Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to speak briefly to highlight again the Homeland Security bill, which this body passed and the House passed and the President signed this week. I think it is important when we do something that is substantive and addresses what I see--and I think most people see--as a very significant issue for our Nation, which is controlling our borders, we should talk about it a little bit so the people understand what we did because in the activities that so dominate the daily news--whether it is a hurricane or the issues in relation to a Supreme Court nominee--things that are moving in the right direction tend to get lost. But what is moving in the right direction right now is our attempts as a nation, with the President's leadership and this Congress's aggressiveness, in the area of trying to control our borders. The Homeland Security appropriations bill--and I have the good fortune to chair the Homeland Security Subcommittee and the ranking member is Senator Byrd--I do not think of him as the ranking member; quite honestly, I think of him as the senior member--is a bill that is structured around the theory that we should address threat. It was a unique approach to an appropriations bill because it is a unique issue. Most appropriations bills take on a variety of different questions and the management of the Government and how the Government is functioning. But we decided to do the bill based on a theme, to be quite honest. The theme we tried to address was: What is the threat? And how can we best address it? We concluded that the prime threats are, No. 1, the use of a weapon of mass destruction against our Nation. I intend to talk about that issue later on as we move into the new BioShield bill, which has been put together by Senator Burr from North Carolina. He has done such an extraordinary job. This bill did make major initiatives in the area of trying to fight the use of a weapon of mass destruction and getting prepared to deal with that type of a threat. The second major threat we determined was the porousness of our borders. The simple fact is too many people are coming into this country today whom we don't know, and they are coming in illegally. Not only that, but we don't know, when people come across the border legally, who they are and what their purposes are and whether they may be wanting to cause us harm. We have two major problems. We have the problem relative to people. In addition, we have the problem relative to cargo. The fact is, our ports of entry are basically open to allowing in cargo that may be a threat to us, cargo which might have in it a weapon which might be used against us. So this bill reallocated resources, and we made some very difficult decisions. We took significant resources from other accounts, where it could arguably be claimed they were needed, but we decided, in the elements of priority, it was more important to move the funds into the border issues and move those dollars to the border. We expanded--working in the context of a continuum because we had done a supplemental earlier which attempted to address the same issues as part of a package--working as a theme, the issue of protecting our borders and making them more secure. We did this by significantly expanding the number of feet on the ground because when you come right down to it, it is how many people you have on the borders looking for people who are trying to come across the borders illegally which determines whether you are going to be successful in stopping those people. So we expanded by 15 percent, approximately, the number of Border Patrol agents. Now, this is only a step in the right direction, but it is a fairly significant step. Some would say: Why didn't you put even more Border Patrol agents into the system? Well, quite honestly, the system cannot handle it. We do not have the training capacity to train more than about 1,500 Border Patrol agents every year. Unfortunately, it is very hard to find people to do this job who meet the qualifications we have because the qualifications are very high and the people who do this job of serving in our Border Patrol agency are individuals who are highly sought after by other agencies and they are people who have other opportunities. To attract them into the Border Patrol agency is a challenge. Finding people is a challenge. But we have put in the pipeline now the dollars necessary to add 1,500 new agents. In addition, we are expanding the training facilities so that as we move into the later years, we will be able to train more than 1,500 agents a year. My goal--and I believe the goal of other members of the committee, some of whom are in the Chamber today--is to be training approximately 2,000 new agents every year, until we get to 10,000 new agents from the baseline of about 10,000. So we will have essentially a force we have doubled. But as you double the force of agents, you also have to double the infrastructure that supports them, or dramatically increase it, anyway. So this bill also addresses that. It builds new facilities. And especially it addresses the issue of detention, which is a critical issue for us because we simply know today that as we catch people who come into our country who are not Mexican and whose purposes we don't know but who we know are here illegally, we are not able to detain them. We are not able to send them back to their country of origin because we do not have the capacity to do so. This bill, again, tries to address that issue and does so in a fairly aggressive way, adding, when coupled with the supplemental, approximately 2,000 new beds to detention capability, getting us over 20,000 beds in detention capability. Our goal--and we are on this path now--is to be sure that we can detain everybody who comes into this country illegally and we catch who is not Mexican and be able to send those people back to where they came from because those people may be a significant threat to us as a nation. We are making progress. The Congress and the President have made a commitment to significantly increase our capacity to protect our borders. We recognize that there is a porousness among our borders, and we have stepped up, in an attempt to try to address that, by dramatically expanding the resources we are putting on the borders and dramatically expanding the support facilities for those border agents who are there. There are other issues that we still need to address: Specifically, our computer capability as to how we track legal people who come into the country and our capacity to have the various computer systems which are able to track people--the FBI system at IAFIS and the US-VISIT system set up by Customs and Immigration--be able to communicate in a way which makes it possible for us to identify somebody coming into this country who might have a criminal record or for purposes which we believe could harm our Nation or individuals in our Nation. There is a long way to go in that area. We intend to continue to focus a great deal of energy and resources on that also. I intend to hold hearings specifically on that point because I am very concerned about it. This bill, which passed the Senate and passed the House and was signed by the President this week, called the Homeland Security appropriations bill, was a significant step in the right direction toward making our borders more secure. It is a step which should be acknowledged and, therefore, I wanted to come to the floor to note it again. I thank the Chair and the Senator from Michigan for her courtesy.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, as we speak in the Senate, sometimes we are caught up in hyperbole. I am certainly afraid that has been the case on the other side as they try to describe flextime. To say this is a return to the 19th century is a unique view of something which all Federal employees have the right to do today, which is to exercise flextime. Why is flextime allowed for Federal employees? Because there are a lot of people who work in the Federal Government who would like to have the opportunity, if somebody in their family, for example, is getting married, to be able to restructure their workweek so that one week they will work more hours, and the next week, maybe the week their daughter or son is getting married, they work fewer hours so they can participate in the excitement of planning for that wedding. There are a lot of people in the Federal Government who, when one of their family members, unfortunately, gets very sick and has to go in for an operation, want to be able to be with that loved one during that time of tremendous trauma. They want to be able to get to that hospital and not worry about not doing their job correctly at the same time. So they seek the opportunity of flextime, too. Then there are other people who work for the Federal Government who have children who do exciting things. Maybe they are in plays. Maybe they are in bands. Maybe they are good athletes and in sports. Maybe they are not good athletes but sit on the bench, but they like to go to those games, they like to go to those plays, they like to go to those band recitals. Maybe they are a fair distance away, so they want to drive them, they want to take that extra Friday afternoon and take them out to that event because it is a big part of their life, a big part of their family, and they take advantage of flextime to do that so they do not undermine their ability to do their job. Is that the 19th century way we deal with employees? What an outrage to make a statement like that. Maybe the Senator from New York has some unique view of the 19th century that says that when you give a family more time off to deal with family issues, that is counterproductive to having a strong family. Maybe we are not raising a village when we do that, but I sure think we are encouraging the strength of the family when we do that for our Federal employees. What are we suggesting here? We are suggesting the employer and employee in the private sector have the right to reach the same agreement that the Federal employee has with the Federal Government; that over a 2-week period, an employer and an employee, only with the consent of the employee, only under a voluntary condition, without any mandate, and with significant safeguards so there cannot be any coercion, that employee and that employer, if they decide it is to the benefit of both of them to allow the employee to shift their workweek from a 40-hour week one week and a 40-hour workweek the next week to a 50- or 45-hour week one week and a 30- or 35-hour week the next week or something in between, they will have the right to do that. It does not undermine the 40-hour workweek. It encourages more productivity, and it gives people more opportunity to be home, in most instances, to participate in important events, some of them unasked for, some undesired such as health issues, and some very exciting such as weddings or children doing special things in school. Or it may simply be a young couple who wants to get away a little early some week in order to enjoy the fact they are newly married. Or it could be any other multiple of personal events that might occur that causes somebody to say: I would like to work longer one week and less the next week so I can take advantage of that. How can the other side of the aisle, in good conscience, and with a straight face, come to this floor and say that is some sort of coercive event, that is some sort of event that undermines the right of individuals and the labor force of America, especially when that right is given to all Federal employees and many State employees? The exaggeration is extraordinary. The hyperbole is excessive. The policy they are suggesting is 19th century. They are saying: You are going to work 40 hours this week, and you have to work 40 hours next week, and no matter how much you might not want to work under that structure, you cannot change because we know better than you know. I, the Senator from New York, know better what the employees' workweek in New Hampshire should be like. Or the Senator from New York knows better about the workweek than the people of New York. Well, I happen to think that allowing people to develop some opportunities to structure their workweek so they can better care for their family, better assist their family's lifestyle, have a better quality of life--doing it all in the context of protecting the rights of the worker so they are not asked to work any more hours, doing it all in the context of a voluntary program, doing it all in the context of allowing the employee to make the decision, not the employer--I happen to think that is a pretty appropriate way to deal with somebody's work in relation to their lifestyle. I think that is a 21st century approach. I think the other side's proposal is a 19th century approach. Or maybe that is too much hyperbole. Let me just say the other side's approach is misguided. I think our approach gives people the type of flexibility--that is why it is called flextime--in which most people would like to have the opportunity to participate. This is a good proposal. It is especially good because it comes in the context of being the essence of the debate now. The Senator from Massachusetts has adjusted his amendment so the amount of increase in the minimum wage is essentially the same as the amount of the increase in Senator Enzi's bill. The issue of dollars relative to the wage increase is no longer a factor. That is no longer a factor. The only thing we are really debating about right now is giving small businesses some relief and allowing people flexibility in their workweek, which we give to all Federal employees, but for some reason the other side resists giving to people who do not work for the Federal Government and who are subject to the 40-hour work rules. So I must say, with respect to the other side, I find it disingenuous for them to argue that it becomes a 19th century approach to say we would like people who are in the private sector to have the same rights as people in the Federal sector. People in the private sector should have the same rights as people in the State sectors. People in the private sector should have the right of their own volition, of their own initiative, protected by significant laws which avoid coercion, to choose to work longer one week and less the next week so they can do things such as participate in their family's lifestyle, whether it is a soccer game, a wedding, or whether it would be, unfortunately, some medical event, or anything else that is appropriate. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Wyoming is an excellent amendment, and in the context of the debate, it is especially excellent because, essentially, we are not fighting over increasing the minimum wage any longer in the two amendments. All we are fighting over is whether we are going to give small business a little more protection, a little more right to be productive and therefore create more jobs, whether we are going to give individuals the opportunity to have more flexibility and a better lifestyle. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back the remainder of my time, to the extent I have any, to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in the Senate this year, we have considered this homeland security bill during two very different times of crisis. When the bill was on the floor of the Senate in July, the reprehensible train bombings in London had just occurred and there was a desire to increase funding for rail security. Now, we consider this conference report during the immediate aftershock of two damaging hurricanes in the gulf coast, which demolished entire cities and towns. And there has been a call and an urgency to provide Federal financial help. We have met that call through significant--very significant--supplemental emergency funds. While these funds need to be monitored to make sure they are spent wisely and prudently, it is appropriate to help get the people in these areas back on their feet. And it is important to remember that this is an emergency, and emergency needs are being addressed through tens of billions of dollars that have been approved. The conference report we are considering today addresses the Department of Homeland Security as a whole. It is an amalgamation of 22 Federal agencies and it encompasses the broad spectrum of homeland security needs. But first and foremost, the Department must be focused on the national security of our country. The conference report before us builds on that. It is threat-based and provides total appropriations of $31.9 billion for the Department of Homeland Security, directly focusing on two of the most vulnerable areas of our homeland security: weapons of mass destruction and border security. As a country, we pride ourselves on being an open and democratic society that affords tremendous freedoms to its citizens. Unfortunately, there are terrorists who wish to prey on that trust and openness and to harm and kill massive numbers of innocent civilians to attack our way of life. There is absolutely no question that if a terrorist gets control of a weapon of mass destruction, be it biological, nuclear, or radiological, it will be used against us and against the fundamentals of Western civilization. This conference report provides over $2.4 billion for WMD and terrorism prevention and preparedness, including funds to assist State and local jurisdictions. Similarly, because we seek to participate in an open and vibrant world, our borders are incredibly porous and access into this country is easy. Regrettably, that openness is now a threat to us. We do not have a handle on who and what crosses into our country everyday. This conference report provides $9 billion, which funds 1,000 new border patrol agents, 250 new investigators, 460 new detention personnel, and the necessary infrastructure and training capacity to support a vast improvement in our border security. I want to particularly single out the coast guard for the outstanding job they have done in the gulf coast States. They exemplify a working agency--one that does its job without fanfare and complaint, and which produces tremendous results in the number of lives that were saved rescuing over 33,520 people--as many as they have over the past 8 years--stranded by Hurricane Katrina. Their superior work day in and day out is well recognized. This conference report provides a total of $7.86 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006. As clearly as we saw the top performance of the Coast Guard during Katrina, the problems in FEMA continue to be highlighted. And this Committee intends to conduct an in depth analysis of the Department and this agency. At this time, putting more money in this bill, on top of the $60 billion in emergency funds already provided and the funds that will soon be coming in the next supplemental, is not the solution. I continue to also be concerned about the vast amount of unspent funds in the Department, particularly the $6.2 billion in unspent funds for State and local grants. For that reason, this bill limits funding in those areas. As a part of the National Preparedness Goal, State and local jurisdictions are undertaking a review of their essential capabilities, to determine what has been accomplished with the funds provided so far. The results of this analysis will be used to inform future funding decisions. Interoperable communications remains a significant priority. One of the hurdles facing communities attempting to achieve this goal is that not all of the technical standards, known as Project 25, are finished. Some standards continue under development. Overall, this conference report represents a responsible and targeted approach to homeland security funding. Were we able to fully meet every need? No, given fiscal constraints, we focused our limited resources on eliminating the most serious and detrimental vulnerabilities of our homeland security. And we have made a significant accomplishment in beginning to address the major threats facing our national security as a whole. This conference report demonstrates our strong commitment to shoring up our national security, making the Department of Homeland Security a better agency with a more coordinated and cohesive approach, and ensuring we are focused on the emerging threats of today rather than on yesterday's problems.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2005 budget through September 30, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. The estimates show that current level spending is over the budget resolution by $3.145 billion in budget authority and over the budget resolution by $101 million in outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $447 million above the budget resolution in 2005. Since my last report for fiscal year 2005 dated September 29, 2005, the Congress has taken no action that has changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues. This is my final report for fiscal year 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying letter and material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, our Nation's history is not only one of growing prosperity, opportunity, and the steady progress of a free and industrious society, but it is also uniquely identified by the challenges that we have faced and overcome. Sometimes, these challenges have been natural disasters--earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes that have devastated entire towns and cities, uprooted communities, and tragically killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Disasters such as the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the Great Flood of 1927, and Hurricane Camille are the first ones that come to mind, although there are others that we could also add to this list of superdisasters. Unfortunately, it now appears that the list of these superdisasters has gotten longer. In a number of respects, the devastation inflicted by Hurricane Katrina has so far exceeded any natural disaster that our country has faced: the official death toll is around 1,000 and could go higher; approximately 90,000 square miles, nearly the size of the United Kingdom, has been impacted; a city of nearly half a million was almost entirely emptied; as many as 1 million jobs have been directly affected; and recovery and reconstruction costs could go to as high as $200 billion, if not more. Figures aside, the tragic and widespread devastation that this storm has wreaked is apparent to anyone who has watched news footage from the golf coast region. The images are heart wrenching, and our prayers go out to those who have suffered and have lost loved ones. Weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast region, Hurricane Rita brought further devastation to areas that were either already impacted or to areas further south and to the west. Although not as powerful as Katrina, Rita dealt a strong blow to many communities. Lives were lost, entire neighborhoods were completely destroyed, and many families were displaced. Again, we extend our prayers and wishes to those who were directly affected by this storm. While the combined impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is similar to other superdisasters, it also unprecedented in a few key aspects. In particular, the Federal Government is now expected to play, and is playing, a significant role in the response and recovery efforts. This is partly due to the significant growth in the Federal Government over the past 100 years. Back in 1900 when the Galveston Hurricane occurred, there were only eight executive departments in the entire government-- the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, HUD, the U.S. Coast Guard, the EPA, FEMA, and, of course, the Department of Homeland Security had yet to be established. Today, the federal government is much more expansive than when previous superdisasters took place, and it now delivers a wide array of services and benefits that Americans have come to expect. In response, President Bush and Congress have approved the spending of billions in Federal funds, unleashing an outpouring of federal aid, assets, and manpower. Over the past 2 weeks, Congress already has approved over $61 billion in supplemental appropriations, and it is contemplating the spending of additional federal funds. Almost every executive department and Federal agency is taking part, taxpayer funds are being doled out to contractors and State and local authorities, and the future of the gulf coast region and millions of its residents is being shaped daily by this massive effort. While mistakes have been made at all levels, we now have the opportunity to make sure that mistakes are not repeated and that we do not come out of this whole experience wondering where all the money went and whether we did the best we can to respond to this challenge. My Senate colleagues and I have been discussing various proposals for how the federal recovery effort should be managed. I believe that history can be of help--for instance, we can learn from the Great Flood of 1927, a natural disaster that killed hundreds in seven states and flooded around 27,000 square miles. In response, President Coolidge appointed Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover to coordinate relief across eight different agencies, the Red Cross, and other organizations. While the relief effort had its flaws, I believe that Coolidge's appointment of a lead director, who had substantial crisis management experience and public recognition, was a wise decision. By centralizing oversight authority over the entire effort under such a central person, Coolidge's appointment of Hoover helped minimize friction and discoordination across agencies, ensuring that the relief response was run efficiently. The appointment also enhanced accountability since everyone knew who was in charge. The recovery effort for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is going to be much more complicated and multifaceted than the relief response for the Great Flood of 1927. The breadth of the destruction and the wide array of Federal departments and agencies involved--combined with the efforts of State and local authorities, nonprofit organizations, and private contractors--make the potential for bureaucratic tensions, redundancy, confusion, and waste even greater. I therefore believe that a centralized management structure is as necessary now as it was back in 1927. So, before Congress continues pouring billions of taxpayer dollars and adding additional tasks on top of the recovery effort, Congress should first make sure that a centralized management structure is in place. In particular, we need a person with impeccable credentials endowed with robust planning, operational, and budgetary authorities to be on the ground in the gulf coast region. We need to make sure that accountability is clearly assigned, not diffused. We need to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, so to speak, and that federal funds are effectively being used to get the gulf coast region back on its feet. And we need this centralized structure as soon as possible. As such, I am proposing the Gulf Coast Recovery and Preparedness Act of 2005, along with Senator Kennedy, which establishes the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency, a new agency that will be headed by a director who will oversee the entire recovery effort. The Director will be the person responsible for budgeting, overseeing, and executing the entire recovery effort to the extent that Federal resources are used. The director will also regularly report to Congress on how this effort is being conducted and will have deputies and support staff to keep track of how funds are being spent and to investigate any fraud, waste or abuse. Lastly, I recognize that we do not want the legacy of Katrina and Rita to be another layer of bureaucracy, so the legislation would make sure that the agency and the director's position are only temporary, and that it terminates within 6 years. Within the agency, there will be essentially a planning board--named the Gulf Coast Revitalization Authority that will consist of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as representatives from affected communities. The board, which will be chaired by the director, will be tasked with creating a comprehensive plan for redeveloping the entire region impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The plan will ensure that objectives, priorities, and critical infrastructure decisions are developed in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner before federal resources and other funds are completely committed. The authority board will also make sure that there is substantial and meaningful public participation, which is critical for making potentially difficult rebuilding and revitalization decisions. The director, who must approve the plan after it is passed by the authority, will be responsible for executing it. Our Nation has been through a lot since Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, and I am continually amazed at the acts of heroism and charity that are taking place across the gulf coast region. And while the tasks ahead may be less dramatic and less attention-grabbing, I believe that it is how we address these challenges--in particular, the rebuilding of infrastructure, the provision of social services to evacuees scattered across the country, and the redevelopment of entire communities--that will truly test our Federal Government in ways that we have not seen in recent memory. In the end, I am confident that we can succeed and the gulf coast region will fully recover and thrive. Our Nation's history has shown how well Americans perform in the face of challenges. However, we must not simply expect this success nor expect that throwing around billions of dollars will necessarily achieve it. Instead, Congress must take action now to ensure that the recovery effort is managed efficiently and effectively. By setting into place such a management structure, I believe that we will be able to look back at these difficult times and be proud of how we handled the public's trust and the taxpayers' money. This is what the American people have elected us to do, and I know that it can be done if we make the right choices right now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, our Nation's history is not only one of growing prosperity, opportunity, and the steady progress of a free and industrious society, but it is also uniquely identified by the challenges that we have faced and overcome. Sometimes, these challenges have been natural disasters--earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes that have devastated entire towns and cities, uprooted communities, and tragically killed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. Disasters such as the Galveston Hurricane of 1900, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the Great Flood of 1927, and Hurricane Camille are the first ones that come to mind, although there are others that we could also add to this list of superdisasters. Unfortunately, it now appears that the list of these superdisasters has gotten longer. In a number of respects, the devastation inflicted by Hurricane Katrina has so far exceeded any natural disaster that our country has faced: the official death toll is around 1,000 and could go higher; approximately 90,000 square miles, nearly the size of the United Kingdom, has been impacted; a city of nearly half a million was almost entirely emptied; as many as 1 million jobs have been directly affected; and recovery and reconstruction costs could go to as high as $200 billion, if not more. Figures aside, the tragic and widespread devastation that this storm has wreaked is apparent to anyone who has watched news footage from the golf coast region. The images are heart wrenching, and our prayers go out to those who have suffered and have lost loved ones. Weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast region, Hurricane Rita brought further devastation to areas that were either already impacted or to areas further south and to the west. Although not as powerful as Katrina, Rita dealt a strong blow to many communities. Lives were lost, entire neighborhoods were completely destroyed, and many families were displaced. Again, we extend our prayers and wishes to those who were directly affected by this storm. While the combined impact of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is similar to other superdisasters, it also unprecedented in a few key aspects. In particular, the Federal Government is now expected to play, and is playing, a significant role in the response and recovery efforts. This is partly due to the significant growth in the Federal Government over the past 100 years. Back in 1900 when the Galveston Hurricane occurred, there were only eight executive departments in the entire government-- the Department of Commerce, the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, HUD, the U.S. Coast Guard, the EPA, FEMA, and, of course, the Department of Homeland Security had yet to be established. Today, the federal government is much more expansive than when previous superdisasters took place, and it now delivers a wide array of services and benefits that Americans have come to expect. In response, President Bush and Congress have approved the spending of billions in Federal funds, unleashing an outpouring of federal aid, assets, and manpower. Over the past 2 weeks, Congress already has approved over $61 billion in supplemental appropriations, and it is contemplating the spending of additional federal funds. Almost every executive department and Federal agency is taking part, taxpayer funds are being doled out to contractors and State and local authorities, and the future of the gulf coast region and millions of its residents is being shaped daily by this massive effort. While mistakes have been made at all levels, we now have the opportunity to make sure that mistakes are not repeated and that we do not come out of this whole experience wondering where all the money went and whether we did the best we can to respond to this challenge. My Senate colleagues and I have been discussing various proposals for how the federal recovery effort should be managed. I believe that history can be of help--for instance, we can learn from the Great Flood of 1927, a natural disaster that killed hundreds in seven states and flooded around 27,000 square miles. In response, President Coolidge appointed Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover to coordinate relief across eight different agencies, the Red Cross, and other organizations. While the relief effort had its flaws, I believe that Coolidge's appointment of a lead director, who had substantial crisis management experience and public recognition, was a wise decision. By centralizing oversight authority over the entire effort under such a central person, Coolidge's appointment of Hoover helped minimize friction and discoordination across agencies, ensuring that the relief response was run efficiently. The appointment also enhanced accountability since everyone knew who was in charge. The recovery effort for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is going to be much more complicated and multifaceted than the relief response for the Great Flood of 1927. The breadth of the destruction and the wide array of Federal departments and agencies involved--combined with the efforts of State and local authorities, nonprofit organizations, and private contractors--make the potential for bureaucratic tensions, redundancy, confusion, and waste even greater. I therefore believe that a centralized management structure is as necessary now as it was back in 1927. So, before Congress continues pouring billions of taxpayer dollars and adding additional tasks on top of the recovery effort, Congress should first make sure that a centralized management structure is in place. In particular, we need a person with impeccable credentials endowed with robust planning, operational, and budgetary authorities to be on the ground in the gulf coast region. We need to make sure that accountability is clearly assigned, not diffused. We need to make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing, so to speak, and that federal funds are effectively being used to get the gulf coast region back on its feet. And we need this centralized structure as soon as possible. As such, I am proposing the Gulf Coast Recovery and Preparedness Act of 2005, along with Senator Kennedy, which establishes the Gulf Coast Recovery and Disaster Preparedness Agency, a new agency that will be headed by a director who will oversee the entire recovery effort. The Director will be the person responsible for budgeting, overseeing, and executing the entire recovery effort to the extent that Federal resources are used. The director will also regularly report to Congress on how this effort is being conducted and will have deputies and support staff to keep track of how funds are being spent and to investigate any fraud, waste or abuse. Lastly, I recognize that we do not want the legacy of Katrina and Rita to be another layer of bureaucracy, so the legislation would make sure that the agency and the director's position are only temporary, and that it terminates within 6 years. Within the agency, there will be essentially a planning board--named the Gulf Coast Revitalization Authority that will consist of Federal, State, and local officials, as well as representatives from affected communities. The board, which will be chaired by the director, will be tasked with creating a comprehensive plan for redeveloping the entire region impacted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The plan will ensure that objectives, priorities, and critical infrastructure decisions are developed in a thoughtful and comprehensive manner before federal resources and other funds are completely committed. The authority board will also make sure that there is substantial and meaningful public participation, which is critical for making potentially difficult rebuilding and revitalization decisions. The director, who must approve the plan after it is passed by the authority, will be responsible for executing it. Our Nation has been through a lot since Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, and I am continually amazed at the acts of heroism and charity that are taking place across the gulf coast region. And while the tasks ahead may be less dramatic and less attention-grabbing, I believe that it is how we address these challenges--in particular, the rebuilding of infrastructure, the provision of social services to evacuees scattered across the country, and the redevelopment of entire communities--that will truly test our Federal Government in ways that we have not seen in recent memory. In the end, I am confident that we can succeed and the gulf coast region will fully recover and thrive. Our Nation's history has shown how well Americans perform in the face of challenges. However, we must not simply expect this success nor expect that throwing around billions of dollars will necessarily achieve it. Instead, Congress must take action now to ensure that the recovery effort is managed efficiently and effectively. By setting into place such a management structure, I believe that we will be able to look back at these difficult times and be proud of how we handled the public's trust and the taxpayers' money. This is what the American people have elected us to do, and I know that it can be done if we make the right choices right now. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2005 budget through September 13, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. The estimates show that current level spending is over the budget resolution by $3.145 billion in budget authority and over the budget resolution by $101 million in outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $447 million above the budget resolution in 2005. Since my last report for fiscal year 2005 dated September 20, 2005, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the TANF Emergency Recovery and Response Act of 2005, Public Law 109-68, that increased budget authority for fiscal year 2005. I ask unanimous consent that the accompanying letter and material be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to become Chief Justice of the United States. If confirmed, which is widely expected, Judge Roberts would be the seventeenth Chief Justice in Nation's history. As such, this nomination is historically significant, both in its relative rarity and its potentially lasting impact on our judiciary. The confirmation process therefore warrants serious, meaningful, and dignified consideration by the Senate. I believe that the Senate has met this responsibility over the past weeks, in spite of the efforts by outside groups and the urgings of some members to turn the process into something much different. After closely following the confirmation hearings and careful review of the nominee, I strongly support President Bush's nomination of Judge Roberts to be the next Chief Justice. Let me first start by saying the obvious, Judge Roberts is an incredibly talented and gifted attorney. Armed with a sharp legal mind and extensive experience making arguments before the Supreme Court, this man is truly one of the best in a very select group of legal superstars--namely, the exclusive club of Supreme Court appellate specialists. Judge Roberts has therefore rightfully received broad praise from coworkers and from all corners of the legal community. He also is respected by the very Justices whom he may soon be sitting alongside, and he has served our Nation ably on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. We are all familiar with these facts, and even my colleagues who somehow oppose this nomination have not questioned Judge Roberts' intellect or legal skills. Judge Roberts has testified, under oath, about his views regarding the proper constitutional role of a Supreme Court Justice and the judiciary branch overall. Consistently and repeatedly, he has said that Justices and judges should approach each case with an open mind and decide cases according to the rule of law--and not based on their own personal preferences or policy views. Judge Roberts has testified, again under oath, that he would fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that come before the Court. He has made it clear that judges are not politicians or legislators, and that he is committed to upholding the cherished liberties and rights that are enshrined in our constitution. Roberts also has stated, under oath, that he is mindful of precedent, recognizes constitutional protections for the right to privacy, and strongly believes in protecting the judiciary's independence. During 20 hours of oral testimony and after responding to approximately 500 questions, Judge Roberts made it clear--consistent with past precedent for other nominees--that he is not going to comment on unsettled areas of law that may come before the Supreme Court. Although some outside groups and some of my colleagues chafe at such comments, it is wholly appropriate and, in fact, ethically required to protect the Court's integrity. Moreover, many of these same individuals seeking a change in precedent did not complain when previous judicial nominees invoked this requirement, such as now Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom I supported back in 1993 during her confirmation proceedings. But now, sadly, it appears that some of my colleagues want judicial nominees, or at least those nominated by President Bush, to start issuing opinions on future cases even before the nominees are confirmed, before the facts of the cases are ascertained, and before both sides present their legal arguments before the Court. This focus on litmus tests and political, even religious, ideology during the confirmation process not only undermines the Supreme Court's role--namely, that of an impartial arbiter of the most important cases--but also represents a potentially dangerous evolution in the history of the confirmation process. Throughout the history of the Senate, Supreme Court nominees have not been expected to swear under oath what their opinions will be on unsettled areas of law. I believe that this is a good thing. If the confirmation process were to become a series of litmus tests and ideological hurdles, the Senate would be politicizing the one branch of government that the Founding Fathers intended to be above politics. The men and women who serve on the Federal bench would no longer be determined on the basis of their legal qualifications and dedication to uphold the rule of law, but mainly based on who wins at the ballot box and on certain hot button issues. Is this what we or the American people want? I am hopeful that the Senate will not go down this path and establish a precedent that we will someday look back on with regret. Fortunately, most of my colleagues, led by the majority leader, share this same hope and have done an admirable job throughout the Senate's review of the Roberts nomination. They have stayed true to the Senate's proper role under the Constitution and to what truly matters when confirming a judicial nominee. I would never want to come before a court knowing that the judge already has made up his mind based on certain personal views and therefore I will never get a fair hearing. Rather, I want someone who is bright, considerate of different viewpoints, experienced, and dedicated to upholding the rule of law with the Constitution as his guide. In his life, career, and under oath, Judge Roberts already has shown that he would be precisely this type of Chief Justice. In fact, I cannot recall a judicial nominee in recent memory that lives up to this ideal as much as Judge Roberts. As a result, I am pleased to support this nomination and applaud President Bush for making such an outstanding choice.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under section 308(b) and in aid of section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2006 budget through September 21, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. Pursuant to section 402 of that resolution, provisions designated as emergency requirements are exempt from enforcement of the budget resolution. As a result, the attached report excludes these amounts. The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $795.5 billion in budget authority and by $494.6 billion in outlays in 2006. Current level for revenues is $17.3 billion above the budget resolution in 2006. This is my first report for fiscal year 2006. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the attached letter and accompanying documentation.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending military quality of life and Department of Veterans Affairs appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006, H.R. 2528, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $80.580 billion in budget authority and $78.070 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006 for the Military Construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs programs. Of these totals, $36.198 billion in budget authority and $36.108 billion outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006. The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2006 of $44.382 billion. This amount is $797 million above the President's request, at the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, $40.8 billion below the House-passed bill, and $3.6 billion above fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I hereby submit to the Senate the budget scorekeeping report prepared by the Congressional Budget Office under Section 308(b) and in aid of Section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended. This report meets the requirements for Senate scorekeeping of Section 5 of S. Con. Res. 32, the first concurrent resolution on the budget for 1986. This report shows the effects of congressional action on the 2005 budget through September 14, 2005. The estimates of budget authority, outlays, and revenues are consistent with the technical and economic assumptions of the 2006 concurrent resolution on the budget, H. Con. Res. 95. The estimates show that current level spending is under the budget resolution by $1.922 billion in budget authority and over the budget resolution by $101 million in outlays in 2005. Current level for revenues is $447 million above the budget resolution in 2005. Since my last report dated July 28, 2005, the Congress has cleared and the President has signed the following acts that changed budget authority, outlays, or revenues: the Surface Transportation Extension Act of 2005, Part V (P.L. 109-40); the Interior Appropriations Act, 2006 (P.L. 109-54); the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58); the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59); the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising from the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (P.L. 109-61); and the Second Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act to Meet Immediate Needs Arising from the Consequences of Hurricane Katrina, 2005 (P.L. 109-62). I ask unanimous consent to print the following in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2744, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $86.883 billion in budget authority and $69.248 billion in outlays in FY 2006. Of these totals, $69.535 billion in budget authority and $50.456 billion in outlays are for mandatory programs in FY 2006. The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in FY 2006 of $17.348 billion. This amount is $430 million more than the President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, $518 million more than the House-passed bill, and $905 million less than FY 2005 enacted levels. I commend the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I rise to respond on this amendment. I want to make a couple of points, initially. First, this amendment is not Katrina related. That is important. It is an attempt to bootstrap an idea that has been offered on the floor a number of times using the disaster, the catastrophe which occurred in the Gulf with Hurricane Katrina. It is not Katrina related. The breakdown in communications in the Katrina event was not an interoperability event. The breakdown was because the capital structure which supported the systems collapsed. Both the hard line and the wireless lines were not functional as a result of the infrastructure collapse. There was also a breakdown which was a function of the portable radios that were being used having to be recharged by electronic device and there was no electricity to recharge them, rather than being battery driven. That is the initial conclusion. It wasn't a question of the inability of one group to speak to another group, although that is obviously always an issue. It was a fact that the entire infrastructure which supported the communications systems collapsed. More importantly, the proposal to add $5 billion to create a new grants program is not Gulf States-focused. It is for the Nation. That is a position that the Senator from Michigan has always taken. This should be a nationwide effort. She talks about her own State needing more funds in the area of interoperability. I assume she is presuming that a large amount of the dollars put into this fund would go to her own State and other States that had no impact from Katrina. This is not a Katrina event. To try to put it on top of this bill in the name of Katrina is inappropriate. That is why I intend to make a point of order against it. Secondly, it is important to remember that the issue of interoperability is critical and that we are trying to address it, that we have, in fact, put a dramatic amount of dollars into this effort, that there is presently, in the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, $2 billion that States and locals can choose to use specifically to address interoperability, that we have spent $890 million in fiscal year 2004 on interoperability, and that we understand that this is one of the key elements of getting our first responders to function effectively. We understand that. The Homeland Security agency understands that. But what we also understand is that there are big issues involved in accomplishing this that don't involve throwing money at the issue, the most significant of which is to reach an agreement on the regime by which these agencies are going to talk to each other. They haven't been able to do that. It is called P-25, which is the regime they have been trying to work up and has been going on now for over 10 years. It is an extremely complex problem because you have a fire department in a town which will buy one system, a police department which will buy another system, the people who drive the ambulances will buy another system. Then you have layered on top of that the State police, the highway patrol, the sheriff's department. All these systems have already been bought and already in place, and they are not going to replace them all. How you get them to work together has become a complex issue. It isn't so much a function of dollars. It is a function of reaching agreement on the protocol to get them to talk to each other. To put $5 billion on top of $2 billion is a nice statement of purpose, but it is way outside of what we can afford, as far as the budget is concerned, and it is not applicable to Katrina. We are going to spend literally tens of billions of dollars to try to correct the Katrina problems. I suspect in that spending there will be money to rebuild the infrastructure which collapsed relative to communications. To put this money on top of it in the name of Katrina, which will be spent across the country, is inappropriate. Therefore, Mr. President, I have to make a point of order against this because it is clearly over the budget. It is outside the budget and is not Katrina related. We are already addressing it within the process which we presently have in place, which is the bill for Homeland Security, which passed this body with $2 billion that can be used for interoperability. Therefore, I make a motion that the pending amendment increases spending and the additional spending would cause the underlying bill to exceed the subcommittee's section 302(b) allocation. I, therefore, raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(f) of the Budget Act.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on the nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to be Chief Justice of the United States on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 9 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office Building Room 216. John G. Roberts Jr. is the only witness. Note that this is a time change.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Aviation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 14, 2005, at 10 a.m., on the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Aviation Industry, in SD-562.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday September 14, 2005, at 10 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building, room 342, on ``Recovering from Katrina: The Next Phase'' Witness List: The Honorable Pete Wilson, Former Governor, California; The Honorable Patricia A. Owens, Former Mayor, Grand Forks, North Dakota; The Honorable Marc H. Morial, President and CEO, National Urban League, Former Mayor of New Orleans; Iain B. Logan, Operations Liaison, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 14, 2005 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a briefing.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the pending Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for FY 2006, H.R. 2862, as reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations provides $48.875 billion in budget authority and $49.495 billion in outlays in fiscal year 2006 for the Departments of Commerce, Justice and related agencies. Of these totals, $229 million in budget authority and $241 million in outlays are for mandatory programs in fiscal year 2006. The bill provides total discretionary budget authority in fiscal year 2006 of $48.646 billion. This amount is $2 billion less than the President's request, equal to the 302(b) allocations adopted by the Senate, and $36 million more than fiscal year 2005 enacted levels. Mr. President, I commend the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee for bringing this legislation before the Senate, and I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the Budget Committee scoring of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this amendment has been offered in the past, and it is a reflection of the support of the Senator from Delaware for this program. But we have to remember this program was created in 1994 by President Clinton, with a clear statement it would end after 100,000 police officers were put on the streets. Under this program, we have already spent over $12 billion. We put have put 118,000 police officers on the streets. This amendment would simply continue the program. Quite honestly, this is a program that should be phased out or just focused on police officers in schools. It is not a program that should be continued, and it certainly should not be continued in the context of the hurricane and the disaster in the Gulf States because it would have a marginal impact on that region. So, Mr. President, pursuant to section 402(b)(5) of House Concurrent Resolution 95, the fiscal year 2006 budget resolution, I raise a point of order against the emergency designation provisions contained in the pending amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware has not had a chance to speak on his amendment. I think we agreed he would get some wrap-up time. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Delaware be granted 2 minutes and I be granted 2 minutes in response and to make a point of order on his amendment. Is that agreeable?

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

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote occur at 4:30 today on the motion to waive with respect to the Biden amendment, No. 161, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that there be 15 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote.

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