Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to put in the Record that this has been cleared with the leader on our side also. I have no objection.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the veto message occur at 11:45, with half of that debate time equally divided between Senators Boxer and Inhofe and the remaining half under the control of the Republican leader. This has been approved by both sides.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I could, I will take a couple minutes at this time. I have been watching the Congress pretty closely now for 35 years as a Member of the House and the Senate, and I have been involved in end of sessions 19 times in the Senate, but I must say, it is about as big a mess as I have ever seen. We are not going to have a single appropriations bill down to the President signed for the whole year, even by the end of this week. The bill that is on the way, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, which is $9.8 billion above what the President asked for and has lots of problems, is going to be vetoed, and will be back up here next week. Hopefully, we will find a way before this week is out to pass the Defense appropriations bill so our men and women will know they are going to get the assistance they need, the equipment they need, the protections they need. That would be the first appropriations bill to get to the President that he might actually sign. It is true right across the board. All year long, it has been about political positioning. It has all been about fighting over Iraq. There are so few things where we have come together and worked together and gotten something produced. Thank goodness a couple weeks ago we did the Amtrak authorization bill. I have urged, all year long: Let's quit finding issues we can fight over, and let's find some issues we can work together on, get bipartisan agreements on that would help the American people. I believe, actually, the WRDA bill, the Water Resources Development Act, is one of the few things we can look at and say we did something good for our country and for our constituents this year. It is bipartisan. It has been laboriously developed over the last 5 or 6 years--a long time coming. It is one of the few areas where we actually do something constructive, where you can see physically something the Federal Government has done. It creates jobs. It provides safety and protection, safe drinking water. It is one of the only bills that I think actually produces a positive result. I have always been proud of the Corps of Engineers because the Corps of Engineers is one of the few Government entities that actually does something, produces something--something you can see and feel and helps the quality of life. We are always involved in social welfare programs, giveaway programs, and we are always trying to find a way to raise taxes and do things that are not good for our constituents. This one actually does something good. Sure, there are disagreements. There are some programs in here that probably are not sufficiently justified. I know from past experience, almost every President has opposed this type of bill. I remember Jimmy Carter did not like the Corps of Engineers. We had a fight with him over river projects, water projects, the same thing with George H.W. Bush, the same thing with Bill Clinton. He had people in his administration, in the Office of Management and Budget--oh, they didn't like water resources projects. Here it is again. The President has vetoed this bill. So I must say, I am not boasting about it, but I have no qualms about saying the President's views notwithstanding, I will vote to override his veto on this legislation. This is about flood protection. This is about water and sewer projects. It is about doing something about water and the proper salinity in the Gulf of Mexico. These are good, deserved, justified projects that should go forward. So I will vote to override the veto. Perhaps the President did the right thing in some respect, but I buy the argument it is an authorization. It is not an appropriations bill. I have always in the past found that if you get a project authorized and then you go get the appropriations, you do not have a problem. Well, we kind of got away from that. We have gotten into difficulty. But I understand why the President vetoed it. He is trying to hold the line on spending. Congratulations. That is good. I am going to be supporting him on most of his vetoes. I cannot imagine any vetoes that might be forthcoming where I would not support the President--beyond this. But in this case, I believe this bill is in the best interests of the country. I know it is very beneficial to my State. A quarter of the State probably would not exist if we did not have flood control projects. My State is a poor State. We are still struggling to make sure people have safe drinking water, so they do not have to haul the water to their house, believe it or not, here in 2007. Ports and harbors are critical for the future economic development and competitiveness of this country in a global economy. So I look forward to having a brief discussion. I look forward to the vote. I will vote to override the President's veto. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted: ``yea.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: What is the time situation now for the body?

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner).

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. LOTT

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are working with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee and the leadership on both sides to get an agreement worked out on how we proceed on this issue for the remainder of the afternoon. In the meantime, Senator DeMint is here and ready to go on an amendment, and he has a committee markup underway also. So unless there is objection, I ask Senator Lautenberg, could we let Senator DeMint call up his amendment and go ahead and have a discussion on it?

Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Let me say, if the Leader will yield, you are making an effort, and I think we will need some time to consult with our leader to make sure he is aware of this. I understand the leader doesn't want to have time used that is not necessary. But we have another unanimous consent agreement. We have an amendment that is pending. In the meantime, I will check with Senator McConnell and see what he is thinking.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe now we are ready to go forward with the pending DeMint amendment. Mr. President, we agreed to 20 minutes of debate on the DeMint amendment, once the Senator arrives. I believe we are sending a note to him. He had to go to a markup in the Commerce Committee. He has amendments he wants to offer. He will be back momentarily to offer those. In the meantime, I want to respond to some of the things the majority leader was noting. I wanted to do it when he was on the floor, but it is important to try to work through these unanimous consent agreements. Let me say that on the effort to vitiate cloture on the motion to proceed to the Children's Health Insurance Program, it was noted that it had been requested by Republicans that 2 more days be given to work something out. I note that I don't believe that request came from the Republican leader, Senator McConnell. Members on both sides of the aisle have to recognize that our leaders are our leaders. Our leaders have to be consulted on parliamentary procedure and also on timing. So when one Senator--Senator Hatch--says give me 2 more days but there is no contact or consultation with our leadership on this side of the aisle, that is a problem. Also, we want to make sure we don't give up our normal rights, the regular order. I am concerned about going to some other issue after the Amtrak bill and then going to the farm bill next week. They have been on the farm bill we don't know how long, and at the last minute we may call up a bipartisan agreement, but it will not resolve the agreements on SCHIP. We must focus on poor children. I am concerned with the present condition of the bill. My analysis is that this bill costs more than the bill that was vetoed, and fewer children are covered. It has an express lane for illegal children to go into the program. There is a multitude of problems with it. The biggest problem is we are still talking about over $35 billion. Instead of trying to come to a compromise on the money that is necessary to cover poor children first, it is still not going to get adults off the program. My observation has been when you let adults get on a program intended for children, you crowd children out. There are huge problems in the status of the negotiations, which are going on by a group that has not included the Republican leadership or the administration. I don't know who met with whom, or why, or why not. We ought to work this out. I don't like playing games with a program such as this. I stood on this floor and spoke when this program was created. I believe in it. I thought we were going to focus on poor children and not continue to raise the income levels that were covered to 300, 350, or 400 percent of poverty and put it into the program. We need to look at the formula. Some States, such as mine, run out of money year after year because the formula doesn't deal with the realities of the needs of the poor children. There are multiple problems with what is going on. I am very concerned, on our side of the aisle, about some of the involvement of some of our people without consultation with our leader. The incurable attitude around here is evidenced by this bill. You can find a way to fight and have a disagreement or you can find a way to work together. This Amtrak bill is, I believe, on the verge of passing by a wide margin. If the House is smart, they will not put poison pills in it and try to explode it. Let's get real reforms and put some pressure on Amtrak. I want a successful national rail passenger system. Do I want subsidies for individual passengers to be reduced? Yes. Do I want the cost of meals to be subsidized by the taxpayers? No. Do I want a strongly led, effective national rail passenger system? Yes. Let's try to make that happen. But it is not going to happen instantly. We have to set up a process, require reforms, and give incentives to do better. One of the things I think is going to help, which some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have referred to, is we are going to have more intercity service as a result of this bill. We have a program specifically aimed to help States set up interservice transportation between not just New York and Albany but sites all over the country where States can do more, where there is a way to get an opportunity to do more to have intercity service. We have language that will start toward a situation where freight lines can bid to provide the service on these lines. We do it with a pilot program. We don't just say anybody can come in; we say one the first year, two the second year, but we will work toward seeing if others can offer this service more efficiently, effectively, and more cost responsible. I am very much concerned about how these negotiations are going on on the Children's Health Insurance Program. There is a meeting going on down the hall now that doesn't include the leadership on our side. Fifty staff people have been standing out in the hall. I have a novel idea: I think Senators ought to be involved--men and women of good faith and intellect who understand these problems. We don't have to have our staffs do this for us. The same is true with Amtrak. Senator Lautenberg and I have worked on this for at least 3 to 5 years. This is the third Amtrak reform I have been involved in. I apologize for the other two not doing everything we wanted them to do. We have made progress. It didn't do as well as it should have. Now we are trying again. I say to the Amtrak leadership and the Department of Transportation, first, we are giving DOT more involvement in what Amtrak does. No President has made Amtrak work the way it should. They don't pay enough attention to it. And it is not partisan; I don't think this administration is or that the previous administration was. This legislation will help us move in the direction of a national passenger rail system. I don't want to go into great length. I don't have to object when the leader makes a request to lock in the agreement to basically finish Amtrak this afternoon and then do something else this afternoon--we don't know what--and on Thursday and Friday and then come to the farm bill next week. Then to go automatically to a CHIP bill, which we don't know what it is going to be, and we give up our rights of regular order, that is not a good arrangement. I hope the two leaders will get together and proceed to another bill tomorrow. I don't know what it might be. I represent a farm State. I hope we can get a good farm bill and do it in a reasonable period of time. I worry that we are not wanting to get an agreement on the Children's Health Insurance Program. Some people are saying $35 billion or bust. Others are saying we are not going to go to $35 billion. The President is at $5 billion. The earlier bill the President vetoed was at $35 billion. Now the new bill is $35 billion. Is there not an area between the two? I have done negotiations around here for years, in the House, in the Senate, and in conference. When one side is at 5 and the other is at 35, what is half of that? It is a little over 15. Would that work? What is the solution? Is it 20? How complicated is that? But we need to put the emphasis on the poor children first, quit this budget creep we always get into, adding more and more children at higher income levels, and now we have adults and other loopholes in this program that I think we need to be very careful about. Can we do it? Absolutely. I introduced a bill a month ago that was probably in the range of where the compromise ought to be. By the way, it was about double what I thought we needed to do when we started out, but I moved up. I hope the two leaders will get an understanding of what the process is going to be and move forward on all of this legislation. Mr. President, we are now waiting for Senator DeMint to return. I will yield the floor so Senator Lautenberg may comment on the bill or on other issues.