs created in the last month. We need to create about 175,000 jobs a month just to keep pace with the increased population moving into the workforce. This month it was only 96,000 new jobs, far short of what is necessary just to keep pace with the new people coming into the workforce. Even as we struggled to create these new jobs, we have in place a provision in this country's Tax Code that says to a company: Guess what. If you will just decide to move your jobs overseas, we will give you a tax cut for doing it. We will give you a big fat tax cut if you move your jobs overseas. Now, I cannot think of a more pernicious, obscene thing to do than to say to American companies, move your jobs and we will give you a tax cut. If some tax concessions are going to be given, give them to the businesses that create jobs and stay here, not to the businesses that fire their workers and move their jobs to China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia. We voted on this provision and the Senate actually turned it down. Senator Mikulski and I offered an amendment that said let us shut down this pernicious tax cut that says to people, move your job overseas and we will give you a benefit. That, it seems to me, should have been a revenue raiser in this bill. Or how about the proposition of American companies that decide they want to have all the benefits that accrue to being an American citizen as a corporation--because in law we say a corporation is a citizen, artificial citizenship. It can sue and be sued; contract and be contracted with. It wants in some cases all of the opportunities of citizenship in this country except for paying taxes. That is why we see corporations that decide what they want to do is do their business through a post office box in the Cayman Islands. Why? Is that where they run their company, from a post office box? No. What they want to do is shelter their income from this country so they can have all the benefits our country has to offer them but avoid paying U.S. taxes that are required. Who then pays the taxes? Oh, it is just the working men and women who get up in the morning and dress and go to work all day. They do everything right, and at the end of the day they try to provide for their families and try to pay shelter and transportation, all the things that are necessary to send their kids to school, pay for health care, and then pay taxes as well. It seems to me this is a terrible missed opportunity to shut down aggressive tax shelters, to shut down the tax opportunities that have come from tax haven subsidiaries of U.S. corporations. I could go through a list of corporations. One corporation, for example, set up 441 entities in the Cayman Islands alone. Yes, an American corporation, an energy company, for example, set up 441 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands. Why? Because they do not want to pay taxes. The Halliburton Company has 17 tax haven subsidiaries, including in Liechtenstein--Panama, Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein. I would like to see these shut down. If you are setting up circumstances where you are doing business through a post office box in the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands or, yes, Liechtenstein, in order to avoid paying taxes, the next time you get in trouble maybe you should call out the Liechtenstein Navy to protect you, or the Bahamian Navy. Someone told me the Bahamian Navy has 20 people. These companies want all the benefits that can come to an American citizen, but they do not want to pay their fair share of taxes. Again, we have people who get up every morning in this country, they are good citizens, pay their bills, and they pay their taxes, because they want to send their kids to the best schools, and they want to be able to have affordable health care. They want to live in safe neighborhoods. They want grandma and grandpa to have access to health care. They want a good job that pays well. Instead, we have a tax system that says, oh, by the way, we will give you a tax cut to ship your job overseas and oh, by the way, it is fine for you to access, even if you stay here, tax shelters so that if you make money, you do not have to pay, but your workers do. Your workers should pay taxes, but you make $2 billion, you do not have to pay. Do your business through a mailbox somewhere. These are enormous missed opportunities, and they are missed opportunities because, as this says--and this is why House negotiators reject tougher tax shelter penalties. What that means is a bunch of people come to this conference and say, no, we want to protect these special deals, we do not want to close these loopholes. The fact is, the American people deserve better. This country is drowning in debt. People ask, how do you get a handle on the fiscal policy? The first thing you do is you stop this sort of nonsense. You stop subsidizing jobs being exported overseas by American companies that are told by this Government, shut down your plant and we will give you a tax cut if you move your job overseas. Yes, we voted on that in the Senate and it was voted down. Closing that loophole was voted down in the Senate. My hope would have been with the deficit growing worse and worse, that perhaps in conference, working on this bill, we would have seen a conference that would have closed these loopholes, closed these shelters, closed off the opportunities that result in such a massive amount of lost revenue to the Federal Treasury at a time when we are deep in debt. At a time as well when our country is reliant on about 60 percent of our oil from others around the world, it seems to me that we also missed some opportunities to move aggressively in areas to make us more independent with respect to our oil supply. It seems to me that when we have a circumstance where we need additional energy and we reach for 60 percent of that oil from troubled parts of the world, it puts our economy in great jeopardy. When we are talking about incentives for energy production in this country, we could have done and should have done much better. If we do not understand that the 60 percent reliance on Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and, yes, Iraq, Venezuela, and Nigeria is very troublesome to this country, then we do not understand very much. I happen to think we are going to always continue to use fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas. I also believe we ought to move toward a hydrogen fuel cell future in which we stop putting gasoline through our carburetors; find an inexhaustible supply of energy such as hydrogen, which is ubiquitous and everywhere, and when you use a fuel cell hydrogen vehicle you put water vapor on the tailpipe, you have twice the power to the wheel. What a remarkable future. We will not get there because the energy companies, particularly many of them that have a vested interest in what we are doing now, do not want to get there. There are some who are very excited about a new Apollo project in which this country describes a completely new energy future. I would hope some of those incentives would have been in this bill, and they are not. This legislation which is presented to us now over the weekend is legislation that has a number of things that I believe moves us in a good direction, a number of constructive things. I will make one other point on tax shelters. My colleague Senator Grassley, for example, announced some long while ago that he was going to put a stop these phony lease transactions between cities and companies. Yet, the way this conference report comes out they actually went easier on some of these transactions. The same is true with respect to inversions. Corporations that decide, we do not want to be American citizens anymore, we renounce our American citizenship, we want to become citizens of the Bahamas. Why? I do not know. Sun, sand, good food. I do not know. They want to become citizens of the Bahamas in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes so they do something called inversion, which is renounce your citizenship. There was a date set by my colleague Senator Grassley and his counterpart and they said, beyond this date, understand you are in jeopardy when you do [[Page S10798]] this. Well, guess what. In this conference, they went a year forward from that date. I do not have the foggiest idea why they did that. By the way, this is not a criticism of Senator Grassley because he has been a leader in shutting down these abusive transactions. My assumption is that the House of Representatives came over once again and said, no, we cannot buy that. It is unbelievable that corporations that want to renounce their citizenship are given even an inch of ground by anybody in this Chamber, let alone anybody in that conference. We ought to say, you want to renounce your American citizenship in order to save on taxes? Shame on you. You are not going to get tax benefits or tax savings from this Tax Code, not from this Congress. You want to do what is called an inversion and renounce your American citizenship? Then this Congress is not going to give you one cent of benefits in the Tax Code. Yet regrettably, what has happened here is they have actually given another year's flexibility to the companies that did that, a year beyond the date in which my colleague--and good for him, Senator Grassley--said, here is the date. Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield. Ms. LANDRIEU. Does it strike the Senator as odd and actually unjust that the same bill that would push the date back for companies to go register in the Bahamas--to give up their U.S. citizenship presumably because they think it is too hard for them to pay their taxes--in that same bill, the men and women who are protecting the right of those businesses to make a profit and to benefit from the great riches of this country were deprived of a tax credit? Does that strike the Senator as an odd way to either begin or end a session of the Congress? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute to answer my colleague. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DORGAN. Let me answer my colleague from Louisiana by saying of course it is absurd. Let me say it seems to me the first obligation in this Congress is to make sure we are doing what we should do for those men and women who, when called, left their homes, left their families, left their jobs, and went to serve this country. It is unbelievable to me, some of the priorities that have been established around here. I heard the Senator from Louisiana make the case earlier today. She is absolutely right about that. The soldiers she is talking about should not be put at the end of the line. They ought to be at the front of the line when you talk about trying to do what is right in this bill. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Louisiana on that point. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming. Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am a little surprised to hear my friend from North Dakota. This bill has been worked on for a long time here. It passed this Senate with a great amount of support. There are some things here that are very important that we are doing, and all I hear is talk about how bad it is. That is interesting. I think it has a little to do with politics. There are some things on here we ought to be talking about. Please remember why this bill was offered in the first place. We had a benefit that went to manufacturers, a 3-percent reduction if they shipped overseas. What happened is WTO, the World Trade Organization, said, That is not in keeping with our rules, and they started to levy a penalty, each month, that goes up to 17 percent. Something had to be done about that. The Senator didn't bother to mention that. He didn't bother to mention all the good things that are on here. I don't know whether that is politics or whether they are trying to talk a little bit about the facts. That would be a surprise. Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for me to have an opportunity to try to answer that just briefly? Mr. THOMAS. Really, if you have a question, I will take that. Otherwise I think it is my turn to have the floor. Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. I would just ask the Senator, did he know that at least my remarks were not at all directed politically to this bill? The Senator is correct. Did he know that when the provision I spoke about earlier left the Senate floor, 100 percent of the Senators, including the leadership of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus, sent our bill over to the House saying, please put our troops at the top of the list if we are going to give out $137 billion? Did the Senator know they didn't even come back in any part of the list? They are not on the list. I just wanted to ask the Senator if he remembered that that was something we sent over. Mr. THOMAS. Absolutely. There is no question. But this is the size of the bill. There are thousands of things in there. I am sorry. I agree with you. I was on the conference committee. We went through this process. But it is the House and the Senate both. When you go through a conference committee you come out with some things added and some things subtracted. I agree with the Senator and supported what she is talking about. But that is not the whole issue in this bill. This is a huge bill. The other thing that seldom is mentioned is that this is revenue neutral over 10 years. There are offsets to these expenditures which I feel very strongly about because I probably feel more strongly about the deficit than the Senator from North Dakota. But this is revenue neutral. They took enough things out, and that is one of the reasons some of the things are not in there that people would like in there, because they had to limit it to the amount of offsets they could find to make it work this way. But what happened then is they took off this 3-percent addition that went to manufacturers because the WTO opposed it and turned it around and gave that to all manufacturers, including people, for instance, who produce oil and who produce coal. It broadened the definition of manufacturers to where nearly every business in this country, then, receives it. We are talking about jobs numbers, which have grown pretty significantly. We are talking here about strengthening business to create jobs. Somehow we seem to forget that is where jobs come from, is by encouraging and giving incentives to businesses so they will invest and provide an opportunity to create jobs. That is what it is for. I don't quite understand where the Senator thinks jobs come from unless it has to do with businesses that invest and create those jobs. There are a great many things in there. Everyone could find something they don't like. I thought it was perhaps a little overdone, frankly, in terms of some of the things that were there. I tried very hard to get the tax element of the Energy bill into the bill. We were not able to put that all in there. We did get some energy incentives here, however, which will help some. We all had some things. There are some things that are particularly useful, just little things that are kind of typical of the many issues that are in there. Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. THOMAS. When you have medical providers who go to underserved areas, they are given financial incentives to go, and in the past those incentives which caused them to go there were taxable. We were able to take that taxable business out, so we will have more people willing and able to go to underserved areas--nurses, physicians, clinicians, and so forth. I will certainly yield. Mr. DORGAN. I think the Senator was not in the Chamber when I began my presentation. I did say I intend to vote for this. I said there is much in it that I commend and much that I support, including some of the energy provisions that I believe you just mentioned. I was speaking specifically only about the series of tax shelters representing, in my judgment, a missed opportunity. But I think the Senator from Wyoming missed the opening comments of this Senator. He probably missed that I did say there is much here to commend, and I was speaking about what I think is a gross abuse, which we call tax shelters, which we have to close, and I think most Members think at some point we will have to close them. Mr. THOMAS. I did not hear that. I continue to hear a lot of complaint and [[Page S10799]] criticism when talking about spending when indeed it is revenue neutral, and the Senator didn't brother to mention that. Obviously in a bill this size there are a great many things you can talk about. Obviously no one is going to agree with all of the hundreds of issues that are there. There are some really good things, some things I thought were particularly good. For instance, ranchers who, because of the drought, had to sell their herd and cattle, they don't have to pay on capital gains now for 4 years. It gives them a chance to get back without having to pay for that. One of the fairness issues that is there is the idea that States that do not have State income tax, which is deductible from the Federal taxes, but indeed finance through sales taxes, can now deduct the sales taxes, which makes it fair. States can choose to either have income tax, they can have sales tax, they can have both, and then they can have one of the two of them deductible. In the past, sometimes, my State did not have a State income tax, but we had a sales tax and it was not deductible. It will be now. That is a real incentive for people to be able to save some of the money they have. We also had a provision in there that was put in that had to do with enlarging the loans that are available to small businesses from the Government. The limit was put in there in the 1970s. Of course, that has changed a great deal. Here again, the purpose is to encourage businesses to build up so they can, in fact, hire people, and we do something for jobs. There are a number of things here that are very good. As I said, we need incentives for the small production oil wells. If you have an oil well that does not produce a lot of oil, the fact is there is an incentive in here for marginal wells--to have a production tax credit for electricity produced by renewable sources--geothermal, solar energy, those kinds of things which we have been looking forward to in the energy package. Obviously, I think anyone in effect can find some things in here that wouldn't be their choice. On the other hand, this is a jobs bill. It is designed to encourage the economy and create jobs. That is what it is all about. I get a little concerned when we seem to direct more attention toward the election which is coming up. I will be happy when that is over so we can talk a little bit more about the merits of the issues. That is what we are here for. It would be a good idea if in fact that is what we do. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana. Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, is there a specific order under the unanimous consent agreement? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has up to 30 minutes of debate. Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for the next 10 minutes, if I am not interrupting anyone's time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before the Senator from Wyoming leaves, I want to make a couple of comments regarding some of the things he said. While some Members of this Senate intend to vote for this bill, I am one who will not be voting for the bill. I would like to restate why. There is only one reason, one specific reason, and I think one compelling reason, that injustice was done in this bill after it left the Senate, and that injustice was that the one provision which would give direct tax relief to the men and women on the front lines, the Guard and Reserve fighting in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or whether it is North Korea, or South Korea, was left out of the bill. We have a lot of bills, and not all of them are this fat, this full, and this expensive. This is $137 billion. In 2 years, we negotiated between the House and the Senate. I know the Senator from Wyoming is aware of this because he helped to put it in. But there was only one provision in this entire bill that would have actually directed some modest tax relief to the men and women in the Guard and Reserve. But for some reason--I am not sure if it was politics, I am not sure if it was an election, I am not sure because I have not gotten an answer yet from anyone about why it was left out. Obviously, we had $137 billion to spend, and we spent it. We allocated it, but not for the Guard and Reserve. We send the Guard and Reserve to the front lines. According to Secretary Rumsfeld, we sent 640,000 men and women, 5,000-plus from my State of Louisiana, to the front lines. We can't even send them with a full paycheck. Some of us thought, gee, if we have this tax bill going through, we have to fix this problem with the World Trade Organization, and surely in the middle of this war at this time we could spend $2 billion to give tax credit. If we didn't have the $2 billion, I certainly would not have suggested that we spend it. But we have $137 billion in this bill. I am confused. My constituents are confused. The men and women in the armed services are confused and their families are wondering and are very puzzled: How could we possibly be giving away $137 billion to businesses here and abroad and leave them out? I am going to stand here for a couple of days and talk about it. I don't have an explanation for it. I don't want to go home because I don't know what I would tell them. When the Senator from Wyoming says it is politics involved in the opposition of this bill, I think that is a good question. I am not sure of the answer. But I would like to say it this way. Is politics in any way involved in the passage of this bill? This bill, $137 billion for every corporation, or many corporations that you could think of, big ones, little ones, ones that make ceiling fans, ones that operate horse racing--just go through it. I am not going to even comment about the benefits of that. I don't want the reporters and the people following this debate to say Senator Landrieu objects to anything in this bill except that the Guard and Reserve were left out. That is what I object to. I am not going to even talk about ceiling fans and horse racing, or shipbuilding, which happens in my State. There are lots of wonderful things in this bill. My only question is, How could we possibly have the nerve to pass a bill and leave the Guard and Reserve out? According to the GAO, the men and women in the Guard and Reserve on the front lines are taking a 41-percent pay cut. You may say to me, Senator, they knew it when they signed up. Let me answer that. They knew there would be sacrifice. These men and women don't want a lot of pity or attention. They are happy to go. They want to go. They are proud to serve. I know many of them personally. I am proud of them. But I tell you what they did not know: They didn't know that we--when I say ``we'', I mean this President, the former President, and the leadership of the Armed Services Committee--would make a policy decision that would say that our Armed Forces, instead of relying mostly on Active and a little bit on our Reserve, decided because it is less expensive we are going to rely more on our Reserve and a little less on our Active. We didn't tell them that because they signed up 10 years ago and we have been making these decisions in the last couple of years. They sign up. They weigh the pros and cons. They want to serve their country. They are patriotic. They say, I will make the sacrifice. But then we changed the rules on them. It is not their job to fix that. It is our job to fix it. We had a bill coming along. It started 2 years ago. I thought: this is a perfect time to fix this situation. Here is the money. It is small businesses that are writing these checks to keep their pay whole, and surely this country would find money in this bill to do this, and then whatever else they want to do is fine with me. But, oh, no. Let me make another point about what the Senator from Wyoming said. He said something along the lines that jobs are created by tax cuts. We have to have tax cuts for businesses to grow. I think that is partially correct. I don't think just any tax cut at any time makes business grow, but I will give him that. But I will tell you what makes businesses in America grow. I will tell you what no business could operate without. I will tell you in large measure what this war is about. It is about economic freedom. It is about global trade. It is about peace in the world so people can make a profit. No business in this bill could possibly function without the men and women [[Page S10800]] in the Active or Reserve units. They wouldn't exist. Yet we have this bill to help companies and businesses, and we can't help the men and women taking the bullets. I am not voting for a bill like that. I urge my colleagues, if they have decided how to vote, they might want to change their minds. I hope maybe people listening in their States, and maybe some of the families who have actually lost soldiers on the front lines might call their Senators, and say, Senator, if you do not mind, what Senator Landrieu is saying makes sense. Please don't leave me out of the bill. You put me in the war. Don't leave me out of the bill. You put me in the photograph, don't leave me out of the budget. I will say one more thing before my 10 minutes is up. I know something else about military families, and it is what I love about them the most. They never even want attention. I have had a little bit of a difficult time getting some of the families to call me. Do you know why? Because these men and women understand what sacrifice is all about. They didn't sign up to get rich. They didn't sign up to get an award. They don't really advertise their bravery every day, not like some people around here who cannot wait to show their awards off, et cetera. The men and women in uniform don't do that. So it is hard for them to ask. I want them to know it is my job as their Senator to ask for them and to fight for them. I don't blame them for not wanting to have their names used. They want to feel self-reliant. But I will be darned if I will sit here and watch this $137 billion get out of this Chamber and leave them behind. My colleagues, we are going to be here for a long weekend because I have a lot of things to say about this. My time now is up, but I am not going far. I don't live far from here. I am back and forth from Louisiana, and the house I live in when I am here is four blocks away, so I am not far away. I would stay here for many days to talk about it. Members in this Chamber feel very strongly about their Guard and Reserve. They know the sacrifices they are making and a mistake was made. Mistakes can be corrected. At 6 o'clock today I am delivering a letter to the White House. I will read it before 6 o'clock in the Senate. It is being delivered to the President. It is assumed in the letter that he didn't know about this personally, that it was just something that did not come to his attention. But he has the power as the President to fix it, and I hope that he will take that action. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object, I hope the Senator's time--I make it clear that under the consent that the Senator's time, however much time he uses, be counted as running with the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, it is. Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Iowa for clarifying that. The Economy We are here today at the end of the session. We have some important legislation yet to act on: this legislation that deals with the economic health of this country; it is legislation that deals with the security of this country. We have been working all session on these two issues primarily, with a plethora of other issues, but we do have some very important bills. The FSC/ETI bill is important, obviously, to sustaining and continuing the economic growth. We have the intelligence bill, the conference report. That is important for the security of this country. We have the Department of Defense authorization bill, which we are still waiting to get passed out of the Senate, the conference report to that. That is also very important. I will talk a little bit about our economy because today an economic report came out. When we look at this economic report with all that has been happening through 2004, I don't see how anyone can deny this has not been a good year for America's economy. I think back a little bit when President Bush was elected President and what kind of economy he inherited from the Clinton administration. The economy was going down. It was not doing well. As a result of that, the President decided to address the economic growth of this country and put in place tax cuts that did make a difference. There were 3 years of tax cuts put in place that took the burden of government off of the people of this country, and they produced. The sector of this economy that produces more jobs than any other is the small business sector. I know because I came from that sector. As a veterinarian, I had my own veterinarian practice, my small business, and I know how taxes can impact the bottom line of the business and how it can affect whether you have any capital remaining to buy new equipment. A lot of new ideas, or creation, comes out of small business, and too much regulation has an impact. In some ways, with the security challenges this country has faced, we have had to put in rules and regulations for business to be able to sustain their growth and create jobs. The real choice we have is to do something about the tax burden. It has been working. I will share some of those figures that came out today. America's economy is doing much better than just good. It has been doing really good. Since August of 2003, more than 1.5 million jobs have been created; 1.3 million jobs in 2004 alone. The unemployment rate of 5.4 percent today is well above the average employment rate of the 1970s, the 1980s, and the 1990s. For the last 12 months, the American economy has grown faster than the economy of any major industrial nation. Today's Department of Labor and Bureau of Labor Statistics report, which, by the way, measures payroll--that is an important distinction that I will talk about later--according to that report, the economy added 96,000 new payroll jobs in September, continuing an upward trend in job creation. Employment gains over the last 4 months totaled more than 405,000, and this year the economy has added an average of 170,000 jobs per month. Manufacturers have increased hiring in 6 of the last 9 months and are responsible for more than 70,000 jobs so far this year. And we still have October, November, and December to go. Unemployment remains steady at 5.4 percent, exactly where it was when President Clinton was reelected in 1996. Unemployment peaked more than a year ago in June of 2003 at 6.3 percent, and the labor force has increased by almost 950,000. The overall number of unemployed has fallen dramatically by 1.2 million since June of 2003. The economic policy of this President, what we have been doing in Congress, has been working. I will take a little time and talk about the other survey that we have out there, the household survey. There are some remarkable things happening in the household survey. It has increased more than 2.2 million since April of 2003. Those are fantastic figures. They reflect the self-employed. They reflect people who work on a part-time basis. They reflect people who work out of their homes for various reasons-- maybe they have a high-tech business and work through eBay to market some products that they have available, or perhaps they are real estate salesmen who have been working out of their home. This gets measured in the household survey. The household survey measures much more of our economy than just the labor payroll report. That is exciting. During those times when we had some layoffs in the high-tech industry and went through the high-tech slump, people who lost those jobs said, we are getting some bonuses because when they were asked to leave the company they frequently gave them a bonus and they took some of the money to start their own business. The most logical place to start a small business is out of your home if you can make it work. That is where most of them started their business. You keep your overhead down. You have a phone, you can hook it to the phone line. You can work out of there. What little money you earn you can put it back in the business or put it aside and hopefully buy more equipment and maybe move into a larger [[Page S10801]] building at some point in time when that business takes off and begins to operate. So I think it is important to point out that the payroll numbers, as strong as they are, do not reflect the growth of self-employment. According to the household survey, employment has increased by more than 2.2 million, as I said earlier, since April 2003. Again, these are fabulous figures. It reflects the ingenuity of a small businessperson who decides he wants to go out there and apply the American dream. He wants to start his own business. He wants to be self-employed. He wants to be independent. And he wants to be his own boss. I think America is on the right track. Now, the National Bureau of Economic Research determined that the latest recession ended in November of 2001, well after this President was sworn into office. Today's numbers are further evidence that the doom and gloom of those challenging the policies of this President is simply unfounded. We have created and we are witnessing the impact of policies that encourage growth. What did we do? We lowered tax rates on personal income for all taxpayers. The top marginal rate was reduced from 39.6 percent to 35 percent, and a 10-percent bracket was introduced. Where did the real impact of this fall? It fell on small businesses in this country. It helped them grow and prosper. It helped them create a lot of the figures you are seeing out of the household survey--favorable figures, fabulous figures, I might add. We lowered taxes on business investment, including a much lower tax rate, 15 percent, on dividends and on long-term capital gains. Of great importance is the tax cuts allowed businesses to more quickly deduct the expenses of their investments in machinery, computers, and software. American companies have responded by employing more people and investing more money in equipment and facilities. And in what part of the business sector will you see most of that happening? You will see it happening in the small business sector. Now, small businesses, they can be organized in a number of different ways. They can be organized as individual entrepreneurs. They can be organized as partnerships, various legal organizations. Family businesses will even incorporate. Professionals like myself, we have professional corporations that we organize in. So when we talk about separating business out into various sectors, no matter how you do it, somehow you are going to affect the small business community, where we see most of our economic growth. So we have to be careful about attacking corporations and attacking businesses in general because they do create the jobs in this economy. They create employment. They are what America is all about; that is, the principle of free enterprise and people holding their own property and being able to move themselves up in society. Another thing that happened to help keep our economy moving was the increased child tax credit from $500 to $1,000 per child. We also ended the marriage penalty. Married couples no longer pay higher taxes than equivalent singles, which eliminates a perverse incentive against marriage. We also repealed the estate tax. Probably the most unfair tax we have in this country is the estate tax because the estate tax has been taxed once already, and sometimes taxed twice, and then when you die it becomes a death tax and you have to pay again. When a family, a small business family in many cases, is struggling to try to get that small business to sustain itself during an untimely death in the family, then along comes the estate tax and whacks that family hard. Many times these are farmers and ranchers who have been struggling to try to save their farm or ranch. In States such as Colorado, where we are getting a lot of rapid growth, there is a demand for real estate, and many times these farmers and ranchers are forced to sell to developers or somebody else who is going to use that land for something else other than the production of crops and livestock. The end result is, we lose an opportunity to have an open space available in States like Colorado where there is a desire to have a considerable amount of open space. Home ownership is at an alltime high. I am pleased to be able to join with the President in putting forth the American Dream Downpayment Act, where we provide some well-deserved dollars to people, first-time home buyers, in this country. This is for people who have been paying rent who could be owning the same type of dwelling except that the only problem keeping them out of their own house, their own personal dwelling, is the fact that they cannot make the downpayment. So this piece of legislation was desired to help those individuals. By the way, many of them are minorities. As a result of that act, we are beginning to see a lot of growth in home ownership, and particularly among minorities it is getting much better. There are a lot of positive effects that happen with home ownership. The children tend to be better educated. They become better citizens in their communities. They tend to be more stable. They are not moving around as much. They care; they take an active role in what is happening in their community. Home ownership is another good story that is coming out of this administration. Sometimes I just do not think we talk enough about it, but it is important. It is important to communities, and it is important to families. So I summarize and say the good news today is something we need to work hard to sustain. It is important we draw this session to a close. We have some important pending legislation. We need to get that passed because it will help contribute to the continued growth of this country as far as the economy is concerned. It will help to continue to make America more secure, and it will help because we need to have a strong defense for this country. Today's numbers, again, are good news, part of a healthy, steady trend of growth and prosperity. I yield back my time, Mr. President. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Louisiana. Tax Relief Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thought I would take the next 15 minutes or so to review a couple points about the tax relief bill we are considering adopting. There are three or four major pieces of legislation that the Senate is trying to finish in the next couple of days. One of them is the reorganization of homeland security and the Intelligence Committee. One of them is the tax relief bill that we have been working on for 2 years. There are other issues that this Congress is struggling to get finished in the next few days, but the most important issue to me and the one I would like to spend a bit of time talking about now is the tax relief bill that was put together by many of us, or tried to be put together by many of us, over the last 2 years. That started out for a very good purpose and a very good reason because there was a trade decision made by the WTO that called into question the legitimacy of some part of our Tax Code relative to certain businesses. We had to take some action or our businesses would have been fined through the WTO because the European Union had prevailed in their argument. So our tax writers got busy and tried to fix that. We need to fix it. But what has happened is, we have done more than fix. We have really messed up some things. Unfortunately, inexplicably, and as a grave injustice, we didn't take care of our men and women in uniform. For the men and women who are taking care of us on the front lines and suffering pay reductions, we are letting pass the opportunity to make their paychecks whole. I am going to spend a few hours over the next couple of days talking about that. Before I do, let me share a fact that maybe some might not realize. We have always had men and women in our Guard and Reserve units supplementing our Active Forces. But never in the history of this country have we relied on the Guard and Reserve to the extent we are today. Let me share that in the Berlin crisis of 1961, we called up 148,000 reservists; [[Page S10802]] in the Cuban missile crisis, we called up 14,000; in the Vietnam war, we called up 37,000--for a total of almost 200,000 from 1953 to 1989. You can see from this chart that just in the last 12 years, in the Persian Gulf War, the invasion in Haiti, the Bosnia peacekeeping, Operation Southern Watch, which is ongoing, the Kosovo conflict, and Iraq and Afghanistan--and this list is not completely up to date--we have called out 364,000 guardsmen and reservists to supplement our Active Forces, to protect this country, to defend this country. These troops have been willing to go at great sacrifice, but the least we could do is keep their paychecks whole. The least we could do, if we are giving out tax credits and tax cuts to other people, is include them in the bill. This conference report that this Senate is considering over the next couple of days, $137 billion, left them completely out. We talk about helping small business. This is a picture of one of our soldiers. We left them out but we put in ceiling fans. I know people are not going to believe this, because it is hard to believe. But the guardsmen and reservists and their employers who keep their paychecks whole while they are on the front lines so they can pay their mortgages, pay their car notes, continue to contribute to their children's college trust fund, or just keep their household together, the employers of this country, small employers and large employers, are doing the right thing, the patriotic thing, not mandated by the Government but out of their own good heart, digging deep, keeping those men and women on the front line with a full paycheck. We had the opportunity to give them a modest tax credit so they could keep that paycheck whole and hire a temporary worker to take the spot of that guardsman or that reservist who went overseas to protect us. And we couldn't find one line, one paragraph, not one word in a $137 billion tax relief bill for every conceivable commercial, industrial, or manufacturing interest in the country, for our guardsmen and reservists. I want to show you the state of our Active Reserve. Sometimes pictures help us to understand. I know this subject can be complicated, but it is actually very simple. We just didn't put our Guard and Reserve in the $137 billion tax bill. We put everybody else in, but we left them out. I am going to stand here until I get an answer why. In 1940, at the height of the Second World War in the 1940s, this was the Army troop strength. This is where we had to go in the Second World War to defend. This is in the thousands, so it was 600,000 to defend our Nation. Because we, of course, won that war, won the Cold War, defeated communism, we have dropped the active strength force of our troops down to probably the lowest level since 1942. What fills this gap is our Guard and Reserve that are called up when we need them. When September 11 hit, we needed them and we called them. And they went. And 41 percent of them are going with a pay cut. Some of us got together, Republicans and Democrats on the Senate side, Chairman Grassley and our ranking member, Senator Baucus from Montana, and fixed that. Since we have a big, fat tax bill going through, couldn't we possibly give a little bit of money to the businesses that are keeping those paychecks whole, filling the gap, giving us extra strength, Active and Reserve, to protect us? But for some reason, once the bill left here and got over to the House Republican leadership, it got taken out. I know Senator Byrd is here to speak so I will wrap up my comments in just 5 minutes. I know he wants to speak, perhaps a little about this and other subjects. But I want to say a few things that the newspapers are saying about this bill. Let me be clear. I don't oppose this bill for any other reason other than the fact that the $2.4 billion tax benefit to employers for the Guard and Reserve to help keep their paychecks whole while they are on the front line was left out. There are other provisions of this bill that are questionable. There are other important issues that have been raised by the Senator from Iowa, Mr. McCain from Arizona, and the Senator from Massachusetts. Those are legitimate arguments as well. But leaving the Reserve and the Guard out and their patriotic employers is more than I can bear to be silent about. This is some of what some of our newspapers are saying about the general bill. The Washington Post, October 8: The bill is aimed at ending a transatlantic trade war by scrapping certain illegal tax subsidies for U.S. exporters that have brought on retaliatory action by Europe. But in the version approved last night by the House, that modest goal is largely overwhelmed in a preelection package of benefits for dozens of constituencies, including NASCAR track owners and mall builders. That is the opinion of the newspaper. Again, I don't know if the NASCAR track people are deserving or not. Many people enjoy NASCAR in my State. Maybe they are. But I can promise you that nobody in my State thinks NASCAR owners or investors or ceiling fan importers deserve a tax break more than the employers who are keeping whole the paychecks of our men and women on the front line. I can promise you that--not a one. I don't know of a business or a mall or a retail establishment that thinks they should get in line before the Guard and the Reserve. It was a long line. This is what I call a long line. This is not a thin bill. This is not a one-page bill. This is a lot of lines and a long line. They didn't even get in the middle of the line. They didn't get in the end of the line. They didn't get in at all. It is a grave injustice. The New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, and the Las Vegas Journal have all editorialized against this bill for different reasons. I am hoping that many of these newspapers and others that are listening will begin to focus on this issue as to a reason why we should vote against this bill, send it back to conference, redo it. We all make mistakes. This was a big mistake the House Republican leadership made. I say basically this is a paycheck that we send to our soldiers. Their average pay is $30,000. According to our own report, these soldiers are getting a 41-percent pay cut. We could have done something to help them, but we chose not to. So I am going to vote against this bill. I know other Senators are joining me in letters being sent to the conferees, which evidently did not make an impression on them--at least not to the point where they kept our provision in. That was passed by 100 votes here, Republicans and Democrats, and it would be paid for with an offset. We didn't ask for this provision to be included without paying for it. It is even paid for. But they decided--the leadership, Chairman Thomas and, I guess, Congressman DeLay and Speaker Hastert--we could not afford it. Let me again say for the record that there is $137 billion in this bill. The bill started out as being a $50 billion fix over 10 years. That was the cost of fixing the problem we originally started to correct. It grew and grew and grew. Everyone, it seems, was added in, except the men and women who are taking the bullets morning, noon, and night. It is hard for me to go back to Louisiana and explain this. I am not sure I could explain it adequately to the 5,000 families who are currently serving on the front lines. Why should they pour a little water into the cereal bowl, as one woman wrote to me, trying to make ends meet? Why did some of them lose their houses because their notes pile up and they cannot pay the bill when they get home? What could we be thinking as to the justice of losing an automobile, losing their retirement, losing their college benefit, or having to make them stretch and sacrifice when we could help them? If we could not afford it, if we didn't have the money, that would be one thing. This is $137 billion. Why could we not have given them $1 billion, or $2 billion, or half a billion? Or even if you could not give them the money, write something in the bill, for Heaven's sake, and tell them you understand they have a 41-percent pay cut and you are sorry you cannot fix it today, but when we get another bill, we will try later. Not even a comment. When they go off to war, they don't make a lot of comments to us either, other than I am going to my post, I am going to do my job; I will see you when I get back. Take care of my family. That is all they say to us. We could not even get a paragraph of gratitude in this bill. [[Page S10803]] Senator Byrd is going to speak. I will speak a few more times this weekend about this. I am doing as many interviews as I can, explaining this to people and handing out material. I am still waiting for Chairman Thomas to either write me, send me a note, write a letter, make a comment in the newspaper, or meet me for a debate about why he took them out of the bill in the middle of the night, when the cameras were not on, and there is virtually no record of the discussion. I don't know. The people in my State would like to know. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has up to an hour under the cloture rules. another white house excuse for war Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator who is presiding over the Senate with a degree of dignity, poise, collection, and composure, as it is so rare today. I thank Senator Burns. Mr. President, I thank the Senator who has been speaking, the Senator from Louisiana. She tells a story that many of my Guardsmen and Reservists and their families can also relate to. I compliment her on standing on the floor. She has courage and determination. When she says she is going to stay here until she gets some satisfaction from other Senators, she means that. I know that. I thank her for her kind reference to me. I will not speak longer than 15 minutes, after which the Senator may resume if she so desires. On Wednesday, October 6, the Senate Armed Services Committee received testimony from the top CIA weapons inspector in Iraq. The report of Charles Duelfer explains in precise detail the facts that the American people have long ago realized: that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, and that Iraq never posed an imminent threat to the United States. I said that at the beginning, before we voted on that nefarious resolution on October 11, 2002, to shift the power to declare war, which is set forth in the Constitution very clearly, as being reposed here in the Congress of the United States; instead, to shift that power to the hands of a President. How shameful. How shameful that we turned our backs--the Senate and House collectively--on the Constitution of the United States. The fact that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq is nothing new. Our military has been on the hunt for banned Iraqi weapons since March 19, 2003, when President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq under his nefarious doctrine of preemption--preemptive war--a doctrine that squarely contradicts the constitutional powers given in the Constitution as having been reposed in this body and in the other body across the way. The CIA conducted its own extensive search for more than a year. Did anything turn up? No. No stockpiles of dangerous germs, no warehouses of poison gases, no nuclear weapons. They say, well, Saddam Hussein has used these on his own people. Of course, he had some years before. I can understand how many Senators were misled by the statements of the administration and, in particular, the statements of the President and the Vice President and others on the President's team. In fact, the CIA report finds that the truth on the ground in Iraq was almost the exact opposite of what the White House had claimed in the runup to the war. Contrary to the President's statement, the CIA report says that Saddam had no active WMD programs, and he didn't have even so much as a plan to restart them. Despite the Vice President's insinuations, the CIA found no secret plans for Iraq to attack the United States. Despite the National Security Adviser's warnings of mushroom clouds, the CIA found that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant and decaying. Now, the White House is desperately trying to have their spin machine generate a new reason for the war. We have seen a litany of reasons as time has ensued following March 19, 2003--a litany of reasons. When one reason was shot down, when one reason proved to be wrong, the White House always came up with another reason, another reason, another reason we sent our men and women to war, the first war fought under the pernicious doctrine of preemption, the Bush doctrine of preemption. And regardless of how many times the President may seek to salve the conscience of his administration, the fact remains that Saddam Hussein was not an immediate, imminent threat to the security of the United States. I said so at that time. It was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place, and I will say that again and again. The President, on his way to a campaign stop in Wisconsin, has tried to gloss over the collapse of his central reasons for a preemptive war. According to the Associated Press, the President said: The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. Oil for Food Program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. So does the President mean to say he launched this war to stop waste, fraud, and abuse in a U.N.-run humanitarian program? Does the President mean to say that Saddam Hussein's greed was the reason that 225,000 American troops were sent overseas, away from their families, their loved ones, and their communities, to attack Iraq? Are we to believe that the President now seeks, once again, to justify his war against Iraq because Saddam was cheating the Oil for Food Program? Is that the reason we sent our men and women to war? Mr. President, unbelievable, unbelievable, incredible. Too bad that the White House does not hold Halliburton to the same standard. The truth is that the President changes his reasons for the war more often than he changes his socks. On March 19, 2003, the day he sent American troops into battle--many of them never again to return to their homes, their families, their native soil--the President said: The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Marines so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. I have heard that so many times. The President did not say a peep-- not a peep--about the Oil for Food Program on the day he ordered our brave men and women to march on Baghdad. Talk about flip-flops. Yet despite all that has gone wrong in Iraq--the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, the failure to stabilize postwar Iraq, the failure to share the burdens of occupation with our allies, the failure to equip our soldiers with the body armor they need, and the deaths of 1,061 American troops as of my last reading of the press the President maintains that he would do everything the same if he had to do it over again. Well, I hope not, and I hope the Senate of the United States would not do the same thing it did before if it had to do it over again. I spoke out against that nefarious, terrible action, sending our men and women to their deaths in Iraq, in a foreign land, spilling their blood in the hot sands of the Middle East. For what? For what? The President maintains he would do everything the same if he had to do it over again. Maybe he would. Surely he should learn from what has already happened. The American people might not stand again for that. Mr. President, the fog of war is beginning to lift and for the first time, the American people are beginning to see the war in Iraq on clear terms. As cruel as Saddam Hussein was to the Iraqi people, he was no imminent threat to the American people. That is why we went to war. That is why this administration led this country into a war against a nation that had not provoked us, had not attacked our country. That was the Bush doctrine, and it is the Bush war. Saddam Hussein had no links to the 9/11 attacks, and yet a majority of the American people I noticed in some polls not too long ago, believed at the time the polls were taken that many or, indeed, most of the attackers, most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from Iraq. That is not the case. Not one, not a single one of those 19 hijackers was from Iraq, and yet this administration would like to have the American people believe that it was otherwise. [[Page S10804]] I guess they lie awake at night concocting new ways in case this fails, in case it is shown to be wrong: Where is the next fallback? What do we fall back on next? Iraq was not the central front of the war on terrorism until President Bush invaded and unleashed a firestorm of anti-American sentiment. The President's postwar strategy has been a failure. The President's handpicked envoy to run postwar Iraq, Ambassador Bremer, said there were never enough troops to stabilize Iraq. The President himself, in a rare acknowledgment of fallibility, admitted on August 27, 2004, that he had miscalculated the danger of postwar Iraq. Yet the President still has no exit strategy for Iraq. How long will the American people have to wait to hear from this President and this administration an exit strategy? How long will we have to wait for a plan from this administration to bring our men and women home with honor? The White House still refuses to acknowledge that Iraq has been turned into an international basket case due to an unprovoked and unjustified war. Instead, the White House has paralyzed our military, has paralyzed our diplomacy and our allies by maintaining we must continue to stay the course. Stay what course? Keep on with the same? Mr. President, 1,061 dead and counting, and we are supposed to stay the course? What our Iraq policy needs is change, not more of the same. The original rationale for preemptive war against Iraq has collapsed. The CIA's new report on the absence of weapons of mass destruction is the final nail in the coffin of the administration's prewar claims. How long will the American people be content with a President who refuses to acknowledge the disaster caused by his doctrine of preemptive war? How many more American men and women will have to shed their blood in the hot sands of the Middle East? How long will our troops struggle against a tide, the increasing tide of violent anti-Americanism that this terrible misbegotten war has spawned? How long will the United States of America be tied down in a Middle Eastern country while other threats at home--here at home--go unaddressed? How long, Mr. President? How long? Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana. Business is Doing its Part Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 minutes. I see other colleagues on the Senate floor. I will take the 10 or 12 minutes I have remaining, if I might. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for the kind words he spoke before he made the very important points he has made this evening and throughout the course of actually the last few days. The challenge we face in Iraq is the most important issue before our country. I thank him for his kind words, and I want to thank him for his continued leadership. As we get toward these evening hours, I remind my colleagues-- Mr. BYRD. If the distinguished Senator would yield, let me thank her for her most charitable comments concerning this Senator. She graces the Senate from the great State of Louisiana. She does her work. She is deeply dedicated. She is on the Appropriations Committee, on which I have had the good fortune to serve for many years. I thank her for what she is doing for her people. I thank her for what she is saying on the Senate floor. I thank her very much. I appreciate it. I appreciate the fact that she is my colleague and shares the concerns of my people in what she is saying today. Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. My colleague is so right that the men and women of West Virginia have served so bravely and so willingly, as so many people from our States have served in the Active Forces and in the Reserve and the Guard and, as I said earlier in my remarks, do so without the expectation of fanfare. They do not want awards. They do not even want that special attention in their communities because they are so proud to serve and they are so willing to serve. That is what makes me want to stay on this Senate floor even more for them, knowing that about these families. I will read a few things into the Record during the 10 minutes that I have to build this argument and get out these facts about this important issue. One of the three or four important pieces of legislation we are trying to make decisions about in the last 2, 3, 4 days of this Congress is whether this bill, which is called the FSC bill--it is a tax cut bill which modifies many sections of the Tax Code--should pass or if it should not. I am going to vote against it because the Guard and Reserve were left out. The people on the front lines taking the bullets, taking the cut in pay to serve us, and risking their lives were in the bill when it left the Senate, but because of the House leadership they were left out. This bill is $137 billion, and if we could not afford $2 billion of this $137 billion for them, then I do not know what we can afford because none of us would be here without them and none of the businesses benefiting from this bill would be able to actually operate, function, have a license, or have the freedom to function or enjoy the free enterprise system that has been created over 220 years without the men and women in the armed services. Some of us were silly enough to believe that in a bill that was $137 billion, they could get in at the top of the list, but we were mistaken because they did not even make the cut. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Officer, Dec. 2003] Employer Support Grows ``I know of no other time in our nation's history when so many employers have voluntarily offered this level of support and benefits,'' Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in September to employers of Reservists and National Guard members called to active duty in the global war on terrorism. In his open letter of thanks and praise, Mr. Rumsfeld expressed ``the deepest appreciation of this department and the United States government for your unswerving support of our nation's military.'' His letters were sent 29 September 2003 to directors of major employer associations and government agencies who are asked to then distribute them to their members. Many employers ``did more than was required by law by voluntarily offering continued benefits, pay differentials, and additional, creative forms of family support, which made the period of separation so much easier to bear,'' Mr. Rumsfeld noted. He said that without the continued support, ``we could not maintain a strong military or sustain the current effort to overcome the international terrorist threat directed at our country, our citizens, and all who love freedom.'' In concluding, the Secretary of Defense wrote: ``You have my deepest thanks. Your direct contributions and support are another illustration of America's greatness as a nation.'' Since 11 September 2001, that employer support has been extended to more than 350,000 Reservists and Guard members who have been mobilized and demobilized. This commitment is documented in the charts on the pages that follow, summarizing corporate policy for 185 of the Fortune 500 companies when Reservist/Guard employees are called to emergency active duty. Replies represent 112 new responses (compared with 91 last year) adn 73 repeats from previous years. On the charts, as well as in this article, asterisks indicate responses from last year or two years ago. For many companies, policies represent upgrades since 9/11 and are usually for implementation during the period of the terrorist threat. Of the 185 companies listed, 19 provide full salary; 17 provide salary plus differential; 137 provide differential; nine provide no salary or differential; and three reply either vaguely or ``do not participate in surveys.'' companies that lead From among the 19 where full salary is provided, companies that lead the way are #26 J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., full salary from 9-11-01 through 3-31-04; $69 American Express, #179 MBNA, #187 *Schering-Plough, and #397 MGM Mirage, for the duration; and #242 *First Data and #355 W.W. Grainger, for one year. Among the 17 with a combination of salary plus differential, companies with the most generous packages include #235 General Mills, salary for one month and differential for the duration, plus a $300 monthly Military Leave Allowance; #51 *Dow Chemical, salary for two months and differential for the duration, not to exceed five years; #199 United Services Automobile Assn., salary for one month and differential for up to two years; #215 National City Corp., salary for six months and half-salary for six months; #419 **Pacific LifeCorp., salary for six months and differential for six months; #92 Coca-Cola, salary for three months and differential for 275 days; #183 *AFLAC, salary for three months, then one month of differential for each year employed to equal annual salary; #5 General Electric, salary for one month and differential for 11 months; #74 [[Page S10805]] Georgia-Pacific, salary until last day of month when employee reaches 30 days of service and differential until 12th month is reached. In past surveys, where ``the duration'' or ``one year'' was considered the ultimate in differential payment, that standard has changed since 11 September 2001. The following first five groups have continued to raise the bar for the 137 in this category, as they join with the duration and one-year providers: Maximum of Five Years: #15 Boeing and #77 BellSouth. Three Years: #10 Verizon Communications, #56 Lockheed Martin, and #141 Lucent Technologies. Two and One-half Years: #22 AT&T, #30 Sears, Roebuck, #54 Sprint (continues to be extended since 9/11), and #105 Raytheon. Two Years: #128 Wyeth, #315 *Eastman Chemical (two years at 80 percent of difference), and #335 Avaya. 18 Months: #11 Altria Group (through 10 September 2004), #50 ConAgra Foods, #80 *Electronic Data Systems, #116 **Xerox, #177 **Southern, #814 *Dominion Resources, #200 Pepsi Bottling, #224 Entergy, #301 Rohm & Haas, and #408 Hormel Foods. Duration: #3 **Exxon Mobil, #6 Citigroup, #8 **International Business Machines, #37 **Pfizer, #49 United Technologies, #52 Marathon Oil, #72 Tyson Foods (retroactive to 9-11-01), #79 *Bank One Corp. (salary offset by 5/7 of military pay), #85 Caterpillar, #127 Household International, #140 PG&E Corp., #156 **Union Pacific, #170 Pacificare Health Systems, #211 Public Service Enterprise Group, #246 Calpine, #270 *DTE Energy, #304 NCR, #381 **CDW Computer Centers, and #486 New York Times. One Year: #7 Chevron Texaco, #12 ConocoPhillips, #32 *Freddie Mac, #35 Albertson's, #42 J.C. Penney, #43 United Parcel Service, #45 Walgreen, #57 *Prudential Financial, #71 **Archer Daniels Midland, #84 Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins., #99 Northrop Grumman, #100 Abbott Laboratories, #101 *Sara Lee, #110 3M, #111 *Nationwide, #119 AT&T, #139 *Goodyear Tire & Rubber, #163 *Edison International, #172 **Eli Lilly, #196 Williams, #231 CSX Corp., #249 Mead-Westvaco, #285 KeyCorp., #302 Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, #303 Unisys, #350 Mellon Financial Corp., #392 *Harley-Davidson, #393 Providian Financial, #399 *Energy East, #415 *Ball, #418 Ameren, #422 Adolph Coors, the two companies in #426 position, *Kerr-McGee and Wisconsin Energy, and #462 H&R Block. Ms. LANDRIEU. This is from ``Citizen-Soldiers and the Fortune 500. Employer Support Grows.'' The article reads: ``I know of no other time in our nation's history when so many employers have voluntarily offered this level of support and benefits,'' Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote in September to employers of Reservists and National Guard members called to active duty in the global war on terror. In his open letter of thanks and praise, Mr. Rumsfeld expressed the deepest appreciation of his Department and the U.S. Government for ``your unswerving support of our nation's military.'' His letters were sent on 29 September to directors of major employer associations and Government agencies that were asked to distribute them to their members so their members would know of the good works and good words of Secretary Rumsfeld. His letter went on to say: Many employers did more than was required by law by voluntarily offering continued benefits, pay differentials, and additional, creative forms of family support, which made the period of separation so much easier to bear, Mr. Rumsfeld noted. He said that without the continued support, we could not maintain a strong military or sustain the current effort to overcome the international terrorist threat directed at our country, our citizens, and all who love freedom. Those are beautiful words. My colleagues would acknowledge these are beautiful words. The problem is, they are only words, because when the administration that Secretary Rumsfeld works for and the House Republican leadership that follows his lead and his direction put together a $137 billion tax package, they did not think they could find the room, the time, the energy, or the concern to really thank the employers by giving them part of this tax cut. They decided to send them the brochures and the newsletters and the go-for-it congratulations kind of letters, but the real people who they wanted to help or the people they thought deserved the most help were actually in the bill. I think this is pretty clear evidence that the words that are sometimes written by leaders do not really convey what actually happens, that really what happens is what is in the budget. When one is in the budget, they know they matter, and if they are not, they do not. It is about as simple as that. I am going to submit a list of the employers--the National Committee for Employers supports the Guard and Reserve, outstanding employers. I have them all through my State. I am so proud of these small businesses, I do not know what to do. I had one of my mayors whose chief operating officer was called out of the city not once but twice, one of the most talented, remarkable public servants. The whole city sort of suffers when one of these skilled folks goes off, and I have heard his story out of Lake Charles, LA. But they kept his paycheck going voluntarily. Many employers keep the paychecks going. I thought, silly me, we have a tax bill. Could we not acknowledge the patriotism of these thousands of employers in our country, big companies, small companies, local governments, fire departments and police departments that are digging deep? There are no line items in their corporate budgets to pay people who are not at work, but they do it anyway. We do not even mandate they do it; they are doing it voluntarily. They do not put a line item in their corporate budget: Pay people that are not on the job that are on the front line. But you know what. They do it. They do it for a good reason--because 41 percent of the Guard and Reserve are taking a pay cut to serve on the front line. I want to submit for the record some the patriotic employers. I ask unanimous consent to have some of their names printed at the conclusion of my remarks. (See exhibit 1.) Ms. LANDRIEU. Unlike some of the leaders who just write these employers letters and tell them what a good job they do, I want these employers--Conoco and Chevron and Alcoa and All About Music and Allianz Life Insurance Company and American Electric Power, American Express, the American Stock Exchange, and I could go on and on, 250 Central, 3M--there are pages of them--I want to tell them all that there are a few Senators, some Republicans and some Democrats, who are going to do more than send you a letter. We would like to send you a tax credit and we think you deserve it. You didn't really ask for it. We understand that because you are digging deep. But we are going to give tax credits out to everybody in the world, it looks like, because we have ceiling fan importers and NASCAR race investors; we have shipbuilders--many of which are in my State and they know I support them--but we can't find a tax credit to help these companies that are sending paychecks for the front line to keep our soldiers prepared to fight and defend our country when really it is the Federal Government's responsibility. If they said we didn't have the money, I would just sit down and say we just don't have it. We are running a deficit. We can't afford it. But for me to sit here and watch $137 billion fly through this Chamber and land in the hands of whomever, but not these companies, not our troops, not the people who are having a hard time paying their house note and keeping their household together, it makes me literally want to just get on my knees. I can hardly stand here. I really feel like just falling out. I want to read a couple more things into the Record. I only have a few minutes. This is from Kristin who called in today from Portland. Her husband is in the Army Reserve and has been in Iraq for about a month. She is anticipating a 50-percent cut in pay. Her husband was a private consultant project manager. We knew when he was activated that he was going to have to be away, but to think that some in Congress aren't even willing to do something to help employers continue to pay him is hard to believe. Gwen from Minnesota, her husband spent a year deployed in Iraq as a reservist. He is a schoolteacher. He took a significant pay cut during deployment. Because I talked to Gwen, let me add a few things to this. Her husband has a doctorate degree. He is teaching school, in either high school or elementary school. He is a real double patriotic American because, even though he has a doctorate degree and could teach at a college or get some high-paying job, he feels compelled to give his life to help children. In his spare time he goes to the front line. So what does our Government do for Gwen and her husband? Send them letters in the newsletter to tell them [[Page S10806]] how proud we are. Then, when they are not looking, in the dead of night, we pass a $137 billion tax cut and leave them out? I don't think so. Sue, from New Orleans, her husband has been activated for a year and a half but has not been deployed. Even so, her family is experiencing a 60-percent pay cut during his deployment. Trish from Pennsylvania, her family is experiencing a one-third pay cut. He is on his second deployment. They may have to declare bankruptcy. Her husband is in the Air Force Reserve. He was deployed to Afghanistan last year and is headed to Iraq in the fall. We in Congress think we do a great job for these families by providing them financial counseling. Let me say one thing. Most of the people I know in the Army and Reserve do a very good job managing their money. They are happy for the help we could give them and they are happy for the counseling that they could sign up for, but I can tell you what they really want. They just want a paycheck and they want a solid paycheck. They don't want something to make them rich, not something to allow them to live in a mansion or drive around in a Lexus, but they would like a real paycheck. We could have helped them but we decided this Congress had other priorities. The last thing I want to submit for the Record is a letter to the President of the United States that I am sending right now. I am going to read it and then I am going to yield the floor to the Senator from Kansas. May I have order, please? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. Ms. LANDRIEU. The letter says: Dear Mr. President: I am writing to bring a grave injustice to your personal attention. During Senate consideration of the FSC-ETI legislation, the members of the Senate added a modest provision to assist our troops. GAO studies have concluded that 41% of our Guardsmen and Reservists called to serve their country on the front line must take a pay cut to do so. Fortunately, some companies around the country have stepped up to the plate, and taken the patriotic step to make up the pay gap of these brave men and women. The provision that we added in the Senate would have provided a tax credit of 50% of these costs to companies who make up that difference. In so doing, we hoped both to acknowledge the patriotism of existing companies, and at the same time encourage more employers to take this step. Mr. President, no doubt that as you have traveled the country, you have confronted the same stories I have from spouses and military families struggling to make ends meet. We have had to ask an awful lot of our Guard and Reserves, and they ask very little from us. So trying to take this worry off the minds of our men and women on the front lines seemed to be the least we can do. So it is with deep embarrassment for our government that I must report that this very modest relief for our troops was stripped from the conference report by Congressman Thomas and the leadership of the United States House. While I am certain that representatives of your administration participated in this conference, I presume that you did not have personal knowledge of the decision to cut support for our military families. Regrettably, this decision has placed all of us in a difficult position. While I endorse many aspects of the FSC- ETI bill, but I simply cannot support a measure that places so many lesser priorities ahead of our military families. Mr. President, I respectfully request that your exert your great influence to correct this injustice. Your willingness to veto this bill, or your insistence that a free standing bill be adopted, could redress this failure. Mr. President our troops need your leadership on this matter. Let us not disappoint them. I might add, our troops need our leadership. I am sending this letter. I am sending a similar letter to Congressman Thomas. I hope in the next 3 days that we are debating we may get an answer that tells us either why they were left out or what we could do to help them, because $137 billion is a lot of money and they deserve to be in the bill. I have ended my speech. I see the Senator from Kansas on the floor and I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve Outstanding Employers 250 Central, 3M, 99th RRC, AMSA 113 (G), A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., A.K. Steel/A.E.I.F., Abbott Laboratories, AC Nielsen, Accenture, Accolades Awards and Trophy, Adelphia Cable, ADT Security Services, Aerojet Ordnance Tennessee, Aetna, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc/Riverside, AFLAC, Ahold Information Services, Air Products and Chemicals, Alabama Rural Water Association, Alchua County Sheriff Qffice. Alameda County Sheriffs Office, Alamo Area Council of Government, Albany, N.Y., Albertsons, Inc., ALCOA, Alion Science & Technology, Alkermes Inc., All About Music, Allianz Life Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Alpha Industries, Altair Engineering, Inc., Alticor, Inc., Amazon.com, Amber Mechanical Contractors, Inc., AMERESCO, American Electric Power Company, American Express, American Express Financial Advisors, American General Financial Group. American Heart Association, American Ink Jet Corp., American International Group, American Medical Response, American Postal Workers Union, American Recycling Systems, Inc., American Standard, American Stock Exchange, AmeriGas, Anderson County, Blue Mountain Energy, Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, Bluefield Police Department, Bluefire Partners, Blum, Shapiro & Company, P.C., BMC Software, BMW Manufacturing Corp., Boeing Aerospace, Boeing Electron Dynamic Devices, Inc., Boeing Satellite Systems. Boise Cascade, Boise Police Department, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Bose Corporation, Bradley-Morris, Inc., BRAVO! Development Inc., Brighton School District 27J, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Britton Engineering & Land Surveying, Inc., Brooks Automation Inc., Broward County Sheriffs Office, Broward County, Florida, School Board, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Burnet County Sheriff's Office, CACI, Inc.--Federal, Caddo Parish Schools, La., Calamos Asset Management, Inc., Canadian National Railroad. Canon Business Solution, Cantey & Hanger, Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, Capitol One Financial, Capsugel/Pfizer, CAREFLITE, CASAS International, Caterpiller, Inc., Catholic Finance Corporation, CDW Computer Centers, Cendant owns [Avis & Budget rent a car agencies], Cendant Mobility, Cendant Mortgage, Cendent Corporation, Center of Applied Technology North, Centex Rooney Construction, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, Central Connecticut State College, Cerner Corporation, Cerritos College. Charles Schwab, Charter Consulting, Inc., Chautauqua and Erie Telephone, Cheaptickets, Chesapeake Biological Laboratories, Chesterfield County, Computer Sciences Corporation, Comsewogue School District Board of Education, Con-Way Central Express, Con-Way Western Express, ConAgra, Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC), Conectiv Power Delivery, Congentrix Energy, Congress Title, Connecticut Light & Power Company, Conoco, Conoco-Phillips, Consolidated Edison of New York, Cook County, III. Cooley Manion Jones LLP, Coors Brewing Company, Copperfield LLC., Cornerstone Retirment Community, Corriher--Lipe Middle School, Country Insurance & Financial Services, County of Santa Clara, Environmental Resource Agency, Parks & Recreation, Covance, Inc., Coweta County Sheriffs Department, Cox Communications, Cranston Print Works Company, Crowley Middle School, CSX Corp., Cummins, Inc., Curtiss-Wright Corp., CVM, Inc., D. H. Griffin Company, D. Miller & Associates, PA, Daimler Chrysler, Daphne, AL P.D. (and City of Daphne). Dassault Falcon Jet--Wilmington Corp., Data Base Accounting Solutions, Inc., Data Search Systems Incorporated, Davidson County, Tenn., Davie Police Department, DeKalb County School System, Delaware, Dell Computers, Delphi, Delta Faucet Company, Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Labor/Wage & Hour Division, Department of Military of Affairs, Designer Checks, Deutsche Bank, DeVry Inc., Digital Partners Inc., DirectEmployers Association Inc., Discover Card Services, Discover Financial Services, Discover Financial Services, District of Columbia (Washington, DC). FISI Madison Financial, Fleet Bank of Hartford, FIeetBoston Financial, Fleming Companies, Inc., Flik International, Florida Blood Services, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida State Gov., FMC Technologies, Food Lion, Ford Motor Company, Forensic Technology Inc., Forest Grove School District, Forrest Exterminating Service Inc., Fort Wayne Metals, FOX Broadcasting Company/News Corp., Fox Valley Tool & Die, Frankfort Fire Department, Franklin County Sheriff's Office, Columbus, Ohio, Freddie Mac. Freightliner Trucks, Frito Lay Corporation, Frontier Telephone of Rochester Inc., Fujitsu Network Communications, Full Association Business Service, Inc., Galileo International, Gardonville Cooperative Telephone Association, GEICO Direct, Gen-Probe Incorporated, General Dynamics, General Dynamics Land Systems, General Electric, General Motors, George's Restaurant, Georgia Power Co., Georgia Power Company, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Giant Food Inc., Gilbane Building Company, Giles County Sheriffs Department. Glastonbury, Conn., Glaus, Pyle, Schomer, Burns & DeHaven, Inc., Glendale, Calif., Globe Motors, Inc., Goldman Sachs, Goodrich Corporation, Goodrich Corporation- Landing Gear Division, Goodwill Industries--South Eastern Wisconsin, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Graco Minnesota Inc., Grainger, Grand Traverse County, Grapevine, Texas, GrayRobinson, Great Salt Lake Council Boy Scouts of America, Greater Baltimore Medical Center. [[Page S10807]] Jackson Township, Jacksonville Sheriffs Office, James City County, Jamestown Public Schools, JCPenney Home Office, JE Dunn Construction Company, Jedi Computing, Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office, JM Thomas Forest Products, John Peter Smith Hospital, Johnson & Johnson, Jones & Carter, Inc., Jones Day, JP Morgan Chase, JP Morgan Chase Custody Services, Inc., JSA Inc., Kaman Aerospace Inc., Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., Kell Container Corporation, Keller Police Department. Kennesaw State University, Kenton County Airport Board, Kerr-McGee, Kessler sign company, Kettering City Schools, Kettering, Ohio, Key Corporation, KeyCorp, KIC Chemicals, Inc., Kocourek Chevrolet, KORYAK Consulting, KPMG LLP, KRA Corporation, Kraft Foods-Maxwell House, Kronos, Inc., Kwik Trip Inc., L G & E Energy (KY), L-3 Communications, Labor Ready, Inc., Lake County Captains Professional Baseball. Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group, Landstar System, Inc., Lang Wyatt Construction, Las Vegas City, NV., Lauerman's #2 Saloon, Lawfirm of Sacks & Sacks, LD Clark Excavating, Lebanon Township Committee, Leviton Manufacturing Co. Inc. (NY), Liberty Mutual, Liberty Technology-Magnet High School, Liorente Investigations, Lisle-Woodridge Fire District, Live Oak Police Department, Lockheed Martin, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company. Miami--Dade County, Fla., Michelin North America, Micro Vane (MI), Microsoft Corporation, Mid-States Ford Inc, Mideast Aluminum Division of Indalex, Midlands Orthopaedics, P.A., Military Resale Group, Inc., Miller Brewing Company (WI), Mind & Media, Inc., Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo PC, Mirant, Mission Critical Linux, Mississippi Board of Nursing, MK Diamond Products, Inc., Modesto City Schools, Monster Worldwide/Monster Government Solutions, Montefiore CMO, Montello School Department, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Morgan Stanley, Morgantown (WV) Utility Board, Morrison & Foerster LLP (CA), Morton Plant Mease Primary Care, Inc., Motorola, Inc., Munhall Area Prehospital Services, Munters Corporation, Mutual of Omaha, NASDAQ, Nashville, Tenn., Nassau County Police Department, Nassau County, NY, National Association of Securities Dealers, National City Bank, National City Corp, Cleveland, OH, National Information Consortium USA, National Park Service, NationsRent, Nationwide, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Navy Engineering Logistics Office, Navy Federal Credit Union, Navy Public Works Center, Nebraska Public Power, Neill Corporation, Nestle Frozen Food Division, NetJets, Inc., Nevada Highway Patrol, New Britain, Conn., New York City Housing Authority, New York City Police Department, New York Life Insurance, New York Stock Exchange, Nicor Gas, NiSource Corporation, Nissan North America, Inc. Phillip Morris, Phoenix Metals Company, Phoenix Police Department, Piedmont Natural Gas, Pilkington North America, Pinellas County Government, Pittston, Plateau Valley School District #50, PNC Bank, Police and Fire Financial Services, Portion Pac, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Post- Newsweek Stations, Inc. / The Washington Post Company, PPG (Pittsburgh Plate Glass), Pratt & Whitney, Praxair, Inc., Precision Castings of Tennessee, Inc., Premier Yachts, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Prince Frederick Motors. Prince George's Fire and EMS Department, Prince William County, Va., Principal Financial Group, PrivatAir Group, Produer's Cooperative Association, Progress Rail Services, Progressive Escrow and Closing, Provident Bank, Providian Financial, Prudential Financial, PS Doors, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Public Services Group, Publishers Printing Co., Quaker Oats, Qualex, Inc., Quiet Light Securities, Quincy District Court, Qwest Communications, Rainey, Ross, Rice & Binns. Raytheon, Raytheon Systems Engineering Project AUTEC, RCI (resource communication), Regal Ware, Inc., REMEC Broadband Wireless, Rentacom, Republic Airways, Reynolds & Reynolds, Reynoldsburg Police Department, RHDonnelley, Rhodia, Inc., Rich Township, Richard B. Russell Lake and Dam, US Army Corps of Engineers, Richard Childress Racing, Richmonf Financial Group, Riverside County Sheriffs Department. Skowhegan Savings Bank, Slidell Memorial Hospital, Smurfit Stone Container Corporation, Sodexho, Solar Turbines Inc., South Brunswick Township Police Department, Southampton Sheriffs Dept., Southeast Missouri State University, Southern California Edison, Southern Connecticut State College, Southern Fabricators, Inc., Southern New England Telecommunication Corp., SouthTrust Bank, Southwest Airlines, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Space Gateway Support, Spartanburg Forest Products, Speedway Motorsports, Sprint, St. Charles County Ambulance District. St. Joseph's Medical Center, St. Onge Company, St. Vincent Healthcare, Stabilus, Stanley County Sheriff's Office, Staples, Inc., Starcom Worldwide, State Attorney, 8th Judicial Circuit, Florida, State Farm Insurance, State of California, State of Maryland (Patuxent Institution), State of New Jersey, State of New Jersey OIT, Stockton Banking Center, Student Health Services, UNCG, Subaru of Indiana, Subaru of Indiana Automotive, Inc., Supervalu, Supreme Court of Guam, Survival Incorporated. Sweetwater Police Department, Sybase, Inc., SYColeman, Synovus, Systems Research and Development, t.w.phillips Gas and Oil, Tampa Preparatory School, TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Target, Target Distribution Center, Tarver Abstract Company, TASC, Inc., Technology Concepts & Design, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Tellabs Operations Inc., Tennessee Valley Authority. UBS Wealth Management, Ulbrich Stainless Steel and Special Metals, Inc., Unilever Bestfoods, Union County, North Carolina, Union Hospital of Cecil County, Union Pacific, Union Pacific Railroad, Unique Security--Silver Star Security--Champion Security, Unisys Blue Bell, United Cerebral Palsy, United Parcel Service (UPS), United Space Alliance, LLC, United States Department of Agriculture, United States Mint, United States Postal Inspection Service, United States Postal Service, United States Probation Office, Universal Forest Products, University Hospitals of Cleveland, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. University of South Florida Foundation, UniversityCare, University of Maryland Medicine, UPS Revenue Recovery Englewood Hub, US Conec LTD, USAA, USDA Forest Service, Curlew Job Corps, USI Inc, USPS Columbus Ohio, VA Medical Center San Francisco, VAHR-EO, Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., Vanderbilt Medical Center, Ventera Corporation, Veridian, VERITAS, Verizon, Verizon Washington D.C., Inc., Veronica Connor Middle School, Victoria's Secret, Village of Wellington. VISA, Visteon Corporation, Volvo Penta of the Americas, W. W. Grainger, Wachovia Bank, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc--Private Fleet, Walgreen, Wallkill, NY, Washington, Washington Mutual Bank, Washington State Prison, Waste By Rail, Inc., Waste Management Inc., Wausau Imports, Inc., We Energies. Webster Cantrell Hall, Weis Markets, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of Iowa, Wells Fargo, Wesley United Methodist Church, West Virginia, WestAM, Westar Energy Inc., Westchester County, NY, Western Financial, Western Massachusetts Electric Company, Western Oklahoma State College, Westinghouse Electric Company, Westinghouse Savannah River Company. Westport Fire Dept., Westvaco, Weyerhaeuser, Wilkes-Barre City Police Department, Wisconsin State AFL-CIO LETC, Wizcom, World Financial Group, Wright Express, WWBT NBC 12, Wyeth, Xenobiotic Detection Systems, Inc., Xerox, Yankee Gas Services Company, Yearout Mechanical and Engineering, Inc., Yosemite Waters. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas. Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business and the time I use to be considered against the pending cloture motion. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator just amend his unanimous consent request to state that at the end his statement, whenever that might be, the Senate would be put back into a quorum call? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. BROWNBACK. No objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Kansas. FSC/ETI Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I wish to address a couple of topics that have come up this afternoon, and then address a couple that are pending in front of us. No. 1, on the FSC/ETI bill, there are a lot of things in the bill that I think are very positive. There are some things I disagree with in the bill. One thing I am going to draw to the attention of some of my colleagues in this bill that is very helpful in my State is a particular provision extending the bonus depreciation allowance for civil aviation aircraft. That is something about which I know the Presiding Officer is interested. These are small manufacturers of airplanes. These are not the big airliners but general aviation manufacturers that have extended bonus depreciation. You may ask, what am I interested in that for? That bonus depreciation has brought back an industry that was on its knees, that was crushed after 9/11. They were selling no aircraft. By having the bonus depreciation in there, they started selling aircraft. In fact, they quadrupled their sales of aircraft, particularly Cessna, Bombardier, Learjet. This hits Raytheon, the whole industry, much of which is concentrated in my State but has fingers around much of the country. It is a fabulous industry, great productivity of workers. There are really good people associated with it. It was on its knees after 9/11. The bonus depreciation was put in the first tax cut bill that really revived it and brought it back. They started hiring people again instead of [[Page S10808]] laying off workers, but then they were hitting up against the time deadline of that bonus depreciation, so their sales orders starting going back down again. With it in this bill and by passing this bill, we are going to be able to bring sales back to that industry. You can say that is a pretty narrow provision, that it doesn't cost anything, that it actually scored at zero, but the point being the reason this FSC/ETI bill is called a jobs bill is because it creates jobs. Here is a bill that creates a number of jobs. By doing this, there are going to be people working in Wichita, throughout my State, throughout the region, building general aviation aircraft products. The chairman has done a good job in working on this particular provision. Most of this bill contains provisions that create jobs so people can work. They can continue their work. They are not laid off from their work. There are provisions in it which I don't agree with. There are things which I wish we could have had more of in it. The Senator from Louisiana made a speech saying there was something that should have been in it. It would have been nice to be in it, but it didn't make it in. The bill has provisions in it that will create jobs and continue jobs, such as this bonus depreciation extension on general aviation manufactured products. This is a good thing that needs to happen. It is the right thing to do. It is the sort of thing we need for this country, particularly in these areas of manufacturing jobs which have so much difficulty and so much competition overseas for these jobs. Here is an area where we can do it. We need a little bit of benefit. It is in the bill. I applaud the Chairman, Senator Grassley, particularly for putting that provision in the bill. There is a second thing which hasn't had the notice and which happened this week. It is not in the bill, but it is another job creator. This week, the U.S. Trade Representative in the Office of the President announced that they will be withdrawing from the 1992 civil aviation agreement with the European Union. The issue here is that Airbus has stolen by Government subsidies a huge market share from Boeing and other manufacturers, primarily from Boeing and large-scale aircraft. Since 1992 when the agreement was entered into, Airbus has gotten somewhere between 8 to 15 percent of the market share. With Government subsidies, Airbus now has a majority of the market share in the large airline manufacturing business. It has gotten that through Government subsidies in Europe. What type of Government subsidies? It is a subsidy where the European Governments say to Airbus, you want to make this new airliner, you want to be able to sell it to United Airlines, you want to sell it to Lufthansa and other airlines around the world; we will provide you with the money. We will loan the money to create this new aircraft to sell to these major airlines. And if you sell the product and if it works, you will have to repay the loan. But if it doesn't work, if people do not buy the aircraft, you don't have to pay back the loan. There are a number of countries in the world that would love this deal. As such, you never have to bet the company on a new product. You can go out and say we think there is a market for a 600-seat airliner. If it makes it, great; you have to repay the loan. If it doesn't, the Government is going to pick up the tab. That is what is taking place, billions of dollars of direct subsidies on putting these aircraft into the manufacturing system that have subsidized the takeover of Airbus over Boeing and the majority of aircraft manufacturing in the world today. If it were a fair competition between Airbus and Boeing, that would be another matter. But these sorts of subsidies are wrong. It is wrong for us to allow Europe to continue to do that. I am delighted that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is withdrawing from this 1992 protocol, saying to the Europeans we are going to start consultation and take this to the World Trade Organization to have you stop the subsidization of aircraft manufacturing and stealing jobs from America. What does that have to do with this bill? Again, it is about jobs and fighting for jobs. Boeing itself has lost nearly 60,000 jobs since 9/ 11. We have been losing market share. We have had difficulty in the economy. Here is something to say we have to start fighting back aggressively, pull out of this agreement, start the consultation, bring the World Trade Organization into it, and if we have to subsidize to be able to get back into market share to compete on a dollar-for-dollar basis for Europe, I think we have to look at that as well. Here is the administration through the USTR fighting for manufacturing jobs that have been lost because of a bad agreement in 1992 on airliners being subsidized and made by Airbus. I am delighted the administration is doing this. I wholeheartedly support it. I have a resolution which I put in here asking my colleagues to support, saying this is the right way for us to reclaim manufacturing jobs that are being stolen by Europe providing these subsidies to Airbus. Another issue which is coming up in some of the debate on the floor is the discussion about the war in Iraq. For all of us, this is a very sensitive issue. We have lost American lives. We have lost a number of American lives. We have lost a number of Kansans in this war in Iraq. They are fighting for freedom. They are fighting to spread democracy in a part of the world that has not known it. They are fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against a government that has harbored terrorists. They are fighting against a government that was identified by us for a number of years as being a state sponsor of terrorism--one of only seven countries in the world. Abu Nidal operated out of Iraq. There has been and continues to be, and was continued under Saddam Hussein, a connection between terrorism and his regime. It becomes quite fashionable, it seems to me, to criticize this war in Iraq. Certainly there are things there to criticize. But I want to caution my colleagues. When I visit with soldiers coming back from Fort Riley, or leaving from Fort Riley to go over, officers who have been over and back, and Fort Leavenworth, or I see them here, they want to know that America continues to support them. It gets to be a real dissidence for a lot of people. OK, I support the troops but I don't support this effort in conflict. I think a number of people look at this, saying what you mean is you don't support this conflict and does that mean we are going to be pulling out and are we not going to complete the job? Are we not going to make the turn to democracy in Iraq? This is a very difficult attempt we are making. Once it is done, it will spread throughout the region. But getting there is going to be very difficult. I want to caution my colleagues, when you are being critical of this war--and everybody has their right to put their opinion forward--how that is heard by our troops. I say that from the practical experience in talking with a number of troops who have come back to my State. They want to know and want to make sure that the country still supports them. People will have different opinions on the war, but they want to know they are supported. Once we are in, they want people to stand behind them and with them. I hope we let our troops know that, yes, we have not found weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't mean their efforts have been in vain, or what they have done has been wrong. We have spread a message of democracy and hope. We have pushed Libya to the point now where they have given up WMDs, and are opening up their society. We have pushed them to the point they opened up the Dr. Kahn nuclear network. That has made the world safer on nuclear weapons. We are not completely safe, but it has made us safer in the process. Their effort has not been in vain. They are opening their society, bringing schools and opportunity to people who have not known it. We have gotten rid of a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. There are thousands of people buried in mass graves. That is not a vain effort. Yes, they are having difficulty. We are losing blood on a regular basis, but we have to continue and we need to speak strongly that we support the war and we support the troops. [[Page S10809]] In our efforts to have vigorous political debate here, I don't want to take the wind out of the sails of our troops who fight so hard and who put their lives and their families on the line for our safety. Finally, I want to address an issue that we thought we were going to be able to get with the Department of Defense authorization bill; that is, raising of the fines for indecent material in public over-the-air broadcasts over the radio and television. We have had broad bipartisan support for this effort. There is the Janet Jackson bill, for lack of better terminology, at the Super Bowl last year in the event with her and Justin Timberlake. It spawned a lot of complaints going to the FCC about indecent material on public over-the-air broadcasts. I remind those watching, the issue is that the airwaves used by radio and television broadcast are public airwaves. They are licensed from the public to radio stations and must be used for the common good. There is a level of material that has been deemed as indecent if you have this license. It is not so much about the first amendment, although the first amendment is protected. It is about abiding by your license agreement to use public property. It is like going to a national park. A national park is owned by the public. Visitors have to abide by the rules in the national park when they go in. They cannot start a fire just anywhere in that national park. Everyone has to abide by the rules. If you are going to go into this, the property is owned by the public, and there are rules to follow. If you are going to use a license, the property is owned by the public, the airwaves, and you have to abide by the requirements. One of those requirements is you cannot put on indecent material. That has been defined. We have had several broadcast violations. As a matter of fact, the company that broadcast the Super Bowl was fined heavily for that Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake episode. But their fine amounted to one- fourth of the value of a 30-second ad on the Super Bowl. So the total fine CBS received was the equivalent of a quarter of the price paid for a 30-second ad at the Super Bowl. It was not even commensurate. It is the cost-of-doing-business type of fine. Within the bill that passed, the amendment that passed 99 to 1, was to increase these fines. We increased fines substantially so there would be a penalty to the companies broadcasting the indecent material. The FCC would be given the authority to fine up to $500,000 per violation with a $3 million cap per 24-hour period per station group. However, the FCC has to consider a number of factors in deciding whether to put that level of fine forward. Broadcasters do not make $2 million per 30-second ad on every show, and many broadcasters in small markets, particularly in my State or in other States, do not make near that kind of money. So we give the FCC a top figure they can use in big instances, but we give them a series of factors to consider such as ability of the company to pay in assessing the fine. We also have included fines for performers. If it is the performers who choose to do this and the companies broadcasting did not have clearance ahead of time, then the performers themselves need to be held responsible. That was included. We also required an annual report that the FCC would have to give to the Congress on what they are doing on indecency complaints and violations. This had broad bipartisan support. It was pulled out of the Department of Defense authorization bill because there were other issues associated with it, such as media ownership and a provision for family-hour viewing of violent television programming that had some controversy so it did not make it through. We brought this issue back and we have put it today in a House bill that is at the desk numbered 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, which we are attempting to move through the Senate in the final hours of this session so we can get what has been agreed to, what has been passed by this Senate 99 to 1, what has passed through the House by an overwhelming majority as well, and have it as a stand-alone bill. It is being held by some Members on the other side of the aisle. I am pleased my colleague, Senator Dorgan, in particular, is a cosponsor on this individual bill. We are trying to have it cleared. It has cleared the Republican side and has not cleared the Democratic side. It has bipartisan support. I am hopeful we can get any holds lifted from this particular bill. It is an important provision. The public is fed up with the amount of the indecent material on television, particularly during prime time when families are watching. They want the FCC to have tools that are real, that can be used against the broadcast companies willing to put forward this sort of material that families do not want in their living room. I applaud the FCC for fining CBS for the Super Bowl incident. But, my goodness, that fine wasn't much because that was the maximum amount they can be fined under the old fine structure. We need to get this new fine structure in place. We have this House-passed bill. It is at the desk. It is amended with a House-Senate agreement that was part of the Department of Defense authorization bill. We are hopeful to get through that, and we are working to get this through the Senate. The House stands ready to pass that if we can get it cleared through the Senate. The broadcast decency bill, the bill that is at our desk, sends the message that indecent and obscene material will not be tolerated on the public airwaves during the hours in which children might be in the audience. Along with licensed use of the public airwaves for a period of time comes a set of responsibilities that need to be taken seriously. I am hopeful, as we are here for a couple of days on these votes, that we can get this matter cleared to send it to the House, we can get it passed to the President and take care of something that has broad bipartisan support. I urge my colleagues if they are holding this bill to consider this is something that they have probably already supported. It would be important as a step forward in trying to present airwaves to the public the way the public wants them to be presented, as the public does own these airwaves. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HARKIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Under the procedure we are under now, the Senator from Iowa has how much time to speak? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is advised he has up to 58 minutes. Mr. HARKIN. Under the bill? The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Mr. HARKIN. Then, I ask, as others have before me, unanimous consent to speak as in morning business but that the time keep running on the bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time would continue to run on the clock? Mr. HARKIN. Yes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Presiding Officer. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cochran). The Senator from Iowa. Overtime Pay Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, tonight, in just a couple hours, there will be another Presidential debate between our colleague, Senator John Kerry, and President George Bush. The debate tonight will be with questions from audience members. I assume these are rank-and-file citizens of Missouri or maybe Illinois and Iowa. I do not know where they are coming from. It will be interesting to see. The moderator is going to pick and choose the questions that are asked of both President Bush and Senator Kerry. I understand they will cover a broad range of topics, but the basic topic tonight will be on domestic issues. Well, I hope there will be a number of questions asked of President Bush for him to explain why it is that he is so intent on taking away the overtime pay rights of over 6 million American workers. [[Page S10810]] A year and a half ago, his Department of Labor issued proposed regulations to drastically--drastically--change who is eligible for overtime pay in America. After analysis by independent groups, I decided we had to do everything we could to stop these rules from going into effect and hurting the workers of America. So we have had debate on this issue over the last year and a half. The Congress has voted six times--four times in the Senate, twice in the House--each time voting to overturn and to stop these onerous new regulations from going into effect. Six times, the President has not listened to the elected representatives of the American people. Six times he basically said: I don't care what you want; this is what we are going to do. Now, keep in mind, when these proposed regulations came out in February of 2003, they were sort of put out in the middle of the night, so to speak a stealth attack. Not one public hearing was held on these proposed rules--not one. Congress was not involved in shaping or fashioning them. This simply came out of the heads--I wouldn't say the hearts because these are heartless kinds of regulations--but it came out of the heads of some people in the Department of Labor, I guess, and maybe in the White House. We have said time and time again they should not go into effect, but on August 23 of this year those rules went into effect. The new rules took effect on that date because House Republicans have been able to strip my amendment and its House companions in conferences. It goes to conference, they strip it out. Now, I want to be clear. And I want to clear up one misstatement that comes out of the administration's press releases all the time; and that is that somehow I am denying workers the right to get overtime pay because the base pay on which people are exempt from overtime--I should say not exempt from any overtime regulations--starts at about $8,000 and goes up to $23,000 under these new rules. Every time I have offered my amendment, we keep that in there. The base ought to go up. But we say that no person who was eligible for overtime prior to August 23 ought to lose overtime afterwards. They ought to still be eligible for it. That is what the White House has said time and time again. They say: Well, if people got overtime before, they are going to get it afterwards. I say: OK, why not pass my bill? That is all I say. Anybody who got it before ought to get it afterwards. But the White House has resisted that. As a result, employers will no longer have to pay more money for overtime work for millions of American workers. And most of these workers will be women, make no mistake about it. This is going hit women hardest. Why do I say that? Because women are in that class of employees out there who many times are salaried. They work at what might be termed white-collar-type jobs. They work with perhaps information systems. They are inputting data in computers, many times working for small businesses. A lot of times they are working in jobs that are maybe their second job, for example, or they have entered the workforce later in life after their children have grown, and they are working at a job that does not pay a lot, but they are salaried. Well, right now, they might be eligible if they worked over 40 hours a week to get time and a half. But under these new rules, they will be reclassified. They will then be asked to work over 40 hours a week and will not get one dime of overtime pay. As one woman wrote me, who lives in Seattle, WA, she said: When I get home from work, my second job starts. I have to take care of my kids. I get dinner ready. I make sure they get to their afterschool events. Then we have homework. I put them to bed. And I have my laundry to do. But she said: That time with my family and that time at home is my premium time. If I am asked to give up my premium time to work longer, I ought to get at least premium pay for it. I have never heard it said better. Yet that woman will be asked to give up her time with her family, her time with her children, working longer hours, and not get one dime of overtime pay. If overtime pay is free to the employer, it is going to be overused. If employers no longer have to pay more money for overtime work, they will have no incentive to demand longer hours, no incentive to hire more workers. Workers will have less time to spend with their families. A study done by the Center for Women and Work at Rutgers University showed that only 20 percent of the workers eligible for overtime worked more than 40 hours a week. In other words, of 20 percent of workers eligible for overtime, only 20 percent worked more than 40 hours a week, but 44 percent of workers who are exempt from overtime pay work overtime, so twice as many. In other words, if the employer doesn't have to pay you overtime, you are twice as likely to work over 40 hours a week than if they have to pay overtime. That is common sense. It stands to reason. When Congress enacted the overtime provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, Congress did so with the intent that a hard- working America would not leave behind the concept of valuable family time. We believe that workers should be paid extra for the extra hours they work. Time-and-a-half pay accounts for some 25 percent of total income of those who work overtime, and the economic health of too many families is at stake. Congress has voted on this six times on a bipartisan basis to protect these American workers' overtime. Now they want to strip it out again, out of conference. In these tough economic times, why are we taking away families' rights to be fairly compensated in their overtime? During the first 3 years of the Bush administration, the typical household saw their real income fall by more than $1,500. Real wages have fallen while gas prices have gone up. Milk prices have gone up. Health care costs have gone up. More than 4 million people have been thrown into poverty since the beginning of the Bush administration. More than 5 million have joined the ranks of the uninsured. In this kind of economy, why would the President of the United States want to take money out of families' pockets? I hope this will be something that will be talked about tonight in the Presidential debate. I am sure the President will say they are expanding overtime pay because they are raising the base. They are raising the base with one hand, taking it away with the other. It is the old shell game. Yes, a worker who is making $15,000 or $18,000 a year will now be automatically covered by overtime. But guess what the administration did in the rules. They have suggestions to employers on how to get around it, how to get around paying the lowest income workers in America overtime. We have had examples of that. We had an example in The Detroit News: ``Workers Agonize About Overtime Loss.'' Two managers out of 150 at metro Detroit Burger King franchises became eligible for overtime. Rather than make them hourly workers, the company gave them $20 a week raises to maintain their salaried status. They gave them a $20 a week raise so they would just be over that threshold, and they are not eligible for overtime. That means they have a $20 raise, and they to have work 3 or 4 hours' overtime. They are getting minimum wage or below even for working overtime. Two managers out of 150 eligible for overtime. So that is what is happening. The President might say tonight: Well, they raised the base. But they are already telling employers how to beat it. I hope the President will tonight respond and answer to the American people why he is so intent on taking away the right to overtime pay, to time and a half over 40 hours of work. Please, Mr. President, tell the women of America why you are sticking it to them, the working mothers of America, why you are taking away their premium time from their families but not allowing them to make premium time by working overtime. Another issue I hope comes up tonight is the issue of job growth. The job report came out today. The economy created 96,000 jobs last month, less than two-thirds of the amount needed just to keep up with population growth. Only 59,000 were in the private sector, so just slightly over half in the private sector, and the rest were in the public sector. We have lost 1.6 million private sector jobs since President Bush took office. [[Page S10811]] They may say: That is not quite right. There was an 813,000 job increase. Well, that is because of Government employment. The gap between total jobs and private sector jobs accounted for 813,000 jobs in Government employment. That is called socialism. I wonder what this is called now. President Bush is for socialism? We can't get jobs in the private sector. We will put them on the Government payroll. Shades of the Soviet Union. But the private sector jobs are not there. Total manufacturing jobs fell by 18,000 in September, the largest drop since last December. A total of 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office--the first President since Herbert Hoover to not have created one net new job in 4 years in office. What a record. I hope the President talks about how great that is for our country, that the only increase we are getting is in Government jobs. The unemployment rate is unchanged, 5.4 percent. It was 4.2 percent when the President took office in January of 2001. Eight million Americans were unemployed in September; 2 million more Americans unemployed today than when President Bush took office in January of 2001--a 33-percent increase. That is a terrible way to say it, a 33- percent increase in the number of unemployed in this country since President Bush took office. Let's talk about long-term unemployment. That is longer than 26 weeks. That means you are out of work longer than 6\1/2\ months. Long- term unemployment rose by 83,000 last month. It is now at 1.7 million people. It has increased by 1 million under President Bush. That is long-term unemployment. The long-term unemployed are now 21.8 percent of the unemployed. That share has nearly doubled. This is the economic record. Long-term unemployment more than doubled. In January of 2001, there were 680,000 long-term unemployed. September 2004, there are 1.75 million, a 160-percent increase in long- term unemployed. That is it. I hope that the President will please talk about that tonight and how good this is for America and why things are getting better for America and for American families. As I said, he is the worst President since Herbert Hoover to face the voters, having lost jobs during his tenure. He will finish his term with the worst record since the Great Depression and finish his term having lost private sector jobs. While the economy has created jobs over the last year, the recovery has been modest, with a total of 1.7 million jobs created, which is about 143,000 a month. This is below what is needed to keep up with population growth. A healthy labor market would be creating jobs at a more rapid pace. During the last economic expansion, the economy created 200,000 jobs per month, for a full decade, every year, and 236,000 jobs per month during President Clinton's two terms. I will repeat that. During President Clinton's two terms, the economy created 236,000 jobs per month. During President Bush's tenure, we have had 143,000 jobs created per month. In January 2001, we had 111,560,000 private sector jobs. In September 2004, we had 109,930,000, with 1.6 million lost during that period of time. So when the President says they are creating jobs, yes, they are creating jobs--mostly in the public sector, Government employment, but far fewer than is even needed to keep up with the population growth. The administration has billed its tax cuts as a solution. But its predictions of the impact of the tax cuts have been consistently wrong. In 2001, Congress passed the President's economic plan. Three years later, we still have fewer jobs than existed when the plan became law. In 2003, the administration predicted that passage of that year's tax cut would create 5.5 million jobs by the end of this year, 306,000 jobs per month. That target has only been reached in 2 months, and the total 15-month shortfall is 2.9 million jobs behind the pace predicted by the administration. Job growth is roughly 7 million behind the administration's 2002 prediction of the impact of their economic plan. I know these are big numbers when you talk about 306,000 and 5.5 million. Well, the fact is that has resulted in hitting our families hard. Here is what happened to families. Median household income: In 2000, the median household income was $44,853. Today, it is $43,318. So it is down $1,500. I hope the President tonight talks about how this is good for America, how things are getting better, when family income is coming down. I hope the President will address himself to the huge increase in the cost of natural gas in the Midwest, and what that is going to mean to our farmers, our families, to the elderly who have to heat homes with natural gas, to our manufacturing concerns who use natural gas, and power companies that use natural gas to produce electricity. Yet, household family income is down. The price of natural gas is up, gasoline is up, and oil hit a new high yesterday at $53 a barrel. Great for Halliburton and the oil companies; not too good for our families who have to drive a car to work--maybe drive two cars to work if they have two people working at different times. That is the median household income right there. I hope tonight's debate will be about domestic issues. I hope they talk about the lack of job growth, the cut in median family income, the number of long-term unemployed; and, yes, I hope they talk about overtime pay and what is happening to people who work hard and are now going to see their rights to overtime pay taken away. Those are mostly women. So that is the economy. I want to talk about all of those who are going to be hurt by the rules on overtime. Employees earning between $23,660 and $100,000 a year are going to find themselves with their right to overtime restricted or taken away, including veterans, police, nurses, team leaders, journalists, cooks, financial services, computer workers, and many others--a lot of people. So someone earning as low as $23,661 a year will find that their rights to overtime will be taken away. They will be reclassified. As I pointed out, in Detroit, 2 out of 150 managers at a certain place of business were eligible for overtime--2 out of 150. What happened is the employer realized how to fix it. By raising their salary so it was $23,661, or $23,662--just over the $23,660--guess what. They don't have to pay them overtime anymore. I hope they will talk about that tonight. I hope we will also recognize that there are no excuses for this overtime being taken away. Three career employees of the Department of Labor who worked in this area under Presidents Reagan, the first Bush, Clinton, and this Bush-- so they have worked for various Presidents--all three of them basically said that in every instance where the Department of Labor has made substantive changes to the existing rules, it has weakened the criteria for overtime exemptions, thereby expanding the reach and scope of the exemptions. That means that in every instance where they have made substantive changes to these rules, it has made it easier for employers to deny you the right to overtime pay. So I hope the President again tonight will respond and tell us why he is intent on taking away the right to overtime pay. I also hope they will talk about health care and what happened to health care coverage in this country. We are now up to about 4.5 million more people who have lost health insurance under this President. Somewhere around 45 million to 50 million people in America have no health insurance coverage--none. No health insurance coverage. As we have said, the rate of poverty has gone up in this country. We know that especially the elderly are cutting pills in half and going without medicine to pay their heating bills or their lighting bills or their rent. Well, I happened to listen to the Senator from Utah, my friend Senator Hatch, this morning go on and on. As I said, I like him, but he happens to be wrong on this issue, that's all. I don't know how anyone can stand here with a straight face and say that Medicare doesn't have the right to bargain down prices of drugs. In the Medicare prescription drug bill that we passed, which the President signed into law, there is an express prohibition against Medicare bargaining with the pharmaceutical companies to get a cheaper price. They are prohibited from doing this. The Veterans' Administration is allowed to bargain, and they get great prices. In fact, our veterans get the cheapest drugs anywhere in America through the Veterans' Administration. That is great for our veterans. Why [[Page S10812]] shouldn't Medicare be able to do the same thing? John Kerry has a plan. He has a plan for better health care in America, and the first part of his health care plan is to take away that restriction on Medicare and to allow Medicare--not even to allow Medicare, to insist that Medicare bargain with the pharmaceutical companies to get a cheaper price for drugs for the elderly in this country. Now that would be meaningful prescription drug reform. The second part of the Kerry plan for having better health care for our people is to allow us to have free trade with Canada. One might say we have a free-trade agreement with Canada. Of course, we do. We have NAFTA. It allows free trade with Canada. We can have free trade in cars, clothes, shoes, glasses, paper, and I suppose anything you want to mention, except one item. We do not have free trade with Canada on prescription drugs. Go along the northern border of the United States and people are driving across the border every day to buy cheaper drugs. Sometimes they take a bus from Iowa, go up through Minnesota, buy prescription drugs, and come back. Why don't we have a free-trade agreement with Canada on drugs? Why not allow us to reimport drugs from Canada for our people in this country to get a cheaper price? It is time to do so. The Bush administration will not allow that to happen. For a lot of people in this country who do not have health insurance, they look at us. I have a really good plan. I have a health care plan that allows me to choose doctors and hospitals and covers me wherever I go. Every year I can change my plan. When our kids were little, we had one plan. Now that our kids are grown up and married, we have a different plan. I get to choose from about--I don't know, I didn't check last year--15, 20 different plans. It is a good plan. I have that plan. President Bush is under that plan. Vice President Cheney is under that plan. If it is so good, why don't we let the American people buy into this? Why don't we let them buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan? Senator Kerry says we ought to do that. President Bush says no. It is OK for us, but it is too good for the American people. I think it ought to be good enough for the American people. John Kerry says, yes, he wants to open up the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to allow the American people to buy in. That would be very meaningful, especially for small businesses and people who work for small business. The fourth part of John Kerry's comprehensive plan to have better health care for America is to allow better tax breaks for small businesses to cover their employees with health care. It is very meaningful to those of us who live in rural States. Most of our people who live in small towns and communities work for small businesses. Small businesses simply cannot afford any longer to cover their employees. John Kerry says we should provide up to a 50-percent tax credit to small businesses and to family farmers to allow them to purchase health care coverage for their employees. President Bush says no. But this is where we need to focus--on our small businesses. That is where most of the people work, and that is where most jobs are created. Yet small businesses simply cannot afford it any longer. John Kerry says, let's provide tax cuts to small businesses to get health care coverage for their employees. The fourth part of John Kerry's comprehensive health care program is to extend and make more comprehensive the SCHIP program; that is the Children's Health Insurance Program. One might say, the President says he is for that. At his convention in New York, President Bush announced a new $1 billion initiative to enroll millions of poor children in two popular Government health programs, but next week the Bush administration plans to return $1.1 billion in children's unspent health funds to the Treasury. A projected shortfall in Federal SCHIP funds reduced health care to more than 200,000 children. There you have it. A President Kerry would expand the SCHIP program and get every kid covered. Let poor families get into the SCHIP program and provide them the wherewithal to do so. Under this administration, fewer and fewer children are being covered under the SCHIP program. Lastly, in his comprehensive plan for health care reform, Senator Kerry has said that we need a real prescription drug benefit for the elderly, not a phony card. And that is what it is, a phony card. That is what the elderly get today, a card. I cannot tell you how many senior citizens have come up to me in Iowa and told me how worthless that card is. They say: I have two or three cards in my billfold or in my purse and some of those are better than the Government card. The card I got with this drug company, or an AARP card--whatever card they have; there are a bunch out there--are better than the Government card. So why should they buy yet another card? Senators were on the floor the other day saying we should not be denigrating; we should not be talking badly about this card for the elderly. We ought to be promoting it. Promoting it? Don't talk to me; talk to the senior citizens. Find out why they are not buying it. They are not buying it just because I got up here and said it is worthless. They know it is worthless. They are telling me it is worthless. But we are supposed to, I guess, be a cheerleader and get them to buy something that is not in their best interest, that is worthless. Senator Kerry says we need a real prescription drug plan for the elderly and not just a phony card. Lastly, I want to talk about education. I hope education also is a part of the debate tonight. The President can probably tout the fact that he got a bipartisan bill through called No Child Left Behind. I supported that bill. I am on the Education Committee. We had a lot of negotiations. I was sitting there, since I am a senior member of that committee, in the final negotiations, and the big holdup was how much money would we put into it. We agreed on a number, and President Bush agreed that in exchange for the States doing these things and the mandates we put on No Child Left Behind, in exchange for that, we would provide the funding necessary to meet these requirements, and we specified how much money that would be. What happened? The first budget year comes up, they get shortchanged. The second budget year comes up, shortchanged again, and once again this year. I believe we are now in the neighborhood of about $27 billion short in education from what we had guaranteed. If I am wrong, I will come back and correct that, but it is something like that. I know it is over 20. The figure 27 sticks in my head. Even if it was $10 billion or $5 billion, the fact is, we put a mandate on our schools. We said we were going to pay for it, and we have reneged. Now, do not take my word for it. I tell people, talk to your teachers. If you do not like that, talk to your principal or your superintendent. Talk to your school board members and see what they say about No Child Left Behind. Most of them will say, look, it is test after test. We can handle that, but we are not getting the supporting mechanisms we need because we do not have the funds to do it. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times it has happened to me in my State of Iowa that I have seen schools where, guess what, they have cut out art classes, they have cut out music classes, they have cut out PE. Why? Because they are pinched. They are strapped. They have to put the money in for No Child Left Behind. Why? Because we did not fund it, one of the largest unfunded mandates ever. President Bush has not asked for the money in his budget. He did not put it in there to fund No Child Left Behind. I think the President should be held accountable for that on education. The second largest unfunded mandate our schools have is special education. We promised 25 years ago that we would pay up to 40 percent of the additional costs of funding special education in America. I think we are now at about 18 percent of funding additional costs for special education. We promised 40 percent, and yet time and again we do not get the funds and we do not get the budget allocation to fund special education. So I hope these will be some of the issues that the President will talk about tonight, that I hope will be involved in the debate because these are the issues that affect families in their daily lives. [[Page S10813]] Lastly, I will take a little bit of time to talk about why I have been involved in slowing down the process in the Senate today. There are a lot of press people who talked to me about that so I thought I might at least take this time to explain why I am doing it. The Senator from Arizona yielded me a couple of minutes to explain why I was doing it, and I have only one simple declarative sentence: I am doing it to protect our farmers. I am doing it to protect the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. The occupant of the Chair is our distinguished chairman. When we pass bills that are multiyear bills, sometimes it takes a lot of debate and discussion and working things out. In the 2002 farm bill, that was true. It took many weeks. I can remember sitting in these conversations on Saturday, Saturday night, and Sunday working it out. These are tough negotiations. Agriculture is very diverse, but I have always believed the Agriculture Committee ought to represent all of agriculture; that we are all in this together. So we hammered out a farm bill and we passed it. There was give-and- take. Now, I did not get everything I wanted. The Senator from Indiana, who was ranking at the time, did not get what he wanted. The House Democrats did not get all they wanted. The House Republicans did not get all they wanted. That is the art of compromise. But I thought we had a pretty good bill. We had one which was a true compromise, and everyone signed off on it. We passed it with big majorities in the Senate and the House, and the President signed it. I was there for the signing. I remember the President talking about how this bill was so strong on conservation. That was one of the reasons he was signing it. Yes, I am proud of the fact that the bill had an 80-percent increase in conservation, everything from the WHIP program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, to the Waters Resources Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, CRP, Conservation Reserve Program, and a whole host of others, and a new program that we started called the Conservation Security Program, Farmland Protection Program, a lot of conservation programs. So we had a provision dealing with the Conservation Security Program, which was designed to be an uncapped program that entitled every farmer who met certain requirements to be eligible to get payments for protecting soil, water, and air, and being a good farmer. I have long believed that it was not right that we just pay farmers to take land out of production. What about all of those farmers who do produce our food supply and work hard every day, who are good stewards of the land? Should they not have some incentive to take care of the soil, to protect our water, to protect our wildlife? So that is what we hammered out in the Conservation Security Program, an incentive program for farmers, yes, to take better care of the land. It does not require one iota of land taken out of production. It is voluntary. It is not a mandatory program. No farmer has to participate, but if they will do certain things--there is a minimum level, a moderate level, and a higher level, and if they do these things they will get a payment. But they have to agree to do it for between 5 and 10 years by contract, and then they have to meet certain requirements from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. They sign an agreement that they will do certain things to indeed keep soil from running off, make their soil better, better tilled, protect the water, a whole host of things, all kinds of things, because what is considered good conservation practices in my State of Iowa may not be good conservation practices in the States of Mississippi, Colorado, Washington, or Pennsylvania. Different soil, different land, different crops, different ways. So we wanted to make it so it was adaptable to every part of the country; it was not some cookie-cutter approach. Well, everyone touted this as a new approach. It was signed off on by the Agriculture Committee, passed and signed by President Bush. Then what happened was the Department of Agriculture began to drag their feet. In the bill, we gave them 18 months to come up with rules and regulations to get this program implemented. We passed the law and it was signed by the President in May of 2002. So that is almost 2\1/2\ years ago, and the final rules still have not been promulgated by the Department of Agriculture. They put out the proposed rules finally after 2 years. So they have been dragging their feet. I guess they just did that for some reason. We finally got it going and then a couple of years ago for the first time in the history of this Congress we responded to a disaster, a drought, by providing for disaster assistance to hard-hit farmers, but for the first time ever we took it out of agriculture. We made agriculture pay for it. In the 50 years that we have been providing disaster assistance to farmers--or others--it has always been paid for as an emergency spending. Two years ago, for the first time, they took it out of agriculture. I warned at the time that they were reopening the farm bill, changing a program that was agreed upon and passed by an authorizing committee; that they were fundamentally changing the appropriations process--and I am on the Appropriations Committee, as is the occupant of the Chair. I said that they are fundamentally changing it; this is not right to do this. Well, it was an on an Omnibus appropriations bill. The House passed it, went home, the funding of the Government was in it, so we had to pass it. I entered into a colloquy with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the Presiding Officer, the Senate majority leader, and Senate minority leader. In that colloquy we stated that we agreed, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee agreed that at the first possible time--I will get the exact language--we would put the program back so that we could assure that it would run as intended by the farm bill for the life of the farm bill, which would take us to 2007. Fine. That is OK. So it was put back. Because there was a lapse of time there, a gap in time, the Department of Agriculture issued some rules on how to implement this program, but they issued rules based upon the fact that it was a capped program and not eligible to every farmer. But the farm bill said it is eligible for every farmer in every State of this country if they meet certain requirements. They said they had to do that because it was capped. I said, Now it is not capped. We changed it back. The Department said, OK, we will have to change the rules to make it go back, and they said that. They said they were going to change it. I know this is a long story, but now it takes us up to today. Once again, we had a disaster. We had two hurricanes, three hurricanes that hit Florida and Georgia and the Carolinas so they are going to provide disaster assistance. I think we should. We always have. How are they going to pay for it? They are going to pay for it as emergency spending. But there is another disaster that has taken place in other States of the country. We have had tornadoes, mud slides, high winds, hail in other agricultural parts of the country. We want those disasters taken care of, too. The administration said: Yes, we will take care of those disasters, but agriculture has to pay for it, and guess what, it is going to come out of conservation. Strange. If you are a citrus farmer in Florida and you have an orange grove and there were tornadoes in this hurricane, if a tornado came through and ripped out your trees--and it did, by the way, in a lot of places--you will now get disaster assistance, crop-loss disaster assistance paid for under the hurricane bill, not taken out of agriculture. But if you are a farmer in Mississippi or Iowa and you had a tornado come through and take out your cotton crop or take out my corn crop, you might get compensated, but, guess what, they are taking it out of your other pocket. They are taking it out of agriculture. Why should our farmers be treated differently than the farmers in Florida, I ask. That is why I have slowed this up today. That is why I wanted to get the attention of the Senate. I have always believed farmers had to be treated the same no matter where they are. That is why this is so bad, what is happening. They are opening up the farm bill [[Page S10814]] again. They are taking it out of conservation again. They say they are going to do it. It may be conservation today. Next year, it might be commodity payments, maybe payment limitations. I have fought on this floor to protect those things. Maybe that is what it is going to be next year. Look out. Once we in agriculture divide ourselves up and we say, No, that's all right, we will take it out of there; we will treat farmers someplace different than in another place. Now we opened the farm bill. Our baseline is going to be down. It is going to take it right out of the baseline of agriculture. I know that is sort of the inside game around here. That means agriculture is taking a hit. What makes this so terrible is that in the last 3 years we, agriculture--I should not say ``we''--the farmers of America saved the taxpayers of this country $15 billion that was allotted for them under the farm bill that they did not have to take. That was $15 billion that went back to the Treasury. You would think we would say: OK, if we saved $15 billion, that is where the disaster assistance ought to come from. We are talking about $3 billion or $2.8 billion. We have already saved $15 billion. But no, they are not going to count that. They are not going to count that. I am sorry to have to say this. We in the Senate passed an amendment to provide for disaster assistance that would be emergency. We did it here, but the House didn't. And the White House, OMB, is insisting, insisting that this $2.8 billion of disaster assistance for our farmers be taken out of agriculture but not the disaster assistance for farmers in Alabama or Georgia or the Carolinas or Florida. Please, someone tell me, what is the difference? Maybe we are just not lucky enough to have the President's brother as our Governor, or your Governor. That is why I am so upset about this. It is just not right. It is not right what they are doing. They are fundamentally changing a program we agreed upon. They are taking it out of agriculture, even after we saved all this money. It is not right. I am going to stand here and I am going to fight. I told them I probably can't win. They have the votes and they have the White House. But I am going to fight for my farmers. I am going to stand here or sit here to the bitter end. If I do not win this time, I will be back. I told the majority leader. Majority leader, I said, I like you, I respect you. He is a fine guy and he has a tough job. But, I said, I have to fight for my farmers. I have to fight for my rural people. I have to fight to make sure they are not discriminated against. I said, Leader, if I get rolled here, I will be back. If we come back in October, I will be back then. I will be back in November, too. I will be back. I will be back. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Jurisdiction Mr. GRASSLEY. I would like to engage in a colloquy with the ranking member on the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, regarding provisions in Senate Resolution 445 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. In particular, I wish to address the provisions that exclude from the jurisdiction of that committee oversight of matters relating to the customs revenue functions, and the commercial functions and commercial operations, of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection--CBP--and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement--ICE. Mr. BAUCUS. This is a very important topic. As the Chairman of the Finance Committee will recall, the issue of customs authority was a major one in the debate leading up to passage of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The Finance Committee held a hearing in July 2002, followed by a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. We stressed the importance of preserving the revenue collection and trade facilitation functions of the U.S. Customs Service, even as that agency moved into the Department of Homeland Security with an added national security focus. I would be pleased to engage in a colloquy on this topic with my good friend from Iowa. Mr. GRASSLEY. I appreciate the Senator's recollection of our efforts on this issue. I would add that following the hearing and our letter, we worked closely with the Committee on Governmental Affairs and with the Administration to develop text that would keep intact the commercial functions of the Customs Service. Under the final legislation, authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury relating to customs revenue functions remained with the Secretary of the Treasury unless delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security. By order of the Secretary dated May 15, 2003 Treasury Order 100-16), the Secretary of the Treasury delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security general authority over Customs revenue functions, subject to certain exceptions that preserved Treasury's oversight of the Customs Service with respect to policy matters and the authority to issue regulations and determinations. Mr. BAUCUS. Yes, and I believe we can both agree that our efforts were successful in preserving the revenue functions, commercial functions, and commercial operations of the Customs Service, including oversight of those functions and operations within the Committee on Finance. Mr. GRASSLEY. I concur entirely. And the Senator's last point-the importance of preserving oversight of the revenue functions, commercial functions, and commercial operations that are now delegated to CBP and ICE--leads directly to the main point of this colloquy; namely, the necessity of preserving the role of the Finance Committee as primary overseer of the customs revenue functions, the commercial functions, and the commercial operations associated with the customs duties now being performed by employees of the Department of Homeland Security. I want to thank my colleagues, Senator McConnell and Senator Reid, for working so constructively with me and Senator Baucus to address this priority. Together, we have clarified the scope of jurisdiction for the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs as it relates to the commercial aspects of customs operations. Mr. BAUCUS. I concur in thanking our colleagues for their cooperation in addressing this important issue. For the benefit of the record, would the Chairman of the Finance Committee outline the clarifications that have been added to the resolution? Mr. GRASSLEY. I would be pleased to do so. To begin, I think it's important to appreciate the context in which the clarifications have been made. Commercial customs functions are one element of the comprehensive international trade agenda of the United States. The various elements of international trade and trade policy are woven together so thoroughly that effective oversight of the whole necessitates oversight of the individual elements of trade. Now, of utmost importance to our broader purpose here today, we agree that preservation of Finance Committee jurisdiction in this manner will not in any way diminish the effective oversight of Department of Homeland Security functions by the Committee on Homeland Security and al affairs. Consequently, the clarifications we've added serve only to enhance effective oversight by the United States Senate of both the homeland security interests and the international trade interests of the United States. Now, the provisions we've added specify that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will have jurisdiction over matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security, except matters relating to the following: first, any customs revenue function, including but not limited to the customs revenue functions enumerated in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. For example, that would cover the assessment and collection of customs duties, antidumping and countervailing duties, duties imposed under the various safeguard provisions in our trade laws, excise taxes, fees and penalties due on imported merchandise. But these are only some of the many revenue functions associated with customs operations. I encourage my colleagues to refer to section 415 of the Act, and again I note that section 415 is illustrative and does not provide an exhaustive list of the customs revenue functions that will remain within Finance Committee jurisdiction. Second, matters relating to any commercial function or commercial operation of the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement [[Page S10815]] would be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. That would cover, for example, matters relating to trade facilitation and trade regulation. But let's take a closer look at what that would mean. Last year I introduced the Clean Diamond Trade Act. That important legislation prohibits trade in conflict diamonds. Once introduced, it was referred to the Committee on Finance where we held a hearing and reported it to the full Senate with the benefit of committee's expertise. In the future, similar legislation to regulate imports or exports would also be referred to the Finance Committee. Mr. BAUCUS. That specific example is very helpful. Does the Chairman of the Finance Committee have any other examples in mind? Mr. GRASSLEY. Well, another example would be the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, over which the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction. That legislation authorizes the United States to enter into bilateral agreements to protect the cultural antiquities of a trading partner. Another example would include matters relating to the Automated Commercial Environment--or ACE--computerized entry system for imports. Again, the driving factor here is whether a matter is commercial or trade regulatory in nature; if so, the Finance Committee would retain jurisdiction over the matter notwithstanding that the matter may fall among the duties assigned to an employee of the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman. Are there any other matters that fall within the exception to transfer of jurisdiction to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs? Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes, in fact there is a third clarification that's been added. The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will have jurisdiction over matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security, except with respect to any other function related to the customs revenue functions or to the commercial functions or commercial operations that were exercised by the United States Customs Service on the day before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. Now, the Homeland Security Act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to identify, within 60 days after the date of enactment of the Act, those authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that were exercised by the Commissioner of Customs on or before the effective date of the act. By letter dated January 24, 2003, the General Counsel at the Department of the Treasury transmitted that report to the Finance Committee. I ask unanimous consent that the General Counsel's letter and attached report be printed in the Record, in order to provide further guidance as to what is covered by this third clarifying provision. As comprehensive as this report is, I note that it serves to provide illustrative guidance and is not an exhaustive list of the functions or operations encompassed by the third clarification we've added. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC, January 24, 2003. Hon. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC Hon. Max Baucus, Committee on Finance, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Gentlemen: Under Section 418(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the ``Act''), Title IV, Subtitle B, Public L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (November 24, 2002), the Secretary of the Treasury is directed to report to your Committees any proposed conforming amendments to determine the appropriate allocation of legal authorities described under section 412(a)(2) of the Act. The Secretary of the Treasury is also directed to identify those authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that are exercised by the Commissioner of Customs on or before the effective date of this section. This report is due not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Act and is provided by this letter. Treasury has identified no conforming amendments needed to determine the appropriate allocation of legal authorities described under section 412(a)(2) of the Act. Under section 412(a)(1), authority related to Customs revenue functions that was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by law before the effective date of this Act under those provisions of law set forth in section 412(a)(2), shall not be transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security by reason of this Act. Rather, on and after the effective date of this Act, the law provides that the Secretary of the Treasury may, at his discretion, delegate any such authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security and that the Secretary of the Treasury shall consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding the exercise of any authority not so delegated. Based on our review, we have identified no barriers to the appropriate allocation of legal authorities described under section 412(a)(2). As we work with the Department of Homeland Security and others to implement the act, we will notify you promptly if we determine that currently unforeseen legal barriers pose a problem that require a legislative solution. To complete this report, a chart is attached identifying those authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that are exercised by the Commissioner of Customs on or before the effective date of this Act. We are pleased to be of assistance in this matter. Sincerely, David D. Aufhauser, General Counsel. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the chart attached to the January 24, 2003, letter of the General Counsel to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee regarding the authorities vested in the Secretary of the Treasury that were exercised by the Commissioner of Customs prior to the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 may be accessed at the Finance Committee Web site under ``Legislation--January 2003''. Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Finance Committee Chairman. There is one last point, I think, we should address. First, I would like to add that it's my understanding that the Finance Committee has had jurisdiction over customs for 188 years, and so I am glad to see today that the Committee's expertise will continue to be brought to bear on the customs revenue functions and the commercial functions and operations of our customs officials. As part of that longstanding oversight, I note that referral of nominees for the position of Commissioner of Customs has been to the Finance Committee. I ask the Chairman, does he anticipate that such referral will continue in the future? Mr. GRASSLEY. I thank the Senator. Under section 411 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, there is established a Commissioner of Customs, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Commissioner of Customs reports to the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security. The Commissioner of Customs shall oversee certain functions, including functions performed by the following personnel and associated support staff of the United States Customs Service on the day before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act: Import Specialists, Entry Specialists, Drawback Specialists, National Import Specialists, Fines and Penalties Specialists, attorneys of the Office of Regulations and Rulings, Customs Auditors, International Trade Specialists, and Financial Systems Specialists. Clearly, the responsibilities of the Commissioner of Customs encompass customs revenue functions, and commercial functions and operations, that are now assigned to employees of the Department of Homeland Security. So, in response to the Senator, I say yes, it is clear that referral of future nominees for the position of Commissioner of Customs, or any position or positions charged with responsibilities similar to those of the Commissioner of Customs, will continue to be made to the Finance Committee. Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his elaboration of the provisions that have been added to clarify the parameters of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and for his description of illustrative and non-exhaustive examples of the types of jurisdiction that will remain within the Committee on Finance.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. This important legislation attempts to comply with the World Trade Organization, WTO, rulings on the Foreign Sales Corporation, FSC, Extraterritorial Income, ETI, benefit in order to prompt the European Union to rescind trade tariffs currently placed on United States exporters. It would repeal an export provision in the [[Page S10816]] United States tax code that has been ruled an unfair subsidy and therefore does not comply with the WTO. In addition this bill seeks to preserve jobs and production activities in the United States via the simplification of international tax laws and a mix of investment incentives. A $10 million tobacco buyout, minus the Food and Drug Administration's regulation, is also incorporated within this bill. This bill would replace the current export subsidy that has been ruled unfair by the WTO with a new $77 billion tax break on manufacturing income. Companies will also be able to exclude 9 percent of their manufacturing profits from taxation and multinational companies will receive $43 billion in a variety of tax cuts on their overseas income. These tax breaks and incentives are instrumental in our attempt to comply with the WTO while ensuring American jobs stay at home. Also included in this package is a landmark change. This bill contains provisions to terminate the Federal tobacco quota program. This tobacco quota program was created during the 1930s and has provided controls on the production of tobacco for decades. And it has worked well. However, since 1998 tobacco quotas have been cut by over 50 percent leaving tobacco farmers with no where to turn. This package provides compensation for those farmers and quota holders who have lost over half of their assets through no fault of their own. Compensation of $7 to quota owners and $3 to producers based on the 2002 effective quota level is provided in this package while at the same time it keeps producers free of potential burdensome regulations advocated by some in the industry. I am pleased that the funding for this buyout comes at no cost to the taxpayer without granting authority to the FDA to regulate tobacco and tobacco products. In terms of the economy, this legislation will have a significant impact on rural Georgia. Mr. President, $607 million will be provided over a ten year period. Additionally growers can continue to produce tobacco without government constraints and be competitive in the world tobacco market. I support the passage of this significant legislation because it will benefit the manufacturing industry in Georgia while ensuring American jobs are not lost overseas due to burdensome and unfair tax regulations. I also support the passage of this bill because of the unregulated FDA tobacco buyout provisions that compensate tobacco farmers for assets that have been plundered by the Federal Government. It is because of my son's wedding this weekend in Georgia that I regret that I will not be able to actually vote on this legislation. However, if I was in attendance and able to cast my vote on H.R. 4520, it would be in support of this bill. Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for their assistance in getting my amendment on the Civil Rights Tax Review in the conference report to accompany H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. The law with respect to the tax treatment of attorneys' fees paid by those that receive settlements or judgments in connection with a claim of unlawful discrimination, a Qui Tam proceeding or actions containing damages for non-physical injuries was unclear and that its application was questionable as interpreted by the IRS. It was never the intent of Congress that the attorneys' fees portions of such recoveries should be included in taxable income whether for regular income or alternative minimum tax purposes. The language contained in section 703 of H.R. 4520, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 is intended to clarify the proper interpretation of the prior law, and any settlements prior to the date of enactment should be treated in a manner consistent with such intent. The conferees are acting to make it clear that attorneys' fees and costs in these cases are not taxable income, especially where the plaintiff, or in the case of a Qui Tam proceeding, the relator, never actually receives the portion of the award paid to the attorneys. Despite differing opinions by certain jurisdictions and the IRS, this is the correct interpretation of the law prior to enactment of section 703 as it will be going forward. In adopting this provision, the Congress in no way intends to prejudice the tax treatment of settlements or awards made prior to that time and the courts and IRS should not treat attorneys' fees and other costs as taxable income. ____________________ Congressional Record: October 8, 2004 (Senate) Page S10879 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE REFORM ACT OF 2004 Modification To Amendment No. 3977 Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the passage of S. 2845, amendment No. 3977, previously agreed to, be modified with the changes that are at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The modification was agreed to, as follows: On page 4 after the words ``and information gathering'' insert the following: ``and other''. On page 4, after the words ``or international terrorist activities'' insert ``, but does not include personnel, physical document, or communications security programs'' On page 181, after the words, ``to the national security'' insert the following: ``or involving intelligence acquired through clandestine means''. ____________________ Congressional Record: October 9, 2004 (Senate) Page S10900-S10910 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will resume consideration of S. Res. 445, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A resolution (S. Res. 445) to eliminate certain restrictions on service of a Senator on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Pending: McConnell/Reid/Frist/Daschle Amendment No. 3981, in the nature of a substitute. Bingaman (for Domenici) Amendment No. 4040 (to Amendment No. 3981), to transfer jurisdiction over organization and management of United States nuclear export policy to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time until 11:15 a.m. shall be equally divided between the managers, with 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Harkin. Who yields time? The majority leader is recognized. Amendment No. 4035, As Modified Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the consideration of the modified version of my amendment No. 4035, which is at the desk. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist] proposes an amendment numbered 4035, as modified. The amendment is as follows: At the end of section 201, insert the following: (i) Public Disclosure.--Section 8 of S. Res. 400 is amended-- (1) in subsection (b)-- (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``shall notify the President of such vote'' and inserting ``shall-- ``(A) first, notify the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate of such vote; and ``(B) second, consult with the Majority Leader and Minority Leader before notifying the President of such vote.''; (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``transmitted to the President'' and inserting ``transmitted to the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader and the President''; and (C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as follows: ``(3) If the President, personally, in writing, notifies the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate and the select Committee of his objections to the disclosure of such information as provided in paragraph (2), the Majority Leader and Minority Leader jointly or the select Committee, by majority vote, may refer the question of the disclosure of such information to the Senate for consideration. Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment. The amendment (No. 4035), as modified, was agreed to. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition? The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of amendments that are still outstanding. We disposed of the Frist amendment this morning, and we still have Collins, Nickles, Hutchison, Bingaman, and Rockefeller that are in order. I don't know if they are going to offer all of those amendments, but we have 1 hour and 5 minutes until we start voting. Everyone should understand, as I understand the order entered, a half hour over the next 65 minutes is for Senator Harkin. So we have 35 minutes to debate these amendments. If they are not debated, we will start voting on them. I think it would be unfortunate if people had to act on amendments without hearing something from someone. I hope they will either withdraw the amendments or present them. It puts Senator McConnell and me in an awkward position when the amendments are in order and nobody is here to offer them. It is not fair to the Senate that there is not someone who lets us know whether they are going to be withdrawn or be offered, because some of the subject matter of the amendments is not very clear, as least to this Senator. I have been told the Rockefeller amendment is not going to be offered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, floor staff also informs me that the Collins amendment will not be offered. As Senator Reid indicated, we hope to hear from others who are on the list as to what their intentions might be. If they want to offer their amendment, now would be a good time to come and explain it. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator need to withdraw that amendment? Mr. REID. The Collins amendment is withdrawn? The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is the Chair's understanding that it will not be offered. I do not know if it is pending. Mr. McCONNELL. It is not pending. Mr. REID. It is not pending, so I ask that it be deleted from our list because it is on the list of amendments that was entered into last night. So we still have the Nickles, Hutchison, and Bingaman amendments. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. I have been informed that Senator Nickles does intend to offer his amendment. Amendment No. 4027 to Amendment No. 3981, and Amendment No. 4041 to Amendment No. 4027, en bloc Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4027 by Senator Nickles and also a second-degree amendment by Senator Nickles, No. 4041. As I indicated, Senator Nickles will be here to debate that amendment later. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, for himself, and Mr. Conrad proposes an amendment numbered 4027. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, for himself, and Mr. Conrad proposes an amendment numbered 4041 to amendment No. 4027. The amendments are as follows: amendment no. 4027 (Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in the Committee on the Budget) At the end of Section 101, insert the following: ``(e) Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the congressional budget process, including: (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget Committee; (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional Budget Office; (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, deficits of surpluses, and public debt--including subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables; (4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices; (5) the timetables for Presidential submission of appropriations and authorization requests; (6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals''; (7) the process and determination by which impoundments must be reported to and considered by Congress; (8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as GAO review and lawsuits; and (9) the provisions which affect the content or determination of amounts included in or excluded from the congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts, including the definition of terms provided by the Budget Act.'' amendment no. 4041 to amendment no. 4027 (Purpose: To vest sole jurisdiction over the Federal budget process in the Committee on the Budget, and to give the Committee on the Budget joint jurisdiction with the Governmental Affairs Committee over the process of reviewing, holding hearings, and voting on persons, nominated by the President to fill the positions of Director and Deputy Director for Budget within the Office of Management and Budget) Strike all after the first word, and insert the following: [[Page S10901]] Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and except as otherwise provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures affecting the congressional budget process, which are: (1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget Committee; (2) the functions, duties, and powers of the Congressional Budget Office; (3) the process by which Congress annually establishes the appropriate levels of budget authority, outlays, revenues, deficits or surpluses, and public debt--including subdivisions thereof--and including the establishment of mandatory ceilings on spending and appropriations, a floor on revenues, timetables for congressional action on concurrent resolutions, on the reporting of authorization bills, and on the enactment of appropriation bills, and enforcement mechanisms for budgetary limits and timetables; (4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices; (5) the timetables for Presidential submission of appropriations and authorization requests; (6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--such as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals''; (7) the process and determination by which impoundments must be reported to and considered by Congress; (8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance with the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act, title X--such as GAO review and lawsuits; and (9) the provisions which affect the content or determination of amounts included in or excluded from the congressional budget or the calculation of such amounts, including the definition of terms provided by the Budget Act. (f) OMB Nominees.--The Committee on the Budget and the Governmental Affairs Committee shall have joint jurisdiction over the nominations of persons nominated by the President to fill the positions of Director and Deputy Director for Budget within the Office of Management and Budget, and if one committee votes to order reported such a nomination, the other must report within 30 calendar days session, or be automatically discharged. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Iowa, we have a few amendments that may be offered. I am concerned that the offerors will have no time at all to explain their amendments prior to the votes at 11:15. I am wondering if the Senator from Iowa would object if we have Senators who want to offer amendments on our list, which they are entitled to do, prior to the vote at 11:15, how we could accommodate them and give them an opportunity to explain what the amendment was about. Mr. HARKIN. I do not mind. I thought I had half an hour under the rule. I do not care when I take my half hour. I can take it now or I will take it whenever. It does not make any difference to me. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, his half hour is unrelated to the underlying bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct, and the time of the quorum has not been charged against the Senator from Iowa. He has 30 minutes. Mr. HARKIN. I do not have to take it now if the Senator wants to do something else. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is recognized for his 30 minutes. Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I understand I have a half hour of time yielded to me. I may have to yield it to another Senator, but I will take some time right now. Natural Disaster Relief Mr. President, the resolution I have offered is very straightforward. It simply reiterates the policy that this Senate and this Congress has endorsed repeatedly over the decades. It basically is that agricultural disaster assistance should be designated as emergency spending and not taken out of other farm programs. This is the way we have done this going back 50 years or more. In fact, I have looked and I have only found one instance in the last 50 years where we have offset, as they say, disaster assistance with some other money from the same program. That was 2 years ago and that was corrected right away. We are now about to do the same thing. Mr. President, one of the few uncertainties about agriculture is the uncertainty of the weather. And that is true whether it is farming or ranching, growing orchard crops or growing any other type of agricultural production. Even when a farmer has used his best practices, taken prudent steps to produce a crop, severe weather events can destroy years of work and threaten their livelihood. Let me just quote from the USDA Web site: Natural disaster is a constant threat to America's farmers and ranchers. From drought to flood, freeze, tornadoes, or other calamity, natural events can severely hurt even the best run agricultural operation. We have responded to these disasters through emergency legislation in the past because we believed it was essential to respond to natural disasters to lessen the financial hardship involved. We do have programs in place such as crop insurance, loans, and so forth. However, major disasters can easily overwhelm these programs, and that is why Congress has consistently responded to natural disasters by providing emergency assistance. This emergency assistance usually covers crop losses, forages--that is hay and things like that--pasture losses for livestock producers, funding for tree assistance programs, and again there is some misconception that this disaster money makes the producer whole, puts the producer where he would be if the disaster never happened. That is just not true. Let me give you an example. It is only available, first of all, if you have over 35 percent loss of your expected production. So if you have a loss under 35 percent, you don't get anything anyway. But let's take an example of a Kansas farmer who, in a normal year, produces 100 bushels of grain sorghum per acre. Now he only harvests 80 bushels. Well, if the grain sorghum is worth $2.30 a bushel, that farmer will have an income shortfall of $46 an acre, but he will not be eligible for any disaster assistance because he only had a 20-percent loss, so he gets nothing. If the yield is only 50 percent, that means he has a 50-percent loss. His income shortfall is $115 an acre. Now the farmer is eligible for disaster assistance for 15 bushels of that loss--at a low payment rate. So, again, it is only a small fraction of what he gets. He loses $115, and receives only about $20. So some people think disaster assistance puts you back where you were if you were whole. No, it does not. It basically just kind of keeps you going, and that is about it. Now, you will hear a lot of reference to drought relief or a drought bill or drought emergency assistance. Well, that is a misconception. It has been a misconception all along. While that may be the most common problem, disaster legislation covers the whole range of weather-related losses. The bill language covers losses ``due to damaging weather or related conditions.'' In addition to drought, the regulations that carry out disaster assistance include hurricanes, hail, floods, fires, freezes, tornadoes, mud slides, pest infestation, and other calamities--in short, just about anything Mother Nature can throw agriculture's way. It doesn't matter what weather event causes the loss. It doesn't matter if it is part of a hurricane that has a name or just a plain old ordinary storm that strikes the Midwest. It doesn't matter whether the crop loss happens in a catastrophic afternoon storm or whether it is the result of a drought that lasts 9 or 10 or 12 months. We have always included those in disaster assistance and treated them alike. That is what we passed in the Senate a few weeks ago. We passed an amendment unanimously on a voice vote to cover all types of weather-related disaster losses across the country and treated them the same. That is basically what my resolution says. The White House and the House of Representatives decided to take a different approach. President Bush sent Congress the disaster assistance proposal that included agricultural disaster payments only for losses caused by hurricanes and left out assistance for a whole range of other disaster losses across the country. Furthermore, this hurricane disaster assistance would be designated emergency spending, meaning that it would not be [[Page S10902]] taken away from other programs. The President was adamant that if Congress is going to respond to any other disasters across the country, then the cost has to be offset from the farm bill, and that is what the House measure did. It is interesting, the States included in the House hurricane package are Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. So if you are a farmer in those States and you have a hurricane-related loss, your losses are covered without offsets. You get the emergency spending measure assistance. Here is the interesting wrinkle, Mr. President, in the President's package. If you are a farmer in one of those hurricane States that I just mentioned, but your loss was not from the hurricane--let's say you had a hailstorm. Let's say you had high wind damage from a severe storm in May. Let's say you had a pest infestation or something like that. Guess what. You get no assistance. In the House, in what the President proposed, if you suffer loss from a hurricane, your payments are under emergency spending. But if you are in a hurricane State and you have another disaster caused by a hailstorm, well, then the cost of your assistance comes out of the farm bill. What kind of nonsense is that? A sugarcane farmer, God bless him, in Florida lost his crop because of the hurricane. That farmer gets compensated out of the emergency package. Let's say you are a corn farmer in Ohio and your crop was knocked down by a tornado. Guess what. You are not in. Whatever assistance you get has to come out of the farm bill. So why is it, why is it that if you got hit by a hurricane, you are treated one way; if you get hit by a tornado or a hailstorm or a fire or a drought, you are treated another way. It absolutely makes no sense. So, again, we draw these artificial lines. The President has drawn them. Why discriminate against certain farmers? If you are a farmer and you lose your crop, as I said, to a tornado or high winds in Ohio or Wisconsin or Iowa or Minnesota or Missouri, well, guess what. They are going to take it out of one pocket and put it into your other pocket. But if you are a farmer down in Florida, they don't take it out of your pocket. The whole country, all of us, help pay for those disasters as we have done for the last 50 years. Now the President wants to take the money out of the Conservation Security Program. That program covers the entire United States of America. Why would you want to take money out of a State such as Pennsylvania that uses conservation money or Ohio or Wisconsin or Minnesota or Iowa or Missouri, taking money out of those States to send to Texas or Oklahoma or Wyoming or Colorado to help the farmers who had a drought? That doesn't make sense. It seems if you are going to have a disaster assistance package, the whole country ought to pay for it, all of it. When you have an earthquake in Alaska, do we take the money out of one State, just one State, and pay for that--or two States--or do we just take it out of a State that maybe--we take it out of California because they have an earthquake and we send it to Alaska? No. The entire United States of America, all of our people contribute to make sure that anyone who is hurt by an earthquake in Alaska or California or a flood in Iowa gets compensated and gets help. We had a flood in Iowa in 1993 that devastated our State. We didn't take money out of South Dakota or we didn't take out of Missouri or another State, out of what they get. The whole country came to our assistance. As I said, I feel sorry for the people who have been hit by hurricanes, and we should help them, but we ought to do it on a national basis and not try to take it out of one pocket, one part to help another. That is not right. It is not right to discriminate against farmers. One last thing I will say before I yield the floor. We don't take away a community's Federal funds for highways or housing or hospitals to fund civil disaster assistance. In other words, if we have a civil disaster, why should we take the money out of the highway money? If we are going to help Florida out, why don't we take it out of Florida's highway money? Take it out of their housing money? Take it out of their hospital money to pay for their civil disaster? We don't do that. So why should we do it in agriculture, on farmers? Why should we take it out of the farmers' pockets to pay for a disaster? Why don't we take the money out of the highway money going to Florida to pay for the hurricane? Take it out of their hospital money? Take it out of their housing money? We don't do that. We don't do it because it is not the right thing to do. We should not take it from the farm bill either. I realize those of us who represent farmers and farm States, we get hit often because they say farmers get this and that. I want to point out, as I have pointed out time and time again, since we passed the farm bill in 2002 and the President signed it in May of 2002, we have saved the taxpayers of this country over $15 billion in less commodity program spending. I think that is a pretty healthy contribution by our farmers and our ranchers to help reduce the deficit of this country. Now they want to take more money out of agriculture to pay for a disaster. It is wrong. That is why I have offered this resolution which basically says: It is the sense of the Senate that the 108th Congress should provide the necessary funds to make disaster assistance available for all customarily eligible agricultural producers as emergency spending and not funded by cuts to the farmer. It is very simple and straightforward. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The Senator has 16 minutes remaining. Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I don't know if anyone wants any time. I will be glad to yield to my friend from North Dakota. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise today to support the ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee in what he is saying. I am in my 18th year in the Senate. Only once before in that entire time have we taken money from other farmers to provide the funds to cover a natural disaster for others. That is just wrong. That is not the way we have operated. We have always dealt with natural disasters through emergency funding because none of us can know who is going to get hit by a natural disaster. None of us can know who is going to have a hurricane or a drought or a freeze. In my State we have had three of the four. We didn't have hurricanes. We don't get hurricanes in North Dakota. But we have had drought in the southwestern part of the State. I have just taken a drought tour, and it looks like a moonscape. Nothing is growing. It is disastrous. The corn crop is about a foot high. There are no ears in the corn crop. I go to the northern part of my State, and it is flooded. It is unbelievable. We have a lake in north central North Dakota called Devils Lake. That lake has risen 25 feet in the last 7 years. That lake is now 2\1/2\ times the size of the District of Columbia, and it has risen 25 vertical feet, taking up hundreds of thousands of acres. We, as a Federal Government, have already had to buy out the entire town of Church's Ferry. We have had other towns that are on the brink of being swallowed up. We have spent tens of millions of dollars protecting the town of Devils Lake. We have moved over 600 structures. All across the northern tier of North Dakota, something very unusual is happening. We have had extraordinarily wet conditions over a prolonged period. The result is 2 million acres they could not even plant this year--2 million acres. That is bigger than the size of the State of Delaware--land that couldn't be planted. The land that could be planted is now so wet they can't drive the equipment in to harvest the crop. So you drive by the road and it looks like a fabulous crop, like there is a tremendous barley crop out there. It looks like 90- to 100-bushel barley. But you can't get into the land to take it off because the ground is soaked. I was just at a farmer's home and he pointed up to the top of the rafters in his barn. He said: Senator, that is where the water is going to be 6 months from now, according to the State water commission, because the whole area is flooding. In the midst of that we had a freeze in early August. Drought, flood, freeze--I have lived in North Dakota all my life, and I have never seen such [[Page S10903]] a collection of natural disasters. So while I have great sympathy for the people of Florida and Southeastern United States who have suffered hurricanes, and I am prepared with my vote to help them, we would expect the same in return. They are not the only ones who have been hurt. I have tens of thousands of farm families who are wondering now, Is Washington going to help or is Washington going to turn its back? We have not been on the news. The networks haven't been out there covering this drought. They have not covered this flooding because this is a slow-motion disaster. This is not the kind of thing that makes good television, as the water rises in North Dakota. That doesn't make good television. It is a slow-motion disaster, but it is a disaster nonetheless. People's lives are being devastated. Always before we have had emergency funding--with one exception in the 18 years I have been here. Always before, when an area suffered natural disasters, we have voted emergency funding to give them some help. Let me make clear to my colleagues--I have heard some say: If you would have had preventive planning, you wouldn't have any losses because you didn't have to plant the crop. That is not the way it works. You still have your land payment, you still have all your management expenses, and in most cases people put on fertilizer in anticipation of being able to plant. This idea that they don't have expenses is just wrong. Then I have heard they will get more help than what they have lost. That is just wrong. People have said: They have crop insurance. Crop insurance will make them whole. No. Crop insurance will not come anywhere close to making them whole; nowhere close. First of all, you have to have a 35-percent loss before you get anything. Then you only get a percentage of your loss over 35 percent. That is not going to make people anywhere close to whole-- nowhere close. Even if you take disaster assistance and crop insurance, you are nowhere close to whole. You still have significant losses. That is the fact of the matter. The disaster assistance we pass in the Senate is desperately needed, and it should not be taken away from other farmers in order to pay for it. We shouldn't take from what they need in order to try to provide assistance for those who have suffered natural disasters. That is not right. It is not fair. It has not been done before, with one exception in the 18 years I have been in the Senate. I had my staff go back and research the whole history. We have never done things that way with one exception. We should not go down this path of turning our back on people who have suffered natural disasters, whether it is a hurricane, whether it is a flood, whether it is a drought, whether it is a freeze, or some horrific outbreak of disease. We need to stand ready to reach out with a helping hand. I thank the ranking member from the State of Iowa, Senator Harkin, for standing up, fighting back and being very clear about what is at stake here; and to our leader, Senator Daschle. The truth is without Senator Daschle as our leader, we wouldn't have a prayer of getting the assistance our area desperately needs. That is a fact. Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from North Dakota for his very kind words. There are a number of people who deserve great credit, beginning, of course, with our distinguished ranking member on the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has been the most forceful, the most passionate, the most articulate voice for agriculture and I am proud to call him my leader. He and I were in the room when we wrote this a couple of years ago. I remember so vividly. It was in the room across the hall. This legislation wouldn't even exist were it not for what Senator Harkin did in the room across the hall as we negotiated these issues and got the commitment from this administration and from our Republican friends that this conservation program would be fully funded. We got a commitment. Almost before the ink was dry, that commitment withered away. It disappeared. I can understand the frustration of the distinguished Senator, the anger and the disappointment that after being given the commitment over and over again it was virtually the last thing we decided. Only because he held out as aggressively as he did, we finally said yes. OK. If this means getting the farm bill, we will agree to this and we will commit to funding. I was there in the room. I heard it myself, and here we are. This isn't the first time. This is now the second time he has had to come to the floor. I know a lot of Senators are inconvenienced, but I must say nobody is more inconvenienced by the doubletalk and the lack of commitment and the willingness to keep their word than our ranchers and farmers who are so desperate for the help Senator Conrad and Senator Harkin have so eloquently described. Senator Johnson and I have the same situation in South Dakota. I talked to a rancher in the southwest near Edgemont. He broke down in tears, telling me that he is now going to be forced to sell his herd--a herd he has had all of his life. He said, I have never seen anything like this. His lips curled and he choked up. I felt so sorry for him. He said, But I am not alone. I am at the end of my career. I worry about those young farmers and ranchers who are just getting started. What are they going to do? This assistance is critical. But the double standard is so outrageous that I can understand why Member after Member representing farmer and rancher after farmer and rancher is coming to the floor to express their outrage and indignation. You talk about heroes. I thank my colleague from South Dakota for making the effort he did so gallantly. Senator Johnson offered an amendment to say let's treat this disaster assistance the way we are treating all other disaster assistance. I understand it is about $11 billion. Let us treat it exactly the same. He made a passionate defense of that argument and lost on a 6-to-5 vote, as I understand it. It was a party-line vote. Mr. JOHNSON. Madam President, may I direct a question to my colleague? Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield for a question from the Senator from South Dakota. Mr. JOHNSON. I want to report to the body that I have just come from the Military Construction Subcommittee conference markup. Oddly enough, military construction--the way things work around here--is now the vehicle for bringing up disaster relief to Florida and on the Northern Plains. We were able to obtain nearly a $3 billion drought relief package on that bill, thanks to Senator Daschle in large part, and Senator Harkin, of course, with his leadership. But I don't believe it would be on the floor at all were it not for Senator Daschle's leadership. That drought relief passed with a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate earlier this year. Yet when it came back to the Military Construction Subcommittee as part of this disaster aid we are adding, it had this very convoluted offset that is stretched out for over 10 years. I have to ask the leader, Senator Daschle, who has been through this and has championed agriculture for so many years as an extraordinary representative and as a leader on rural and agricultural issues, if there is any logic the leader can discern why disaster relief for hurricane victims is emergency funding, and disaster relief as it turns out now for farmers and ranchers suffering from drought is cannibalized out of the agriculture budget for the rest of the decade. What logic is there to that? What fairness is there to that kind of approach to this disaster relief bill that is now likely to pass? We are grateful for disaster relief, but this uneven treatment between farmers and hurricane victims strikes me as sadly peculiar and an unfortunate precedent that rural people will suffer from for years to come. I would be interested in any response, given the great experience and leadership Senator Daschle has afforded rural America for all of these years, whether he sees any logic to this kind of separate treatment of farmers versus others in America today. Mr. DASCHLE. I thank my dear friend from South Dakota for his question and for his kind words. I simply say there is no logical conclusion one can draw from this except [[Page S10904]] that there are those in the administration and apparently here in Congress who believe farmers and ranchers ought to be subject to a double standard; that they aren't as poor as other victims and the other people who have experienced disasters of other kinds. For some reason, this administration has minimized the losses in agriculture almost from the beginning. As the Senator so well knows, because he was right in the middle of the fight 2 years ago, we tried to persuade the administration to help farmers and ranchers with $6 billion disaster assistance. That was actually passed here on the Senate floor. They sat on it. They stalled it. They did everything they could to prevent it. Ultimately, all we got before the end of the year was about $1 billion--$5 billion less. It is no surprise. This isn't something new for this administration or some of our colleagues in the Congress. This is yet another illustration and pattern of demonstration of how minimally they are prepared to support agriculture and our farmers and ranchers. It is a double standard. It is a shell game. They are telling farmers and ranchers we are going to take money out of your right-hand pocket and put it in your left-hand pocket, and we want you to feel good about it. There is no net additional revenue to be provided to agriculture as a result of this disaster relief. We are simply taking it out of their right pocket and putting it in their left pocket. I can't imagine--and Senator Conrad and others have noted how a rancher or a farmer could be anything but offended--that somebody would insist farmers and ranchers pay for their own grass and drought assistance, disaster assistance and flood assistance, when at the very same time, simultaneously, we are providing meaningful new assistance to the victims of hurricanes, which we all support. The double standard, the shell game, the extraordinary intransigence on the part of those who are opposing the Johnson amendment and opposing our efforts to make farmers and ranchers whole is inexplicable. There is no logic. I appreciate very much his words. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa. Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 8 minutes. Mr. HARKIN. We all need leaders to organize us, to inspire us, to get us moving in the right direction. Our distinguished leader, Senator Daschle from South Dakota, was kind enough to say good things about me with regard to the Agriculture bill, but we would never have gotten it together had it not been for his leadership. We, on this side of the aisle, all rely on his inspiration and his leadership, pulling us together. Nowhere is that more evident than our fight for farmers and ranchers and people who live in small towns and communities all over America. I thank my good friend and my leader from South Dakota for what he has done for the people who live in the little towns such as my home town, Cummings, IA, with 150 people, for the farmers and ranchers of Iowa, South Dakota, and all over this country. Senator Daschle has been their voice and their leader, as he has been our leader. I daresay we wouldn't have half of the things we have for agriculture today had it not been for Senator Daschle, in making sure we had a good farm bill 2 years ago. As Members can tell today, his passion is still there. I thank the good farmers and ranchers and rural people of South Dakota for having him here and having him as our leader. Madam President, I ask that an editorial from the Des Moines Register of October 9 be printed at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. HARKIN. I will read one sentence from the editorial: "The reality of the situation is that there will be no disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Easy for him to say; farmers in his State are covered by the hurricane disaster assistance package. He doesn't have to worry about whether it is emergency money. What kind of selfishness is that around here? If you are from a State where you get the hurricane disaster assistance, to heck with everybody else? The Des Moines Register editorial said: Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the Dakotas and other Plains states. I want to help those farmers. They should be helped. But as Senator Daschle said, they should not take it out of one pocket and put it in another. I also ask that a letter from a number of different farm groups opposing the using of farm bill conservation money for disaster assistance be printed in the Record following my remarks. This is in opposition to the President's position. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 2.) Mr. HARKIN. I ask that a letter from a number of conservation groups be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, asking that money not be taken out of the conservation title. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 3.) Mr. HARKIN. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks a letter to a number of Representatives on the House side from a number of conservation groups also be printed at the conclusion of my remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 4.) Mr. HARKIN. Lastly, I have heard the argument that drought is long term; there is some kind of climate change, but for the western part of the United States, which has had droughts for the last 4 or 5 years, we cannot continue to give disaster money if it is going to be a drought one year after another. Guess what. Florida sits in hurricane alley. They have had hurricanes going back for 100 years. Guess what. Hurricanes are going to hit Florida next year and the year after and the year after. Should we say we cannot give disaster money to Florida because this is a long-term type thing? That is what I heard about drought assistance because we have had it for 5 years. Because we have been hit by 5 years of drought, that is long term and therefore we cannot help you? Maybe we ought to take a look at hurricane alley. Maybe they shouldn't get help because they will get hit by another hurricane next year or the year after. We don't get hit by hurricanes in Iowa. They do not bother us. But we get hit by things such as tornados and hail damage and drought and, yes, floods. Lastly, this bill, in helping the drought-stricken farmers--and my friend from North Dakota knows this very well--it only covers 1 year. We have had a drought for 4, 5, or 6 years. Farmers who suffered crop losses in both 2003 and 2004 will get to pick 1 year, either 2003 or 2004, you pick one, that is all the disaster assistance you get. It does not cover 7 years; it covers 1 year. I wanted to clear this up. I hear rumors and misconceptions around here. I wanted to make the record clear that, yes, we have had some problems--such as tornados. Oklahoma gets hit by tornados, and Kansas and Nebraska and Iowa. We have had a lot. We will next summer because we are in tornado alley. Does that mean if a tornado strikes we should not get any disaster money because we get hit by tornados every year? No. Neither should the farmers in the Dakotas or Montana or places that have a drought right now, nor should they be penalized because they have been hit by some dry weather for a few years. Exhibit 1 [From the Des Moines Register, Oct. 9, 2004] Midwest Farmers May Lose Out With Disaster Aid Washington, DC.--Farmers hit by a succession of crop losses hoped an election year would bring some extra cash from the government. However, House Republicans are pushing for cuts in farm programs to pay for a $3 billion package of farm-disaster assistance, and agriculture groups may drop their support for the aid. [[Page S10905]] Cutting farm programs to pay for the assistance would amount to taking money from growers in the Midwest and giving it to producers in drought-stricken areas of Montana, the Dakotas and other Plains states. The prime target for the cuts is the popular Conservation Security Program written by Sen. Tom Harkin. ``If disaster assistance comes out of the farm bill, then we oppose disaster assistance,'' said Mary Kay Thatcher, a lobbyist for the American Farm Bureau Federation. Democrats accused Republicans of hypocrisy. The White House is pushing Congress to pass special emergency assistance for Florida hurricane victims, including farmers there, without demanding spending cuts. Florida is a key state in the presidential race. ``It is not right to treat farmers in one part of this country different than farmers in another,'' Harkin said. The House passed legislation earlier in the week that would pay for the drought assistance by capping the cost of the Conservation Security Program. ``The reality of the situation is that there will be no disaster money before we go home unless we provide budget offsets,'' said the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va. Friday, lawmakers were looking into trimming things other than the Conservation Security Program because of technical problems with targeting the conservation payments, congressional aides said. Harkin, a Democrat, pledged to slow some must-pass bills unless Republicans backed off making the cuts. Friday afternoon, he blocked the Senate from considering amendments to an intelligence-reform bill. The Senate passed a version of the drought aid paid for by adding to the federal budget deficit. Farmers could get payments for losses in either 2003 or 2004. Iowa farmers would likely receive about $200 million to $250 million in disaster payments, primarily to cover damage to soybean fields, according to Harkin's staff. The Iowa Farm Bureau has estimated damage from the 2003 drought at $750 million. The Conservation Security Program is designed to reward farmers for practices that prevent soil erosion and other environmental problems. Some 2,188 farms, including 290 in Iowa, were signed up for the program this year. Enrollment was limited to 18 watersheds, or river drainage areas. The National Corn Growers Association never endorsed the disaster aid package, partly out of concern that it mean reductions in other farm spending, said Jon Doggett, a lobbyist for the group. ____ Exhibit 2 October 7, 2004. Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman, Subcommittee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC Hon. Robert Byrd, Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations and Subcommittee on Homeland Security, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member: The House and Senate have approved virtually identical legislation to provide vitally important financial assistance to assist farmers and ranchers who have suffered devastating crop losses due to hurricanes and drought. Importantly, the provisions approved by the House and Senate allow producers to choose to receive assistance for either 2003 or 2004 crop losses. And, since the legislation is similar to previous disaster programs, USDA should be able to deliver the assistance in a timely and cost efficient manner. We understand that the free-standing legislation passed by the House on October 6 may serve as the House position in the conference on FY05 funding for Homeland Security. We are concerned that the House provision providing assistance for agricultural losses includes a funding offset, which reduces funding for a conservation program authorized in the 2002 farm bill. The Senate passed provision, which is included in the Homeland Security bill does not include an off-set. As you know, farm and commodity organizations have consistently opposed opening the farm bill, which is carefully balanced and has provided important, predictable financial stability for farmers, ranchers and rural Americans. While the House passed provision includes an off-set for a portion of the agriculture assistance, the other assistance was approved with an emergency designation and the House overwhelmingly rejected an amendment that would have offset the entire bill. The purpose of this letter is to respectfully urge the conferees to retain the disaster assistance provisions as part of the Homeland Security funding but to eliminate the requirement that a portion of the funds for agricultural disaster assistance be off-set by a reduction in conservation programs or any other programs authorized by the 2002 farm bill. We believe the delivery of much needed assistance to farmers and ranchers suffering losses due to drought, hurricanes and other adverse weather is critically important to those who have suffered devastating losses, but we also believe preservation of the provisions of the 2002 farm law is important to all farmers and ranchers. We would also note that expenditures under the 2002 farm bill have been substantially less than that projected at the time of passage. Unfortunately budget rules do not allow use of those funds for other purposes, but we believe this should be a favorable factor in the consideration of our request. As always, thank you for your consideration of our views and your leadership on matters critical to the U.S. agricultural community. Sincerely, Alabama Farmers Federation American Corn Growers Association American Farm Bureau Federation American Soybean Association Ducks Unlimited Georgia Peanut Commission Independent Community Bankers of America National Association of Farmer Elected Committees National Association of State Departments of Agriculture National Association of Wheat Growers National Barley Growers Association National Cotton Council National Council of Farmer Cooperatives National Farmers Organization National Farmers Union National Grain Sorghum Producers National Milk Producers Federation Southern Peanut Farmers Federation National Sunflower Association Soybean Producers of America US Canola Association USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council USA Rice Federation USA Rice Producers Association Women Involved in Farm Economics. ____ Exhibit 3 American Fly Fishing Trade Association, American Land Conservancy, Archery Trade Association, Bowhunting Preservation Alliance, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, International Hunter Education Association, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Izaak Walton League of America, Orion-The Hunters Institute, Pheasants Forever, Sand County Foundation, Texas Wildlife Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, The Wildlife Society, Wildlife Forever, Wildlife Management Institute, October 7, 2004. Hon. Bill Frist, Hon. Tom Daschle, Hon. Ted Stevens, Hon. Robert C. Byrd, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Hon. Tom DeLay, Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Hon. Bill Young, Hon. David Obey, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Senate and House Leadership. The above listed conservation and sportsmen's organizations, which represent a diverse spectrum of interests with a combined membership of millions, stand together urging you to reject any attempt to offset the costs of the disaster package's assistance to U.S. farmers and ranchers with cuts to the 2002 Farm Bill's conservation assistance programs. We fully support a disaster assistance package that is appropriately designated by Congress as emergency spending. Conservation funding was critical to securing passage of the 2002 Farm Bill. These conservation programs have become win-win solutions for landowners and wildlife, while at the same time guard against economic impacts from droughts and floods. Each of the programs is oversubscribed, with farmer demand continuing to outpace available funding. We strongly oppose the use of conservation program spending as an offset for disaster assistance. If you have questions about this issue, please contact Barton James (Ducks Unlimited) at (202) 347-1530. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter. ____ Exhibit 4 October 5, 2004. Hon. C.W. Bill Young, Chairman, House Committee on Appropriations, H-218 Capitol Building, Washington, DC Hon. Ted Stevens, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, S-128 Capitol Building, Washington, DC Hon. Thad Cochran, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Dirksen Senate Office Building Rm-135, Washington, DC Hon. Martin Olav Sabo, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn HOB B-307, Washington, DC Hon. David Obey, Ranking Member, House Committee on Appropriations, 1016 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC Hon. Robert C. Byrd, [[Page S10906]] Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, S-112 Capitol Building, Washington, DC Hon. Harold Rogers, Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House Committee on Appropriations, Rayburn HOB B-307, Washington, DC Dear Appropriations Conferee: As you conference the fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security appropriations bill and consider the Senate-passed agricultural disaster package, we urge you to reject any attempt to offset the costs of the disaster package with cuts to the 2002 Farm Bill's conservation assistance programs. Conservation funding was critical to securing passage of the 2002 Farm Bill. Conservation programs in the 2002 Farm Bill provide farmers and ranchers with important financial assistance while addressing the nation's urgent natural resource and environmental needs. These programs guard against heightened natural resource and economic impacts from droughts and floods, and thus the long-term costs of weather related disasters, by improving soil and water quality and conservation. Each of the programs is oversubscribed, with farmer demand continuing to outpace available funding. We strongly oppose the use of conservation program spending as an offset for the disaster package. In our view, it is unfair to single out agricultural disasters for offsets and unwise to single out conservation as the potential offset. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, American Farmland Trust American Rivers Chesapeake Bay Foundation Defenders of Wildlife Environmental Defense National Association of Conservation Districts National Catholic Rural Life Conference National Wildlife Federation Natural Resources Defense Council Sierra Club Soil and Water Conservation Society Sustainable Agriculture Coalition Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. HARKIN. How much time is remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 1 minute 40 seconds. Mr. HARKIN. Whatever time I have remaining I would be glad to yield. Mr. DORGAN. Let me, in the few moments remaining, thank the Senator from Iowa. Yesterday, someone asked him what he was doing, and he said: I am supporting my farmers. The fact is, farmers in his State, our State and others, have been hit by weather-related disasters. You ought not treat farmers in different parts of the country in different ways. If you are going to provide disaster assistance to people in one part of the country, those farmers who have been hit with weather-related disasters in other parts of the country deserve to be helped as well. This is a case of the Government saying to farmers during a tough period, you are not alone; we are here to help you. This is not a case of farmers begging to be helped. It is a case, for example, in our part of the country, where torrential rains wiped out the opportunity for farmers to even plant a crop on 1.7 million acres. Think of that. There were 1.7 million acres that could not be planted. These are farmers that will lose their farms if we do not offer some help. The Senator from Iowa has been doing something very simple and powerful in the Senate. He is standing up for family farmers. My colleague from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, myself, and others are insistent we provide disaster relief and do so in the right way. What is being done in the conferences, back and forth, the ping- ponging of inadequate proposals, proposals that are unusual, is not fair. I commend the Senator from Iowa for being unwilling to sit by idly, silently, and allowing this to happen. I stand with him, as does my colleague, Senator Conrad, and many others. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada. Mr. REID. On behalf of Senator Bingaman, I ask permission to withdraw from the list the Bingaman-Domenici amendment as listed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Ohio. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized. Amendment No. 4027 Mr. VOINOVICH. Madam President, later on today we will be discussing an amendment submitted by Senator Nickles. The amendment's alleged purpose is to clarify the shared jurisdiction of the congressional budget process between Governmental Affairs and the budget situation that grew out of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process of 1974. Senate committees rarely share jurisdiction, and joint referral of legislation is accomplished by unanimous consent. Today, anything that deals with the budget either coming out of the Governmental Affairs Committee or coming out of Budget has to be referred to the Governmental Affairs Committee and within 30 days some action has to be taken so there is a joint referral. This amendment would eliminate that and say that all of the budgetary process is within the jurisdiction only of the Budget Committee and would also require that instead of the nominations for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the deputy director being the sole jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, that would be a joint jurisdiction. In other words, the Presidential appointee to Director of Budget and Management, Deputy Director, and other people, would have to come to the Governmental Affairs Committee and also go to the Budget Committee for their approval. I think one of the things we are trying to do here is to streamline that whole process, that we have too many people who are being, frankly, nominated, and too much advice and consent. One of the things in an amendment to the Homeland Security Act that we were able to get done was the provision that says we are going to ask the administration to come back with recommendations on how they can reduce the number of people who are sent to the Senate for advice and consent to streamline the process. This amendment would make this Presidential appointment process in regard to the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director much more complicated than it is today. I would also argue--with due respect to the expertise that is on the Budget Committee--that this process has not been looked at since 1974. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and the oversight of Government management in the Federal workforce, I have been concerned that we have not looked at that process since 1974--that we have discussed the feasibility of going to a 2-year budget. There are many things, in my opinion, that this body should be doing, and if it were solely within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee, it might not get done. The Governmental Affairs Committee looks at the big picture. I would also argue that too often in the Office of Budget and Management, there is no ``M'' in OMB. I am pleased to say that this administration has undertaken some very aggressive management responsibilities. I, quite frankly, think they would not have undertaken those management responsibilities had it not been for the fact that they had to be confirmed by the Governmental Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate. I know the relationships that I have built personally with the Director of the Office of Budget and Management; Sean O'Keefe, who was the Deputy Director, and now Director Josh Bolten, have really accrued to the benefit of our country in terms of improving the management of Government. So what I am trying to say is the budget process is important not only to the Budget Committee but the budget process is important to the entire country and to the operation of Government because it has such a large impact on the whole operation of Government. I respect the chairman of the Budget Committee, but as one who has been concerned about modernizing our procedures, I believe this would not promote what is in the best interest of the Senate or, for that matter, our country. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the human capital changes that have occurred since 1999 that have come out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [[Page S10907]] U.S. Senator George V. Voinovich, Ohio--An Agenda To Reform the Federal Workforce: Accomplishments Senator Voinovich has made identifying and developing solutions to the federal government's strategic human capital challenges his highest priority for his Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. He has held 15 hearings on the subject, spoken at numerous public conferences, and was a key participant in the Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Executive Sessions on the Future of the Public Service in 2001-2002. He has brought together the best minds in academia, government and the private sector to address these issues and developed a forward-looking legislative agenda. Taken together, the legislation he has sponsored and cosponsored represents the most significant governmentwide changes to the federal civil service system since passage of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. Legislation sponsored by Senator Voinovich enacted into law: Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Reshaping Authority as part of the FY 2001 Defense Authorization, became law on October 30, 2000. Several major provisions of S. 2651, the Federal Workforce Improvement Act of 2002, were included in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002. Its most important provisions: agency chief human capital officers (at the 24 largest federal agencies); an interagency chief human capital officers council (codifying the Human Resources Management Council); an OPM-designed set of systems, including metrics, for assessing agency human capital management; inclusion of agency human capital strategic planning in annual performance plans and program performance reports required by GPRA; reform of the competitive service hiring process (use of a category ranking system instead of the Rule of Three); permanent extension, revision, and expansion of voluntary separation incentive pay and voluntary early retirement (``buyouts'' and ``early- outs''); S. 926, the Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act, Public Law 108-123, November 11, 2003. The law raises to $10,000 and $60,000, respectively, the annual and aggregate limits of student loan repayment federal agencies may offer employees as incentives. S. 1683, the Federal Law Enforcement Pay and Benefits Parity Act of 2003, Public Law 108-196, December 19, 2003. The law required OPM to conduct a study of federal law enforcement compensation and classification to inform reform efforts. It was submitted to Congress on July 16, 2004. S. 610, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2004, Public Law 108-201, February 24, 2004. The law provides new personnel flexibilities to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to recruit and retain a technology savvy workforce for NASA's high-tech mission. H.R. 2751, GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-271, July 7, 2004. H.R. 2751 was the House companion to Senator Voinovich's bill S. 1522, which passed the Senate on November 24, 2003. It provides several new personnel flexibilities to the now U.S. Government Accountability Office. Legislation cosponsored by Senator Voinovich enacted into law: The Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002, allowed the new department to design a new personnel system for its 170,000 employees to meet its mission needs. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Public Law 108-136, November 24, 2003, includes the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). Senator Voinovich had a role in drafting the Senate version of NSPS, S. 1166. NSPS will provide significant personnel flexibilities to the Department of Defense similar to those at the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, this Act contains a provision that alleviates pay compression in the Senior Executive Service. Senator Voinovich had introduced a separate bill, S. 768, to accomplish this. Legislation sponsored by Senator Voinovich currently under Congressional consideration: S. 129, Federal Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003, was passed by the Senate on April 8, 2004, and it contains additional governmentwide human capital reforms. The House Committee on Government Reform considered and reported S. 129 to the full House on June 24, 2004. Senator Voinovich understands that the bill should pass the House the week of October 4th and return to the Senate for final passage. Mr. VOINOVICH. I would like to emphasize for my colleagues how important it is that this jurisdiction in terms of the Director of Budget and Management and the Deputy Director remains in the Governmental Affairs Committee. I would like to make one other point; that point is, the jurisdiction of our committee has been stripped out for the last couple of days. So I just urge my colleagues--I am going to ask for a vote. I think it is important to the management of our country. I appreciate the opportunity to speak and yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator's time has expired. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, for my friend to say the jurisdiction of the committee has been stripped out in the last few days, he should come in contact with reality. It simply is not true. How many times people come and say that does not make it true. The governmental affairs/homeland security committee is going to be one of most powerful committees in the Congress. Last year, as I understand, they had about 900 bills referred to them. This next year, it will probably be 3,000 bills referred to them. They have jurisdiction over wide-ranging matters. A few little things have been taken from Governmental Affairs, but they have been given a truckload of stuff. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator in Nevada for his comments. He is exactly right. For anybody to suggest Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction reduced here, I mean, come on. Governmental Affairs has had their jurisdiction dramatically increased. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering today with my ranking member, Senator Conrad, would consolidate jurisdiction for the congressional budget process within the Senate Committee on the Budget and establish shared jurisdiction with the new Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs over the nomination and confirmation of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. The amendment would preserve the Government Affairs Committee's jurisdiction over management and accounting measures. Under current Senate rules, jurisdiction over budget process matters is shared with the Committee on Governmental Affairs, a situation that grew out of the creation of the Budget Committee and the modern budget process in 1974. This shared jurisdiction is unique in the Senate, where committees rarely share jurisdiction, and where joint referral of legislation is only accomplished by unanimous consent. Since 1977, the Budget and Governmental Affairs Committees have received joint referral for legislation affecting the budget process pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement. Under that UC, if one committee acts on a bill the other committee must act within 30 days or be automatically discharged. Our amendment would supercede this consent agreement. We all know the Federal budget process is very complicated. The expertise on this subject clearly resides in the Budget Committee, and Senator Conrad and I believe that is where these issues should be addressed. Over the years, the Governmental Affairs Committee has done little work on the budget process. Although the current jurisdictional situation has not necessarily created significant problems, we believe it is simply unnecessary to have two committees involved in these issues. The Governmental Affairs Committee has a very broad and expansive jurisdiction which the resolution being considered would expand even further to matters of homeland security. Senator Conrad and I believe consolidating jurisdiction over budget process issues within the Budget Committee would eliminate confusion and guarantee that this work is performed by those with the expertise. I encourage my colleagues to support our amendment. Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the amendment from the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Nickles. Mr. President, the Senator from Ohio just got it wrong, what the amendment of the Senator who is the chairman of the Budget Committee does. We do not take the jurisdiction of Governmental Affairs on management issues at all, not at all. That is not what the amendment does. What the amendment does do is end the duplication of the jurisdiction of the committees on budget process issues. I would submit to my colleagues, it does not make any sense any longer, after 30 years, for Governmental Affairs and Budget to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues. [[Page S10908]] The reason they have that joint jurisdiction is because Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act. There was no Budget Committee, so at that time they had expertise that the Budget Committee simply did not have, so they were included on jurisdiction on budget process issues. Well, 30 years have passed. The expertise on these issues is on the Budget Committee. It makes no sense in any management sense to have joint jurisdiction on budget process issues--not on the management issues. The management issues are retained by Governmental Affairs, as they should be. But budget process issues, as the chairman of the Budget Committee has suggested in his amendment, ought to be the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Second, it makes no earthly sense for the nominee to be the Budget Director only to go before the Governmental Affairs Committee. That is what happens now. I think my colleagues would be stunned--I must say, I was very surprised, serving on the Budget Committee--that the Director of the Budget does not come before the Budget Committee. What sense does that make? The amendment of the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Nickles of Oklahoma, does not expand the jurisdiction of the Senate Budget Committee. It simply eliminates the overlap in jurisdiction between the two committees on the narrow issue of budget process issues. The expertise on budget process issues, on pay-go, on discretionary caps, on oversight of budget agreements, does not reside with the Committee on Governmental Affairs; it resides in the Budget Committee. We ought to clean up this overlap that has existed for 30 years that started for a good reason--because the Committee on Governmental Affairs wrote the Budget Act because there was no Budget Committee. But now there is a Budget Committee. It has been in existence 30 years. It ought to have jurisdiction over budget process issues. That just makes common sense. Who could possibly defend the notion that a Budget Director should not come before the Budget Committee for confirmation? It makes no earthly sense. The amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma is entirely reasonable. It is rational. It improves the operations of both committees. It does not take jurisdiction to the Budget Committee; it simply reduces the common jurisdiction that currently exists between Governmental Affairs and the Budget Committee on the narrow issue of budget process. Mr. VOINOVICH. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. CONRAD. I would be happy to yield after this statement. And it gives to the Budget Committee the right to hear from the Office of Management and Budget, the man who is named or the woman who is named Budget Director in the confirmation process. That just makes common sense. I would be happy to yield. Mr. VOINOVICH. The question I would like to ask is, Has the procedure that we now have in terms of the appointment--and this has been for 30 years--diminished the effectiveness of the Budget Committee, because of the fact that they have not participated in the nomination of the Budget Director? Mr. CONRAD. I believe the answer simply has to be yes. It makes no earthly sense for the person who is named to be the budget director of the United States not to come before the Budget Committee. What sense could that possibly make? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from North Dakota has expired. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Ohio. We are running out of time, and the distinguished senior Senator from Texas has an amendment she needs to be able to describe. Amendment No. 4015 to Amendment No. 3981 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4015. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 4015. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (Purpose: To implement responsible subcommittee reorganization in the Committee on Appropriations) In section 402, strike the second sentence and insert the following: ``The Committee on Appropriations shall reorganize into 13 subcommittees not later than 2 weeks after the convening of the 109th Congress.''. Amendment No. 4042 To Amendment No. 4015 Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I call up a second-degree amendment No. 4042. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an amendment numbered 4042 to amendment No. 4015. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment is as follows: (Purpose: To implement responsible subcommittee reorganization in the Committee on Appropriations) Strike ``not later than 2 weeks'' and insert ``as soon as possible'' Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for adoption of the second-degree amendment. Mr. REID. I object. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second-degree amendment be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to. The amendment (No. 4042) was agreed to. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment simply keeps what the Senate has said it wants, and that is an intelligence subcommittee on Appropriations, and it keeps the 13 subcommittees of Appropriations. It says the Appropriations Committee will organize into 13 subcommittees with the intelligence subcommittee as soon as possible after the convening of the 109th Congress. All my amendment does is keep the Appropriations subcommittees at the same number, making sure there is one intelligence subcommittee, but it does not require the merging of Defense and Military Construction. It may be that when the Appropriations Committee looks at all of the options for the making of 13 subcommittees, that that will happen, but I think the Appropriations Committee should be the one that makes the recommendations to the Senate. We do not have to rush to make this decision for the Appropriations Committee. According to the CRS, eliminating a subcommittee through a measure on the Senate floor is unprecedented. In more than 200 years, the CRS says, the Senate has never eliminated a subcommittee through floor action without the committee bringing it to the floor. The Senate has created subcommittees, as with the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Investigations in 1952, but not eliminated subcommittees. Merging subcommittees to create room for the new one may be the right thing to do, but the floor is the wrong place to do it. What is proposed today will set a precedent that could impact every committee by pulling the ability of the committee to organize itself and having that agreed to by the Senate. This is a precedent that should concern every committee. It should concern the majority and the minority. There is no reason to make this decision now. Also, these changes must be made in conjunction with the House. The House Appropriations subcommittees and the Senate Appropriations subcommittees should match so that when we conference, we will have a finite subcommittee that deals with the same issues; otherwise, there could be many problems with the appropriations process that would complicate an already complicated process. The House has not made any decisions about reorganizing itself on the Appropriations Committee. The wise thing for the Senate to do would be to create the new intelligence subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, determine that there will be 13 subcommittees but require the Appropriations Committee to do the reorganization, after which the Senate would [[Page S10909]] be asked to agree. That is all my amendment does. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be. The yeas and nays were ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Texas. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6 minutes remaining. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I serve on the Appropriations Committee with the distinguished Senator from Texas. She certainly is one of the finest Senators here. But on this issue I disagree with her. In the underlying legislation before the Senate, there has been a consolidation of Defense appropriations and Military Construction. This certainly makes sense. The subject matter is related to the same players, same departments, military, same basis. It does not make sense to make the artificial divide for Construction. I have served as chairman of the Military Construction Subcommittee, and I enjoyed it, but I always wondered why it was a separate subcommittee. It does, however, make sense to pull intelligence from defense and make it a separate subcommittee. That is what we have done. We have talked to experts, and we think this is the best way to do it. We should keep this plan intact. It is the right thing to do. The legislation we now have before the Senate is a good package. I don't think it should be splintered with trying to have the Committee on Appropriations rearrange what we have done. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remaining time that I have to the Senator from Ohio. Amendment No. 4027 Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I would just like to emphasize again that the current situation is one that is working. Unless one can show that it is not working in terms of the authority or the jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I would argue, why change it. Secondly, this amendment would then subject the appointees of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Deputy Director, and other people to jurisdictions in two committees, which would make the appointment process longer than it is today in an area that is particularly important to the President. What he wants to do immediately is to get his director of budget on board. Secondly, I think we need to point out that the budget process is not just the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. Under this amendment, if I want to put a bill in, for example, to reform the budget process to 2-year budgets, to require that the budget include a presentation on the accrued liabilities of the United States and, for that matter, go back and look at the Budget Act of 1974, which should be updated, that bill would have to go to the Budget Committee. If the members of that committee were unhappy with that, if they like the process of 1-year budgets because of the fact that they like to take a bite out of the apple each year, that bill would be dead. Under the current situation, if someone has an idea of improving the budget process that impacts not only the budget but the entire operation of Government, they can bring it to the Governmental Affairs Committee. We could handle that legislation, and then that legislation would have to be referred to the Budget Committee for their consideration. The fact is, this is too large a responsibility just to put it within the jurisdiction of the Budget Committee. I argue that it makes a lot of sense to leave the situation as it is unless somebody can tell me that it is not working. I will say one other thing: Our Government's biggest problem today is management. Having jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget in Governmental Affairs has given this Senator a lot of leverage to get this administration to do some things that are important for the country. I thank the Chair. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect that when I spoke regarding Senator Voinovich earlier, I said there were approximately 900 bills referred to the Governmental Operations Committee. I misspoke. It is 300. I want the record to reflect the proper number. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the first vote occur on the Nickles amendment, to be followed by a vote on the Hutchison amendment. Vote On Amendment No. 4041 Mr. REID. Mr. President, I believe we need the yeas and nays on the Nickles amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the Nickles second-degree amendment No. 4041. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would vote ``yea.''. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 35, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 206 Leg.] YEAS--50 Allard Baucus Biden Bingaman Bond Bunning Burns Cantwell Chafee Clinton Conrad Corzine Crapo Daschle Dayton Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Ensign Enzi Feingold Feinstein Graham (FL) Grassley Gregg Harkin Inouye Johnson Kennedy Kohl Kyl Landrieu Leahy Lincoln Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Nickles Reed Reid Santorum Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith Stabenow Thomas Wyden NAYS--35 Akaka Alexander Allen Bennett Brownback Byrd Carper Cochran Coleman Collins DeWine Durbin Fitzgerald Frist Hagel Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Jeffords Lautenberg Levin Lieberman Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Murkowski Pryor Roberts Rockefeller Snowe Stevens Talent Voinovich Warner NOT VOTING--15 Bayh Boxer Breaux Campbell Chambliss Cornyn Craig Edwards Graham (SC) Hollings Kerry Miller Sarbanes Specter Sununu The amendment (No. 4041) was agreed to. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy have a crime bill that has been agreed to on both sides. I ask unanimous consent that they be allowed to bring up that bill, with debate time limited to 1 minute on each side. Ms. LANDRIEU. May we have order in the Senate? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Mr. NICKLES. I will not object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Also, just prior to that, I ask consent that Senator Nickles have 1 minute to speak on the amendment just voted on. Mr. REID. I am sorry, I couldn't hear that. Mr. McCONNELL. One minute to speak on the amendment just voted on by Senator Nickles, followed by 2 minutes equally divided by Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy. [[Page S10910]] Mr. REID. I ask the Senator to modify his request to allow 1 minute on each side prior to voting on the Hutchison amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Oklahoma. Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank our colleagues for the vote on the last amendment. I especially thank my colleague and friend, Senator Conrad, for his eloquent debate on it, as well as for his support and cosponsorship of the amendment. I think it is a good amendment. I think it helps the budget process. Also, I compliment my friend. It has been a pleasure to work with him on the Budget Committee. This was a good, positive budget change. I thank him for his leadership on this amendment. Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my reading of this procedural matter will not be counted against my 1 minute on the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ____________________ Congressional Record: October 9, 2004 (Senate) Page S10917-S10918 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION--Continued The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). The question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 4027, as amended. The amendment (No. 4027), as amended, was agreed to. Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 4015 The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes equally divided prior to the vote on the Hutchison amendment. Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, my amendment keeps the intent of the Senate. It creates an intelligence subcommittee on Appropriations. It keeps 13 subcommittees on Appropriations, but it allows the Appropriations Committee to do the reorganization within those parameters. According to the Congressional Research Service, there has never been a subcommittee eliminated by the Senate without coming from a committee itself. This would set a precedent that could affect committees for years to come. It is not right, and there is no reason to have to do it on the Senate floor today. We must consult with the House so that our Appropriations Committees match. Appropriations are complicated [[Page S10918]] enough. Having Appropriations Committees that are different in the House from the Senate is not a wise decision, and we don't have to do it today. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment which keeps the intelligence subcommittee, it keeps 13 subcommittees in Appropriations, and allows the Appropriations Committee to do its job in reorganizing around those parameters. Mr. REID. Mr. President, the 9/11 Commission is watching what we are doing. We have created an intelligence subcommittee on Appropriations. That was very difficult to do. But we did it. The consolidation of Defense appropriations and Military Construction makes sense. The subject matters are related, with the same players and same departments. It is military. It doesn't make sense to create an artificial divide different than this one. The Appropriations Committee as it stands has all kinds of authority to organize within itself. In short, we have done the work of the Senate. It is the right thing to do. It sets forth something that Governor Kean says makes sense. I hope we will defeat this amendment and keep intact what we already have. The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the pending amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. Mr. REID. Mr. President, does the Senator from Texas wish to have a rollcall vote? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered. Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to vitiate the yeas and nays. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated. Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, a rollcall vote has been ordered. I don't think that is permitted. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Since there was no response, the vote has not begun. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated and there be a voice vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The question is on agreeing to the pending amendment. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? At the moment, there is a not a sufficient second. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, and the clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senate from Idaho (Mr. Craig), The Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), would vote ``yea.''. Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux) the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), are necessarily absent. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote? The result was announced--yeas 44, nays 41, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 207 Leg.] YEAS--44 Alexander Allard Allen Bennett Bond Brownback Bunning Burns Chafee Cochran Coleman Collins Crapo DeWine Dole Domenici Ensign Enzi Fitzgerald Frist Grassley Gregg Hagel Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Kyl Lott Lugar McCain McConnell Murkowski Nickles Roberts Santorum Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Stevens Talent Thomas Voinovich Warner NAYS--41 Akaka Baucus Biden Bingaman Byrd Cantwell Carper Clinton Conrad Corzine Daschle Dayton Dodd Dorgan Durbin Feingold Feinstein Graham (FL) Harkin Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kohl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lieberman Lincoln Mikulski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Pryor Reed Reid Rockefeller Schumer Stabenow Wyden NOT VOTING--15 Bayh Boxer Breaux Campbell Chambliss Cornyn Craig Edwards Graham (SC) Hollings Kerry Miller Sarbanes Specter Sununu The amendment (No. 4015), as amended, was agreed to. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering if Senators would give consideration to maybe not having the vote on cloture. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we still have the technicals that are under consideration. We are essentially out of work for the moment until we get to the technicals. Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I have a housekeeping matter. The Senator from New Hampshire. ____________________ Congressional Record: October 9, 2004 (Senate) Page S10922-S10925 INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE REORGANIZATION--Continued Amendments Nos. 3989, 3994, and 4037, As Modified, and Amendment No. 4045 to Amendment No. 3981, En Bloc The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I understand that the technical amendments are now approved on both sides. I send to the desk conforming modifications to three amendments that were previously agreed to, and a technical and conforming amendment, and ask unanimous consent that they be considered en bloc and agreed to en bloc. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modifications? Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments were agreed to, as follows: amendment No. 3989, as modified Strike section 101(b)(1) of the resolution and insert the following: (1) Department of Homeland Security, except matters relating to-- (A) the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration, or the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; and (B) the following functions performed by any employee of the Department of Homeland Security-- (i) any customs revenue function including any function provided for in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296); (ii) any commercial function or commercial operation of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including matters relating to trade facilitation and trade regulation; or (iii) any other function related to clause (i) or (ii) that was exercised by the United States Customs Service on the day before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296). amendment No. 3994, as modified In section 101(b)(1), strike ``(B)'' and redesignate ``(C)'' Following section 101(b)(1)(A) insert the following: (B)(i) the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or (ii) the immigration functions of the U.S. Customs or Border Protection or the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security; and''. amendment no. 4037, as modified In section 101(b)(1)(A), after ``center'' insert ``, or the Secret Service''. AMENDMENT NO. 4045 To Amendment No. 3981 Page 2, line 10, strike ``primarily'' Page 5, line 20 & 21, strike ``Ranking Member'' and insert ``Vice Chairman'' Page 4, lines 9 through 13, strike. At the end of section 101(b)(1) insert the following: ``The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs in this paragraph shall supersede the jurisdiction of any other committee of the Senate provided in the rules of the Senate.'' Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. McCONNELL. We are down to the underlying McConnell-Reid amendment. I am unaware of any request for a rollcall vote. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering--I made this statement earlier--if we could vitiate the necessity of having a cloture vote on this matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to vitiating the cloture vote? Mr. McCAIN. I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Amendment No. 3981, As Modified, As Amended Mr. REID. Mr. President, I understand there is no request that we vote on this. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada restates his unanimous consent. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3981, as modified and as amended, the McConnell-Reid substitute. The amendment (No. 3981) was agreed to. section 101(b) and 101(c) Mr. REID. Mr. President, Section 101(b) contains the jurisdiction for the new Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Section 101(b)(1) refers to the new jurisdiction of the new committee. The rest of Section 101(b) and all of Section 101(c) describes the existing jurisdiction of the Governmental Affairs Committee and is not intended to make any changes to existing practice nor precedence regarding referrals on those issues with regard to other committees. Mr. McCONNELL. I agree Section 101(b)(2) through Section 101(b)(13) and Section 101(c) makes no changes to the status quo regarding jurisdiction over those items. amendment no. 3981 Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate the managers of the resolution adopting this amendment. It achieves the goals of an amendment filed by my distinguished colleague, the junior Senator from Texas, that I cosponsored. The language in the managers' amendment will make explicit that the shared jurisdiction over ``government information'' that is provided by rule 25 to the Judiciary Committee is not adversely affected by this resolution. I thank the Senator from Texas for his leadership on this matter and the managers for working with us to clarify the resolution. Mr. McConnell. Mr. President, I said at the beginning of this debate that after reforming the executive branch's intelligence and homeland security agencies, we needed to put our own house in order. We can now say that after years of demanding that other institutions reorganize and improve their performance, we have demanded the same of ourselves. And we succeeded. This is no small achievement for the Senate, the cooling saucer of American politics. We are very averse to change here. We respect history in this institution. But today we avoided making the mistake of falling victim to it. Learning from our mistakes prior to 9/11, we have changed the way we do business. This is a great accomplishment. We recognized the need to reform the way we conduct oversight over the most important issues of our day: intelligence and homeland security. I want to thank my good friend, Senator Reid. I have greatly enjoyed working with him, and have marveled at his prodigious talents in resolving particularly contentious conflicts. We have accomplished this difficult task thanks in large part to his honest brokering and commitment to respecting the concerns of each and every Senator. He is fair-minded, and he is effective. I look forward to working with him more often. Let me also take a minute to thank his capable staff. Rich Verma, Gregg Jaczko, and Gary Myrick, who worked on a truly bipartisan basis with my staff. Their expertise on these issues, and their patience with Harry and me, are truly commendable. They deserve a great deal of credit for managing the Working Group and cobbling together for us the many suggestions made by our Members. I would also like to thank my staff: Kyle Simmons and Robert Karem. Both of these outstanding gentlemen were with me from the beginning of this process and we would not be at this point without them. I would also like to thank Mike Solo. He jumped right in to masterfully produce this product and also helped steer it to passage on the floor. Finally, my thanks to John Abegg and Brian Lewis for their counsel and able assistance. I want to thank the members of the Congressional Oversight Working Group themselves for their many good ideas, and for their patience and willingness to work on a bipartisan basis to do something that is very difficult, but also very worthwhile. Not every Senator will be happy with the result of the Senate working its will on this resolution. Some Members will complain this reform goes too far. Others will complain it does not go far enough. I believe we have struck an appropriate balance of reform that improves our ability to conduct oversight of intelligence and homeland security during a very serious time for our country. [[Page S10923]] On intelligence oversight, I am pleased the Senate not only accepted our suggested reforms of the Select Committee on Intelligence, but also improved upon them by agreeing to modify the sequential referral of defense-related intelligence legislation to the Armed Services Committee so the process is more cooperative. The working group wanted to improve the structure of the Committee to allow Members more time to become experts and give them many tools to do their jobs. And we have done that. Let me briefly summarize just a couple of our reforms: Improved and enhanced the Intelligence Committee; Included 9 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; Members now have a stronger Committee; Without term limits, Members can better develop the expertise needed to conduct effective oversight; Clarified jurisdictional lines and improves the coordination of military intelligence matters between the Armed Services and Intelligence Committees. Appropriations jurisdiction over oversight is currently dispersed throughout multiple subcommittees. We have created an Intelligence Subcommittee of Appropriations to consolidate the roughly 80 percent of the intelligence budget that will come under the jurisdiction of the national intelligence director. This subcommittee will help the Appropriations Committee to live up to its responsibility to exercise oversight over the national intelligence budget. This legislation consolidates widely dispersed appropriations for non-military intelligence under a single Subcommittee. Allows the National Intelligence Director to work with only one Subcommittee to approve his budget. Improves intelligence oversight by creating two sets of eyes on the budget and activities of the assets under the National Intelligence Director. Jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security was too dispersed. Roughly 25 Congressional Committees or Subcommittees claimed jurisdiction over Homeland Security yesterday. We have cut that number down significantly. The Senate worked its will on this Resolution, and in the end it significantly consolidated jurisdiction over Homeland Security. Some will think the Senate went too far. Others will think the Senate hasn't gone far enough. We introduced a Resolution that dramatically consolidated jurisdiction in the new Committee. In an open process, the Senate worked its will and decided that the overlapping functions of certain agencies required exceptions. While there have been some changes to our proposal, we have not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We have taken great strides towards a level of consolidation many of us would have thought impossible only weeks ago. This reform puts the Homeland Security Committee in charge of those who prepare to defend against terrorist attacks and those who respond to terrorist attacks. This is the most important work the Department does. Protecting the Homeland is the core function of the Department, and the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the core entities of the Department that do just that. Among other programs, the Homeland Security Committee will acquire jurisdiction over the following Directorates: Office of the Secretary--Responsible for integration of terrorist threat warning, preparedness, and response. This alone is a huge responsibility. Undersecretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Undersecretary for Science and Technology--Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear defense research; and Homeland Security technology development. Undersecretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response--FEMA; National Domestic Preparedness Office; Integrated Hazard Information System; and Domestic Emergency Support Teams. Undersecretary for Management. We have consolidated all of this on top of the existing jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee, including the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. President, I believe the Senate has accomplished a great deal today. We have strengthened our Intelligence oversight, created a Homeland Security Committee under the new Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, and stood up a new Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee. I hope our Colleagues will pay attention to the reform we have enacted as they consider their Committee assignments for the 109th Congress. The American people will be better served by these reforms. And the Senate as a whole will benefit from their improved expertise and authorities over these critical policy matters. We have no more important charge than keeping the American people safe, and today we have improved our ability to do just that. Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today the Senate adopted S. Res. 445, the Senate Intelligence and Homeland Security Oversight Reform resolution. This resolution will combine the oversight of most Department of Homeland Security functions and will provide jurisdiction over those functions to the Committee on Governmental Affairs, which will be renamed the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. I will vote in favor of S. Res. 445. This resolution will help advance the U.S. war on terror by consolidating and streamlining Senate oversight over the Department of Homeland Security. I'm confident that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will serve an important role in promoting the safety and security of the people of the United States. As originally introduced, the resolution provided that the Committee on Homeland Security and governmental Affairs would not have jurisdiction over customs revenue functions. Instead, the drafters recognized that, going forward, it's important to keep the jurisdiction over customs revenue functions within the Finance Committee, the committee that has exercised jurisdiction over these issues for the past 188 years. Moreover, with the United States collecting over $23 billion annually in duties and trade related fees, the drafters realized that it's important that the U.S. customs agencies be able to perform their revenue functions efficiently. Retention of Finance Committee jurisdiction over these functions will greatly facilitate this objective. Senator Baucus and I introduced an amendment during debate on S. Res. 445 that clarified the language concerning customs revenue functions contained in the managers' resolution. Specifically, our amendment stated that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will not have jurisdiction over the following functions performed by any employee of the Department of Homeland Security: any customs revenue function including any function provided for in section 415 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002; any commercial function or commercial operation of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection or the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including matters related to trade facilitation and trade regulation; or any other function related to those that I just mentioned that was exercised by the U.S. Customs Service on the day before the effective date of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. In a colloquy between Senator Baucus and me on October 7, we more fully spelled out what is covered by our amendment and the reasons why our amendment was necessary. The Grassley-Baucus amendment was needed to elucidate non-security functions of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that necessarily should remain within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Our amendment passed by voice vote on October 7. A transfer of customs revenue and commercial functions to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs would detract from that committee's main focus. Moreover, the removal of customs revenue and commercial functions from the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee [[Page S10924]] would be disruptive to our efforts to advance a comprehensive international trade agenda for the United States. In adopting our amendment, the Senate wisely avoided both of these outcomes. agenda for the United States. In adopting our amendment, the Senate wisely avoided both of these outcomes. With passage of our amendment, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs will be better able to focus on its core objective, the protection of the United States from terrorist attacks. The staff of the new committee should be expected to be experts in the field of national security. They will work day-in and day-out to keep terrorists away from our shores and to protect Americans from attack. With their focus on national security concerns, it would be unrealistic to expect them to learn the technical details of our country's customs laws relating to revenue and commercial functions. The addition of customs revenue and commercial functions to their committee's agenda would only distract them from their central focus, national security. If that were to occur, Senate oversight of both the national security and international trade agendas of the United States would suffer. Our amendment also recognizes that removal of customs revenue and commercial functions from the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee would be disruptive to U.S. businesses, and thus harmful to U.S. economic interests. The Finance Committee has a long history--of some 188 years--of exercising jurisdiction over tariffs and trade. This long history, and the technical expertise it has helped engender within the committee, provides the Finance Committee with an exceptional ability to provide sound oversight in the Congress over our government's customs revenue and commercial functions. Not surprisingly, the U.S. business community has developed strong confidence in the workings of this committee. Moreover, these same businessmen and women have doubts as to whether the committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs--with its focus on national security--would pay sufficient attention to trade compliance and revenue functions. The U.S. business community acted, and quickly, this week upon hearing rumors of possible legislation to strip jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions from the Finance Committee. Let me read to you excerpts from letters sent to me this week on this issue. The National Retail Federation wrote that ``NRF's members are deeply concerned that moving jurisdiction for duty collection process issues from the Finance Committee would serve to reduce U.S. interest in preserving trade revenues, and require members of those committees to spend a great deal of time on revenue issues that are not central to the Government Affairs Committee's main jurisdictional interests. Of equal importance, the Senators who have served on Finance have developed expertise in these complex revenue issues that many members of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee do not possess and would have to develop.'' In another letter, the National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Association of America stated that ``protecting our borders is vital. As we take measures to enhance security at our borders, however, we must also carefully weigh the consequences to the flow of international trade. . . . The Senate Finance Committee possesses the knowledge and expertise necessary to provide effective oversight over Customs' business facilitation issues. For over 200 years, the Finance Committee has been involved in the details of customs processing and their role is significant in assuring that the Senate gives due consideration to the practical consequences of security measures.'' The Business Coalition for Customs Modernization, which is composed of 24 major companies operating in the United States, voiced similar concerns. It wrote that ``granting jurisdiction over the business facilitation functions of the Customs Service to the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs--a committee concerned primarily with security--will lead inevitably to commercial considerations being discounted heavily in the name of security, without thought about the effects on America's consumers. That will hurt the U.S. economy and undermine our strength and standard of living in the long run.'' As pointed out in these letters, as we move forward in enhancing our border security efforts, it is important to keep in mind that a large part of homeland security is economic security. And international trade is a critical component of our economic security. Exports alone accounted for 25 percent of U.S. economic growth from 1990-2000. Exports alone support an estimated 12 million jobs. Trade also promotes more competitive businesses--as well as more choices of goods and inputs at lower prices for U.S. consumers. If we impede trade, we impede our own economic growth and our own future well-being. A concrete example can be found by looking at one sector of the economy immediately following the events of September 11. Just 36 hours after the attacks, Daimler-Chrysler announced that it would close one of its assembly plants because it could not get the parts it needed to continue operations from Canada. Similar circumstances caused Ford to lay idle five of its assembly plants--each producing an average of one million dollars worth of cars per hour--for a week. Events like this make it clear that the United States must be at the forefront in developing the border technologies and enforcement, methodologies which will enable our economy to prosper and grow in the post September 11 world. We cannot afford to do any less. The Finance Committee has the experience and expertise to appropriately meet this challenge. And I'm pleased that the resolution we passed today acknowledges the unique role of the Committee. Finally, it only makes practical sense for the Finance Committee to retain jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions. Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that the Finance Committee is the committee to which shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and all other matters relating to reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs. It also provides that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over customs. The reason that the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements, tariffs, and customs is precisely because all of these trade issues are all interrelated. Trade agreements set tariff levels, and customs personnel administer the U.S. laws relating to these tariffs. Therefore, as long as the Finance Committee has jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs, this committee almost by necessity must have jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions. For these reasons, I'm very pleased that the Senate voted this week for the Finance Committee to retain jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions. In doing so, the Senate permitted the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to focus on its core objective of national security, and prevented a disruption to U.S. businesses that could result if such jurisdiction were removed from the Finance Committee. In addition, given the Finance Committee's jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements and tariffs, it only makes sense for this committee also to maintain its jurisdiction over customs revenue and commercial functions of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even though these agencies are now housed in the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, what is remaining on this legislation? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is a cloture motion on the resolution, as amended. Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that that be vitiated. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is now my understanding the resolution is left? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, S. Res. 445, as amended. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? [[Page S10925]] There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. McConnell. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), would vote ``yea''. Mr. Reid. I announce that the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Breaux), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``yea''. The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 6, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 208 Leg.] YEAS--79 Akaka Alexander Allard Allen Baucus Bennett Biden Bingaman Bond Brownback Bunning Burns Byrd Cantwell Carper Chafee Clinton Cochran Conrad Corzine Crapo Daschle Dayton DeWine Dodd Dole Domenici Dorgan Durbin Ensign Feingold Feinstein Fitzgerald Frist Graham (FL) Grassley Gregg Hagel Harkin Hatch Hutchison Inhofe Inouye Jeffords Johnson Kennedy Kohl Kyl Landrieu Lautenberg Leahy Levin Lincoln Lott Lugar McConnell Mikulski Murkowski Murray Nelson (FL) Nelson (NE) Nickles Pryor Reed Reid Roberts Rockefeller Santorum Schumer Sessions Shelby Smith Snowe Stabenow Stevens Talent Thomas Warner Wyden NAYS--6 Coleman Collins Enzi Lieberman McCain Voinovich NOT VOTING--15 Bayh Boxer Breaux Campbell Chambliss Cornyn Craig Edwards Graham (SC) Hollings Kerry Miller Sarbanes Specter Sununu The resolution (S. Res. 445), as amended, was agreed to, as follows: (The resolution will be printed in a future edition of the Record.) (At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, because of previous long-standing commitments in the State of California and an unexpected family illness, I was not able to be present to vote on the Senate Intelligence Reform Resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Earlier this week, the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in terms of reforming the intelligence structure of the executive branch and strengthening our efforts at homeland security. That was an important bill, and I hope we can quickly resolve differences with the House so that it can be sent to the President for his signature. Equally important, however, is to implement intelligence reforms here in the Senate, as was also recommended by the 9/11 Commission. This resolution strengthens the Senate Intelligence Committee, and it creates a new Intelligence Appropriations Subcommittee. In addition, the Government Affairs Committee will become the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and the Committee will have greater jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security. All three of these steps will streamline operations in the Senate and make it easier for the Senate to conduct meaningful oversight of intelligence and homeland security. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The distinguished minority leader. Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from West Virginia have 5 minutes prior to the next vote. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from West Virginia. ____________________