Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I would like to assure the Senator from Hawaii that I will work with Senator Kohl to ensure that this program will be considered in conference.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, there is no question but that an education program to try to get our young people to eat better makes sense. There is no question that we should do what we can to deal with the challenge of obesity. Now let us look at a few realities with which we are faced. The President requested $10.25 million for the program. The amendment offered by Senator Bingaman and Senator Lugar would virtually double that amount. There is no other program we are dealing with where the request is to double the funds. We have people who are requesting incremental increases of 5 percent and 10 percent, but quite frankly we have resisted. The total number of earmarks and requests that have come in since the committee acted is over $50 million. We have stood firm against all of them and said we are sorry, the money isn't there. We feel we have to stand firm against it. So this $10 million would double the program as it currently exists and would be 20 percent of the total amount we on the subcommittee have said we cannot fund. The offset is very interesting. It is the common computer environment. It always seems easy to say, well, we can get by, by delaying activity with the computers. Let's cut the computers because education is more important. During the debate we have had today, we have heard complaints from people about interoperability, about inability to communicate in the time of emergency. Katrina has exposed problems with computers. If we were to cut the computer program as drastically as this would cut it, we run the risk of closing county offices. We run the risk of stopping the modernization of services right at a time when complaints are coming in about how antiquated those services are. But interestingly, as the $50 million requests have come in, almost all of them, when we told them you have to have an offset, say let's cut the computers. If indeed we responded to every one of the requests for additional spending, we would have cut the computers $50 million. I don't want to cut the computers at all. I accept the arguments that say we have challenges with communication in the Department; we need to have as modern a communication system as we possibly can. The common computer environment that is trying to create that interoperability should be encouraged and maintained. For that reason, as fond as I am of the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Indiana, I have to oppose this amendment. I will ask my colleagues, when the time comes for the rollcall vote, to oppose it. There will be another bill next year. We will see where we are next year with overall spending. We will see where we are with respect to emergencies and how the Department of Agriculture is dealing with those emergencies. I am convinced when we come to that, as we sift through all the damage that is done by Katrina and perhaps by Rita and other challenges, we would like to have as powerful and as modern a computer system to deal with communications as we possibly can. For those reasons, the doubling of a program at a time of budget constraints that we find ourselves in, and taking the offset from a program where we feel we need to be as modern as we possibly can, gives me two reasons to say that I would be opposed to this amendment. I still have an additional 5 minutes and I frankly have said all I need to say. I yield back the remainder of my time. If the Senator from New Mexico wishes to claim it, I am happy to have him use it; otherwise, we can go into a quorum call until such time as the vote starts at 7 o'clock, unless there are other Senators who wish to speak.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we have had previous conversations about the effectiveness of the Agriculture Department. We are talking about our own backgrounds. I have a little bit of background in advertising. I would be anxious before we spend this money to do a little analysis of how effective the advertising has been. You talk about instruction in schools. We all know that there are instructions that work and there are instructions that don't. My own experience is that the Government is not very good at advertising healthy lifestyle changes. We could have been spending--I have no idea. We have not researched this at all. I have no idea where the evidence might be. We could have been spending the 21 cents per pupil and wasting every bit of it in terms of results. I have something of a background in advertising and I know how much advertising budgets get wasted simply because the advertising campaign is not effectively carried out. I recommend to my colleagues we defeat this amendment and if, indeed, the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from New Mexico can examine this from their background and demonstrate we are getting a 17-to-1 return from this particular program, that we are getting a 17-to-1 return from the kind of instruction going on in classrooms, then I would be happy to endorse this at some future time. In terms of what has been the result of the $10 million we have been spending, how certain will we be that doubling that is going to, in fact, increase health among our children? It may well be that a GAO study would say the $10 million has been spent on training materials that have been ineffective and produced no result whatever. In effect, we are being asked to buy something of a pig in a poke without understanding exactly how it works. I hope we would stay with the committee allocation here. The issue is a very legitimate issue. I, for one, will be more than willing in the hearings to ask the Department to give us a demonstration of how effective this has been. If it can be demonstrated that it has, in fact, reduced obesity and has had some impact on diabetes, at that point I would be all for doubling it or tripling it because of the 17-to-1 figure the Senator from Oklahoma cites. But lacking that information, in this particular situation I would be loathe to proceed.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order on the Coburn amendment No. 1773.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for a vote on this by voice.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I renew my request.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time between now and 7 o'clock be evenly divided between myself and Senator Bingaman from New Mexico, with the vote on the Coburn amendment No. 1775 to occur at 7 o'clock to be followed by a vote on the Bingaman amendment, with the yeas and nays ordered in both instances with no other amendments being allowed to either amendment prior to the time.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BENNETT. Very good. We will have that discussion. As I say, my desire is to give Senators notice if they are at a location sufficiently far from the Capitol that they need a heads up. That is the only concern that I have. I will be here. I will be prepared to vote virtually at any time.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, as I examine this question, it is a question that involves the traditions and procedures of the full committee. At the risk of being accused of dodging, I would prefer to have Senator Cochran as chairman of the full committee examine and respond. We have reached out to get hold of Senator Cochran to see if he is willing to do that. But this would be a departure from previous procedures. As I understand, the Senator from Oklahoma would like there to be a permanent departure that occurs on virtually every appropriations bill from here on out. For that reason, I am a little reluctant to set a precedent on the bill over which I have responsibility which might then be cited as a precedent for all the other bills that would follow. For that reason, I hope we can have Senator Cochran appear and have his position before we come to the question of whether or not we vote on it.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am unaware of the existence of the cushion. I would be happy to work with the Senator to try to find out exactly whether there is one and how much it is. But the information that I received both from the staff and, admittedly, from the Department, is there is no cushion and passage of this amendment would, in fact, cause people who are currently in housing to lose their housing. I am not in a position to challenge the Senator's sources. I simply state that my sources have given me an additional answer. I have not looked over the books. I have not personally gone into the accounting of this situation, and therefore I am not in a position to do any more than state, as I have stated, that my information is different than his. Clearly, this is a subject that needs to be pursued. I congratulate him on raising it. The question for the Senate now is how we proceed on this amendment, whether the Senator will ask for a rollcall vote and, if he does, when we schedule it.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock has come and gone. That was the hour by which all amendments to the bill had to be submitted. We had 120. We have disposed affirmatively of 31 of those, and we are not at all sure the other roughly 90 are all going to be offered. The majority leader has made it clear he wants to finish this bill tonight, and so I say to those who have amendments still on the list, if they do not show up to offer their amendments, we will move to third reading at an appropriate time. We want to accommodate the majority leader's desire. I think it is the desire of most of the Members of the Senate to move forward. So I say to the other Members who do have amendments, you are on notice that if you do not let us know you are going to be here and try to reserve some time to call up your amendment, we will indeed move to third reading. There are hotlines that have been going out to Senators who have amendments filed to give them that message. We will go forward in that fashion. Amendments Nos. 1754 and 1755 Mr. President, I do have two additional amendments to those that have already been cleared, which I send to the desk and ask for their immediate consideration. Both are on behalf of Senator Salazar of Colorado.

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 21, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry be authorized to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday September 21, 2005 at 9 a.m. in 328A, Senate Russell Office Building. The purpose of this committee hearing will be to review the status of the World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing'' on Wednesday, September 21, 2005 at 9:30 a.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Curt Weldon, United States Representative, R- PA, 7th District; the Honorable Slade Gorton, former United States Senator, [R-WA], Preston, Gates & Ellis, Seattle, WA. Panel II: Mark Zaid, Esq., Attorney at Law, Washington, DC; Erik Kleinsmith, former Army Major and Chief of Intelligence of the Land Information Warfare Analysis LIWA, Project Manager for Intelligence Analytical Training, Lockheed Martin, Newington, VA. Panel III: Gary Bald, Executive Assistant Director, Counter Terrorism/Counter Intelligence, Federal Bureau of Investigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC; William Dugan, Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Oversight, United States Department of Defense, Washington, DC.

Mr. BENNETT

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

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, we are on the Agriculture bill, but the morning has been taken up with discussion of Judge Roberts. I think that is appropriate given the decision of the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, to support Judge Roberts and to announce that here this morning. That was perhaps unexpected by some of the commentators and, therefore, deserved a little time. I will take the opportunity, having listened to the junior Senator from Massachusetts, to respond to some of the things he said, not with the understanding that it is going to change anything anywhere but for the satisfaction of getting a few things off my chest. The Senator complained bitterly, as he and others have done with respect to other nominees, that the memos given to the Solicitor General are not being made public. He did not tell us that every Solicitor General--regardless of party, regardless of administration-- who is currently living has agreed with Judge Roberts, with Miguel Estrada, with others who worked in the Office of the Solicitor General, that those memos should, in fact, not be made public. They are, in fact, covered by the attorney-client privilege. Some say, ``Well, the American people are the client, not the Solicitor General.'' The Solicitor General is the attorney for the American people and has a right to attorney-client privilege within his own staff, as any attorney has for material within that attorney's own office, as if they are representing a private client. This keeps coming up. It keeps being repeated in the hope that it catches on. We need to always remember that every single Solicitor General who is living--regardless of their party--says that is the bad thing to do. That is the wrong interpretation of the law. The Senator from Massachusetts did not point that out. I think it needs to be pointed out. He made a reference to the bureaucrats who were involved here who, as he said, have not taken an oath to defend the Constitution as we Senators have. I have been a bureaucrat. I have taken an oath as a bureaucrat to defend the Constitution. Those who serve the United States in these positions are sworn in with the same oath Senators take. It should be made clear those people who took that position and were in that position were, in fact, under oath to defend the Constitution. It demeans them to suggest their actions were any less patriotic or anxious to protect the law than actions of Senators. I will conclude by quoting from an editorial that appeared in the Los Angeles Times. The Los Angeles Times is not known as a paper supportive of Republican positions. Indeed, it is often thought of as being a companion publication with the New York Times. But the Los Angeles Times says: It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States. As last week's confirmation hearings made clear, Roberts is an exceptionally qualified nominee, well within the mainstream of American legal thought, who deserves broad bipartisan support. If a majority of Democrats in the Senate vote against Roberts, they will reveal themselves as nothing more than self-defeating obstructionists. . . . Even if one treats this vote merely as a tactical game, voting against an impressive, relatively moderate nominee hardly strengthens the Democrats' leverage [on the upcoming second nomination]. If Roberts fails to win their support, Bush may justifiably conclude that he needn't even bother trying to find a justice palatable to the center. And if Bush next nominates someone who is genuinely unacceptable to most Americans, it will be harder for Democrats to point that out if they cry wolf over Roberts. I am not sure that will change anything, but it makes me feel a little better having said it, after listening to the presentations we have heard over the last hour. I congratulate my friend, Senator Leahy from Vermont, for his courage in standing up to internal pressures and his announcement that he will, following the advice of the Los Angeles Times and others who have examined this, in fact vote to confirm Judge Roberts. This guarantees that we will have a bipartisan vote out of committee, as we should, and that we will have strong bipartisan support here on the floor, as we should. Amendment No. 1783 Returning to the Agriculture appropriations bill, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BENNETT. 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. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 242, which was received from the House.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.