Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

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 amendment offered by the Senator from Minnesota does involve some cost. We are, at the moment, unable to have a score from CBO. We are working on getting a scoring from CBO, so I ask we not vote on this amendment at the present time, until we get that. I will say to the Senator and to Senators, generally, since the passage of the bill by the committee, we have had a number of requests, such as the one from the Senator from Minnesota, many of which appear to be meritorious but when added together, we get a sum of money that we simply cannot sustain under our allocation. So we have taken the position that we will not entertain these additional requests for money. There are a number of Senators who have been disappointed as a result of that position, including, if I may say, the Senator from Utah. I felt that I had to deal with everybody equally, and those requests that have come in from my own State since the passage of the bill by the committee, with some difficulty, I have had to say to people, I cannot treat Utah differently than others. This is a meritorious issue the Senator has raised, and I am not saying we will automatically oppose it because it does add to the list that I described. Because we want to know exactly what the number would be and get the information from CBO, I ask that we set this one aside for the time being, and when we have that information, then I will be in a better position to respond to the Senator's amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, we are making progress. I see the Senator from Minnesota on the floor and hope that he can proceed with his amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I call for a vote on the two amendments.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comment and assure him this is no burden, and we will do the best we can.

Mr. BENNETT. I would be pleased to yield to the senior Senator from Hawaii.

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, no one has come forward, so we are prepared to close down with the two amendments still unresolved, Dayton and Jeffords, and then move to final passage after those two are resolved for a voice vote or yeas and nays, I assume which will be determined tomorrow. At the moment, the yeas and nays have not been ordered. I want to respect the rights of both of those Senators. While we get together whatever final activity needs to go forward, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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, the Senator from Oklahoma is correct in the comments that he makes about the GAO and their study of this program. We have looked into it for the same reasons that the Senator from Oklahoma has and find that there have been mistakes made and there have been overestimates made. However, we have also discovered that the Department has recognized this and has made changes in the program, and the Department has reacted to the criticism that has come from the GAO. The estimates that we have before us in this bill we believe are sound and the concern we have is that there is, in fact, no extra money sitting around. If we were to accept the amendment the Senator has offered, there would, in fact, be people who are currently in low- income housing who would lose that housing. They would lose that housing immediately upon passage of this bill. It is further, of course, exacerbated by the situation created by Katrina, in that people have lost their housing by virtue of the hurricane, and to see others who have not been affected by the hurricane turned out because of the cutback in this program is something I do not think anybody would want to see. The President requested $650 million, as the Senator said. We are at $653 million, based on the information that we have from the Department, which we now believe is far more accurate than the information of previous years. The GAO criticism is correct about misestimates. Also, we point out these are 4-year contracts, so that something that appears to be money sitting there is, in fact, not necessarily money sitting there. It is money that has been committed over the 4-year contract. This is not just a single year's appropriation. For these reasons I would have to oppose the amendment of the Senator because I believe in the present circumstances we do not want to have the consequence of having people who are currently in housing, currently receiving aid under this program, lose that aid and have to leave their housing. If it were entirely prospective, I would be more sympathetic to the amendment of the Senator, but all of the information I have is that it would, in fact, cause people who are currently receiving this to lose their housing. I know the Senator from Oklahoma has some other amendments. I would like to give as much notice as possible to Senators around the city as to when we would take a vote. The Senator from Oklahoma says he would like to have this the subject of a rollcall vote. Of course, we will accommodate him. But if we could find out what other amendments the Senator has, and see if we could have a discussion and then set a time for those votes to be stacked--if indeed he wishes to have additional rollcall votes? I ask if the Senator could respond to that.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that between the two votes there be a period of 2 minutes for explanation equally divided between the Senator from New Mexico and myself.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to a vote on the Harkin amendment by voice vote.

Mr. BENNETT

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

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. Madam President, we need a little background on this amendment. It may be controversial. I understand there are some Senators who have opposed it and will be coming to the floor. It would allow the producers on the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board to vote to fund or not fund the dairy air emission research required under the Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Compliance Agreement. This sounds fairly technical. In fact, the money that is available to the board has always been used for particular purposes, and most dairy producers want to make sure that it stays restricted to those purposes. But something has come up that requires research. It has come not from the Department of Agriculture but from the Environmental Protection Agency in a new agreement that affects dairy farmers. And in order to defend themselves against the position taken by the EPA, they need research. They need it now, and they need it badly. This amendment would allow a one-time use of dairy promotion and research funds to fund the research. Most dairy farmers are in favor of it. Dairy is the only program that does not have an option for funding its own research. The research will be conducted by Purdue University, according to protocols approved by the EPA. This is not in opposition to EPA procedures. The actual research will be performed by land grant universities in the States identified by the U.S. Dairy Environmental Task Force. If we assume approval by the board, which would happen if my amendment were adopted, the funds will flow through an oversight organization, again approved by the EPA. The Agriculture Air Research Council, Inc., AARC, will contract with Purdue which will, in turn, contract with the universities in the States where the sites are selected. Dairy funds only will be used to fund the dairy research. AARC's board will include two members from the dairy industry and will monitor and audit the progress of the research and how the funds are spent. The ultimate goal of all of this research will be to develop air emissions data that can be used in a process model that will allow any dairy farmer in the United States to input his dairy's operation information and find out what his emissions are. The information generated by this research, therefore, will benefit all dairy producers. The reason is because the EPA has laid down rules with respect to emissions from dairy farmers. Most farmers have no clue as to how many emissions their farm is producing. The EPA has some fairly draconian restrictions to put on dairy farms, if the emissions go above a certain level. So how is a farmer to know whether he is in compliance, if there is no research on how the emissions can be measured? That is the reason we want the research done, and that is the reason farmers will benefit. I believe Congress never intended the environmental statutes regarding emissions to apply to agriculture. When we talk about emissions, we are talking about smokestacks and automobiles and things that have been created by human beings. Now the EPA has said, no, we must monitor and, where necessary, control the emissions that come from cows. Cows have been generating emissions for a long time, perhaps even before human beings came along. So let's look at it, but let's not have a rule that arbitrarily disadvantages the dairy farmers without giving them an opportunity to know what is going on. That is what is behind this. In order to deal with the EPA regulations, the farmers need to know what is happening with respect to emissions. My amendment would fund a one-time study to give them the information they need. I believe without statutory changes, the courts will continue to rule that the environmental laws do, in fact, apply to dairy farms, and that is an issue for the authorizing committee. It is not something we should deal with on the Agriculture bill. Barring changes to the laws, I believe the collection of these data and the development of an emissions model will provide more certainty to producers. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Those who are opposed have been notified. I understand there are conflicts on both sides of the aisle at this particular moment. I am not sure how many Senators will be able to come down. We are open for business. We are ready for amendments. We are anxious to proceed. I hope my colleagues will accommodate us. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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. President, I ask that the amendment be agreed to with a voice vote.

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

Mr. BENNETT. I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. BENNETT

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. There is a briefing going on in the Capitol with Members of the Senate invited to attend. Accordingly, with the approval of leadership, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 5 o'clock.