Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a hearing on Nominations.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday, May 11, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. The agenda is attached. I. Nominations: Brett Kavanaugh, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit; Sean F. Cox, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan; Thomas L. Ludington, to be U.S. District judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. II. Bills: S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006, Specter; S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, De Wine, Graham; S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from electronic communications through fear of being subject to warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and for other purposes, Schumer; S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer. III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment, Allard, Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2006, for a committee hearing re pending health care related legislation. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 10 a.m.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. One final point that the Senator made that I think is a very important one. If we do not allow this provision to remain in this legislation, the net cost is going to be twice as much or more. I believe the questions that have been posed have been answered correctly and appropriately by the chairman of the committee. This provision does not require additional funds. Payments will come out of funds that have already been earmarked for shipbuilding recovery. It is not going be a process where the shipbuilder will be relieved of trying to recover from the insurance company and, if they recover, they get to keep it. It is important to emphasize those points. Let me confess to my colleagues, this is personal with me. I admit it. This is my hometown. I grew up in the shadow of this shipyard where 13,000 men and women make their livelihood, the biggest single employer in the States of Mississippi and Louisiana and at one point of Alabamians, a critical component of our national security. They build some of the most sophisticated ships in the world--destroyers, cruisers, LHAs, LHDs, LHARs. And that shipyard got hammered by hurricane Katrina. My dad was a pipefitter in that shipyard and was in the pipe department when he was killed in an automobile accident. I don't just see statistics and numbers; I see neighbors, classmates, men and women who believe in what they do and build quality product. They have been hit a grievous blow. I understand the effort of the Senator from Oklahoma. On many similar occasions, if I didn't know all the facts or if I weren't as intimately involved, maybe I would be doing something similar to what he is. I understand. But I don't think he has all the facts. Maybe the clarification that my colleague from Mississippi made will help him. The magnitude of what we were hit with is the most devastating thing we have ever seen. I won't bring out a lot of charts, but so you will get some idea of the destruction, here is a picture of the shipyard right after the hurricane. This whole shipyard had a direct hit. It is right on the mouth of the river. It got hammered. Five hundred men and women put their lives at risk that night trying to keep ships that were moored there from sinking. This is what we were dealt. Everything in that shipyard was under water. And by the way, just so you will get some idea, there in the background of this picture, those cranes are actually on the water. This photo was actually taken a distance inland, and you see the kind of destruction that was brought on us. One of the things we did in the aftermath of the hurricane was to say: OK, let's rescue people. Let's get them the basics. Then we sat down and said: What is the order of what we ought to do? No. 1, we need to get our people back to work first. Because if we can get them back in their jobs, even if they don't have a home or a truck, that will begin the return to normalcy. They will have income. Then let's get our schools open. Then let's remove the debris. So we had an order. We have not done this haphazardly. This provision was not stuck in the bill as an afterthought. It was carefully done. It was done after looking to see what the actual impact was going to be. Several shipyards in my area--three of them, as a matter of fact-- owned by VT Halter had ``only'' 20 or 30 feet of water. But this shipyard was completely shut down. They made a valiant effort to feed people, get people back to work. Now the shipyard is back up to probably 11,000 people working there. Talk about getting insurance. Let me put the shipyard in my place. My wife and I lost our home. It is totally gone. I had flood insurance. I also had a household policy. My insurance company said: You had no wind damage. We will pay you nothing. After that house sat there for 4 to 6 hours being hammered by winds of 140 miles an hour with gusts at 160 and 170, they came back and said: No, you didn't have any wind damage. It is not credible. So what am I going to do? I guess I could hock everything and rebuild on that site before I get any insurance, but the ``no payment'' or the ``slow payment'' of insurance companies is retarding the entire gulf coast. They are like me; I can't rebuild until I get some insurance proceeds. They have the problem of how much can they put into this situation without getting the plant back up to operation. They have spent $550 million to clean up this shipyard, repair the facilities, repair the ships, and cover the cost of business interruption not caused by them. They have done their part. In fact, of that $550 million, less than one-third, about $175 million, has been recouped so far from the shipyard's insurance companies. They are going to continue to pursue these insurance claims. I hope they are going to get a good settlement and they will be able to go forward with business. But this shipyard had a billion dollars of damage. This matter is about national security. It is about the Navy. It is about the world's best ships. It is about men and women who have busted it to get that shipyard back on line. The same thing has happened in Louisiana, where a lot of work is done on the LPDs and where they went back to work before they had a bed to sleep in. So this provision is the right thing to do for Gulf Coast recovery and to help the Navy maintain the cost and schedules for its ships. Let me give you a couple of examples of quotes after the hurricane. After the hurricane, Assistant Secretary of the Navy John Young recognized the significant impact of that storm on Navy shipyard building and national defense. In a letter to Navy and Defense Department leadership, Secretary Young wrote that: The Navy [should] take an aggressive and proactive approach in helping restore shipyards and returning workers to shipbuilding tasks. Importantly, this approach has the short- term benefit of contributing in a significant way to the restoration of jobs and the economy in the Gulf Coast. Yard restoration delays, loss of the skilled workforce, and ship delivery delays will translate directly into creation in future years of significant new prior year completion bills on Navy shipbuilding programs. That was very thoughtful. He was looking at it realistically in the immediate aftermath of this terrible storm. He recommended an action that was appropriate. Some people say it wasn't in the President's budget. Presidents' budgets don't come down from heaven. They sometimes don't include everything that should be included or maybe it will include something that should not be included. We are a coequal branch of government. We do have a say in these issues. Sometimes we can help. When it came to getting Medicaid for the States affected, we had to take the lead. When it came to getting tax incentives for businesses and industry to create new jobs, we took the lead. When it came to finding a solution for the people who had a home that was not in a flood plain--after the hurricane all they had left was a slab, no insurance, no way to rebuild, and nobody had a solution--Senator Cochran came up with a solution and the administration signed it. They didn't do it; we did it in the Congress. We are from there. We are of this situation. We understand the problems. We are trying to be reasonable. We told our colleagues months ago about what we would need to recover. We have not exceeded that estimate. We are way under that estimate. In some categories we are not even going back and saying we need more, even though we were somewhat shortchanged. We are trying hard to help the people who have been dealt a grievous blow. If we don't do this, the people in that shipyard will be hurt, the Navy will be hurt, and it will cost us more. I want to make sure we get the insurance recovery. I am a plaintiff for the first time in my life. I didn't want to do that. When I met with shipyard officials immediately after the hurricane, I went out there, and they were feeding the people on a ship that was moored. There was no electricity. I said: What about insurance? They said: We are fortunate. We had insurance. We even had a clause in there so we feel we are going to get a good recovery. Well, it hasn't happened. So we can deal with this realistically and in a sensible and thoughtful way, the way Senator Cochran has outlined, and I think we will get through it. We will keep the jobs, build the ships, help the Navy, help the workers. And we won't lose money in the end. The disruption cost, if we don't do this, will be much greater than by going ahead and doing this right now. I beg my colleagues, bear with us. I know you are beginning to say: How much is enough? I don't know in every instance, because we are still dealing with the magnitude of this disaster. But we are going to try to be honest with you. We are going to try to be thoughtful. I believe this language is crafted well. I am proud to be a part of the effort to defend the language that is in this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me address a question to the distinguished chairman of the committee because I thought his remarks were very well done and answered a number of questions that have been put out in the discussion of this language in the media. But I think it is important to clarify a few of those points. The first point you are making is that this is not an additional or added expenditure. This will come out of the $2.7 billion that has already been requested to go into this shipbuilding recovery effort; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Well, Mr. President, I thank the chairman for that clarification and for making that point. I might also ask this question: The Senator was a very capable young lawyer in our State years ago, president of the young lawyer's section, and I think he understands this sort of issue. Are you satisfied that this language is such that when and if there is an insurance recovery, those funds will come back to the Federal Government?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3727.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that this amendment has been cleared on both sides. I am pleased to join Senator Dodd, who is a cosponsor of this amendment. Speaking of elections in Iraq, we also hope to have effective and fair and open elections in America. In the Katrina area, we had significant damage to polling places and to voting machines. We lost all of them in many areas--in New Orleans, South Louisiana, and Mississippi. This amendment would provide $30 million, through the Federal Elections Commission, for replacement of those losses. I have checked on both sides of the aisle. I find no objection. I know that our managers have cleared it. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to accept it. The amendment is certainly very worthwhile. It is needed, and it is needed right away in order to prepare for elections this fall. I yield the floor so my colleague, Senator Dodd, can further elucidate.

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

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

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, is the amendment pending now and open for debate by Senator Coburn with regard to the Armed Forces Retirement Home?

Mr. LOTT. If I may speak on this subject, I would plead with my colleague from Oklahoma to bear with me and work with us on this. I have a feeling this is something he would like to see done. I think he wants to make sure it is done in the right way. That is my goal, too. I would ask him to hear me out a minute. Let's see if we can work this out and perhaps not force this to a vote, take up the Senate's time, see if we can accommodate everybody's concerns. Again, this is a place that I have direct personal familiarity with. I was there when it was a high ground on the Mississippi gulf coast beach area with 200-year-old oaks, a beautiful site. In the 1970s, through the good offices and efforts, probably of Senator Stennis, an 11-story retirement home for old sailors was built on that magnificent site in 1976. I was there when the ribbon was cut, and I was so proud of that facility. It was such an exciting thing to see the look in the eyes of those at that time sailors, but it has since become, of course, the Armed Forces Retirement Home. So it is a place of last resort for retirees from all the military branches. That is how far back my history goes with this facility. In preparation for the storm, to the credit of the leaders there, 300 of the residents were temporarily evacuated to the Armed Forces home in Washington. The rest moved in with friends and family. The facility is capable of holding as many as 500, and there was always a waiting list. When Katrina came in, the entire first floor was flooded. The exterior of the building was blasted with 150-mile-an-hour winds. The entire electrical room located below ground level was flooded from floor to ceiling. But from that time to this, I continue to hear from the residents saying: We want to come back; we want to come home. Nothing against the Washington, DC, area, but their family, quite often, what little family they have, lives in that area and they feel so comfortable there, they want to go back. By the way, the Gulfport facility, unlike the one in Washington, didn't lose money. It was always a moneymaker. But the rooms they had were 90-square-foot rooms, and sometimes it was a retiree and his or her spouse in this very small room. I realized several years ago that whoever designed the building had made some mistakes in terms of the size and the options of those retirees. I don't know if my colleagues are familiar with black mold, but it is bad stuff, and it comes quickly after a hurricane. You begin to see it on the walls, and it will make you sick. If you don't get it out of there, your building will be sick. You have to go in and basically take everything out but the two by fours. You have to take out the walls in the building--just everything--and replace it with new material, or you are going to have this black mold. I have really been embarrassed by the way the Defense Department has handled the Gulfport facility in the aftermath of the hurricane. I understand we have had a lot of things on our minds, but basically they haven't done anything to mitigate further decay. They haven't gone in there and repaired that first floor. They have not gotten the ventilation system going to dehumidify the rest of the building. They have not done anything to repair the exterior facing. They have not removed the black mold. And to make matters worse, other then some volunteer work initially done by the Navy Seabees, they basically will not let anybody else come in to try to mitigate the decay that is occurring. Remember, this hurricane was August of last year and that 11-story building stands there today basically like it was the day after the hurricane. They are letting it just sit there. They even initially refused to let the electric company come through the gate to help restore power. This has not been one of our better moments. Then we started asking: What can we do? I want to do the right thing for our retired veterans at this site. There have been proposals: Let's just go in and put a Band-Aid on it, clean it minimally, move things off the basement and the first floor up to the second floor. There are questions about how feasible that is. Let's just patch it up. But the projection of the costs for even that is not good. The second alternative is to go in and do a major overhaul and make these 90-square-foot rooms bigger--knock a hole in the wall and have two-room suites, really a major overhaul. The amount of money they are talking about, again, is very high. Then, of course, the last one is to raze the building and build something more modern, safer in hurricanes, more pleasing to the retirees and everybody involved. My attitude has been, OK, somebody who is an expert tell me what is the right solution. I can go with any of these alternatives, but let's make sure we do it responsibly and let's not have to do it again in 3 or 4 years. And, by the way, is there some way we can control the costs? A novel idea. So that is where we are. I met with the Pentagon officials, and I think they are trying to come up with an alternative solution. $64.7 million in appropriated funds was previously provided to study options to rehouse evacuated veterans. Mr. President, $64 million to study options? Do we need that? What I am saying and what Senator Cochran is saying is let's take the balance of that prior money that can be reprogrammed, and let's couple that with another, I believe, $176 million and go forward. My colleague from Oklahoma has said he wants a facility put back in Gulfport. He wants to know what it is, and he wants to know what it is going to cost. Some of the numbers I have been hearing--I don't know if I can put my finger on it right here--are proposals of $589 million for renovating it or $389 million to rebuild it. Good gravy. That is real money. I don't like either one of those. I believe we can repair it or we can come up with this modified proposal Senator Cochran has, about which we had some input, that would be a better, more aesthetically pleasing, more livable, cheaper facility to build. Look at the report. The report makes it clear what the committee is talking about doing: combined with prior unobligated balances, taking the $176 million the committee has recommended, which shall be used to construct a new, multi-building, campus-style facility on the site occupied by the former Armed Forces Retirement Home. I think Senator Cochran envisions more of a three-story, military- style retirement facility, perhaps with some surrounding dormitories. I don't want to say how this is going to be done, but the hurricane was 8\1/2\ months ago, and we are still waiting. The costs are going up, by the way. Try to get a contractor down there now and see what it costs. So we are trying to get this done. We are making recommendations because we haven't gotten one from anybody else. But keep in mind, this modified plan makes more sense. I think it would please everybody, and it is a heck of a lot cheaper. If my colleague from Oklahoma has something he would like to suggest we include--I am not chairman of the committee, I am not on the committee, but I am saying, this was not designed in perfection, but I think it is a positive move that deals with the realities of a pitiful situation. I talked with the mayor of Gulfport, MS, recently, Mayor Brent Warr, and he told me a story that breaks your heart. He picked up on the streets of Gulfport, MS, one of the former residents who was walking along the side of the road after he had made his way from Washington, DC, to Gulfport. He got tired of waiting. He went home--this is his home--to a mold-infested, mildewed, improperly air-conditioned facility. I don't think we should do this to these retirees and these veterans. I think we need to move ahead and do the right thing to get our veterans home to Gulfport. I will be glad to yield to my colleague from Oklahoma if he has some additional suggestions. I know this is an area about which he cares.

Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, Mr. President, taking my time back, look, I on occasion have thought of myself as a cheap hawk, too. When you see what I have seen--and the President of the United States and Senator after Senator and Congressman after Congressman looked these people in the eye and said: We are going to make you whole; we are not going to give you everything you want, but we are going to help you get back on your feet. And we said that to these old veterans, too. I don't want to build a Taj Mahal. Unfortunately, quite often that is what we get when the Government does it. I would like to do it for less. I would like to have more for less. I would prefer the Pentagon had developed a plan 4 months ago and said let's do this. But here we sit on the sideline. I can't speak for the chairman of the committee, but the Senator can see this is something I have paid attention to. It is something I care about. But I would be open to suggestions and working with the Senator to see if we can come up with a plan that the Pentagon, hopefully, would help us with that would do more and maybe do less. I am amenable to that. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this week has been designated as Public Service Recognition Week and in keeping with the spirit of this important week I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the important contribution that the Jefferson Awards for Public Service have made over nearly three and a half decades. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Durbin, Lugar, and Biden is submitting this resolution commending the American Institute for Public Service and the importance of the Jefferson Awards for Public Service. The Jefferson Awards were established on a bipartisan basis in 1972 by Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Senator Robert Taft, Jr., and Sam Beard. The awards honor individuals for their achievements and contributions through public and community service. Winners of the award for elected and appointed officials have included former Senators Robert Dole, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and John Glenn. Other winners include Rudoph Giuliani, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and Robert Rubin. In addition, private citizens who have won the award include Walter Annenberg, Brian Lamb, and Oprah Winfrey. The Jefferson Awards have honored award recipients at the national level by placing them on a ``Who's Who'' list of outstanding citizens of the United States and at the same time have honored at the local level recipients as ``Unsung Heroes'' who accomplished extraordinary deeds for the betterment of the United States. The Senate fully supports the goals and ideals of the Jefferson awards and during this week of Public Service Recognition, I stand on the floor of the Senate and commend the people of this organization.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr President, the Gulf States from Texas to Florida have all been dealt serious blows this past hurricane season by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis. The needs are tremendous across the entire Gulf Coast in the fishing communities which were hit hardest and first. Before these hurricanes, the gulf produced about 15 percent of the Nation's domestic wild-caught seafood by weight and about 20 percent by value. According to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report, these hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90-100 percent of the commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses, offloading facilities, net makers, recreational marinas, bait and tackle shops, and seafood restaurants and retail markets in eastern Louisiana, with similar, if somewhat reduced, impacts in Mississippi and Alabama. Most of these facilities remain closed today, 9 months later. On September 9, 2005, Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez declared a fisheries disaster for the Gulf of Mexico under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which authorizes fisheries disaster assistance in such situations. Of the almost $90 billion in disaster funding appropriated by the Congress since these hurricanes, none has been directed at these fishing communities. On top of the difficulty that gulf fishermen are experiencing in rebuilding their ability to catch and process gulf seafood, they are also faced with the hurdle of getting that catch into the national marketplace. One issue that continues to hurt Gulf of Mexico fisheries products is the labeling of the coastal Gulf of Mexico waters by the media as ``toxic soup'' during the first few months after Katrina. For example, Anderson Cooper of CNN led a Katrina follow-up story with the chairman of the Louisiana Seafood Promotion and Marketing Board by asking him about the ``toxic soup'' in which Gulf of Mexico fish are growing. We need to put this issue to rest and rebuild seafood markets lost due to these storms. This is critical to the recovery process. The five Gulf States estimate that their fishing industries have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since these hurricanes. They will not be able to recover unless they get help in getting this industry back on its feet and getting back into the marketplace. The key issue that the five Gulf State seafood promotion boards face is that once the continuity of product has been lost in any marketplace, sales often are lost permanently to substitute products and reclaiming those markets is a long term challenge. Add the ``toxic soup'' concerns to the mix and the need for marketing is greater than ever at a time when the state seafood board budgets are dwindling or expended. I will be brief because I know my colleague from Mississippi, and Senator Shelby from Alabama, who was the author of this portion of the supplemental, have already covered these issues, and Mr. Vitter did a very good job. Maybe I can contribute to the debate just by summing up how critical this is and why this particular amendment, even though it involves only $15 million, should be defeated. It is an important part of what is going on here. First, let me emphasize, again, that from Texas to Florida, throughout the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and Dennis have devastated the fishing communities. They are an important part of our communities, our economy, and our culture. It is not just because we like to see the shrimp boats sail off into the sunset or see the oystermen out there tonging for oysters; it is because it is an important part of the economy. Fifteen percent of the Nation's domestic wild-caught seafood by weight and 20 percent of the value comes from the gulf area. It is an area that makes an important economic contribution. It is an important part of the seafood industry nationally, and it has never been properly marketed or exploited in the terms that it should be. We have already had problems with imports being flooded into the country in a way that undermines the industry, and now we have been hit by these hurricanes. I emphasize this, too: that while we have passed some $90 billion--in excess of that--for disaster funding as a result of these hurricanes, none of it, zero, has gone to these fishermen and to the fishing industry, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it takes time to ascertain what the damages are. But when you lose it all, when you lose the processing plants, the boats, the whole industry, it takes time to assess what we have lost and how we are going to repair it, and how do we recover from the fact that we lost this business. Even NOAA has indicated that these hurricanes shut down, damaged, or destroyed 90 to 100 percent of the commercial docking facilities, repair shops, ice houses, offloading facilities, netmakers, the whole thing. Once you lose that market, it is difficult to get it back--maybe impossible--but we have to make that effort. This is an important food, it is an important resource. It is an important value for the people. And the only way we are going to get it back is we are going to have to help them repair their vessels and to recover the losses they have had. A lot of these, by the way, are minorities. In Biloxi, MS, a lot of these fishermen are Vietnamese or Slovonians or Frenchmen, but a lot of them are Vietnamese who lost their house, their truck, their boat, their livelihood. It would make you cry to see these people. This is clearly an area where we should provide this help. So what this particular part would do would be to focus on us regaining the markets we lost. It is an important part of the recovery process. The five gulf States estimate that their fishing industries have suffered hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales since the hurricanes. The key issue that the five gulf States' seafood promotion boards face is that once the continuity of the product is broken, getting it back takes effort and time. And then we add to that the bad publicity of the so-called ``toxic soup,'' which was an exaggeration from the beginning, by the way, we have to overcome that. As a matter of fact, we find that the catch that is possible out there could be very good. The problem is we don't have the boats to get them. We don't have the plants to deal with them when they come in. So I urge my colleagues, if there is anyplace that we ought to be providing some help, it is the fisheries industry. It is absolutely a part of the critical recovery, just as much or more so than being able to have a way to rebuild your home or repair your home. You have to have a job. For these people, there are not many other options for jobs. So I urge the defeat of the amendment. I commend Senator Shelby and Senator Cochran for including this language in the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, now we are back on the pending amendment, the Coburn amendment; is that correct?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for some time now public officials in Mississippi have been concerned about the vulnerability and safety of the CSX rail line long the Mississippi Coast. These discussions have taken on a sense of urgency as part of the overall dialogue about how to rebuild the gulf coast region after Hurricane Katrina. Transportation is the lifeblood of our economy, and making it less vulnerable to future destruction while also making it safer should be a priority. I am an unabashed advocate of safer roads, bridges and yes, railroads--most recently lending my support to a $700 million plan to move the Mississippi gulf coast's CSX railroad line north to higher ground, away from people and storm surges. In the aftermath of the worst natural disaster in American history, any good post-Katrina reconstruction plan should consider moving these tracks. Given the tracks' proximity to the Gulf of Mexico and to motor traffic and flood waters, gulf coast residents and leaders would be irresponsible if we did not consider a safer place for the railroad. At some point we must move these tracks from the middle of busy, growing communities like Biloxi, Gulfport, and Pascagoula. Let me briefly discuss the rail safety problem in the 3 Mississippi counties along the gulf coast. There are 185 highway-rail crossings on the CSX line in those counties. That is more than 2 crossings per mile. In some cases, there are more than 2 crossings in 1 mile of rail track. In the last 10 years, 40 people have been killed in collisions between vehicles and trains. In other words someone is killed every 3 months in a rail accident along the gulf coast. Another 68 people have been injured. There have been 147 accidents over those 10 years. That's more than 1 accident per month. This is an authorized national program. The funds for this project would be appropriated under the Rail Line Relocation and Improvement Program. I was a long time champion of the legislation to create this program, and last year Congress finally passed it. This program was designed to alleviate the adverse effects of rail traffic on safety and on communities. Now that funds are available for projects that can save lives, such as this one in Mississippi, the program should be utilized. Many have asked why this qualifies as an emergency project when the rail lines have already been rebuilt. They are oblivious to the fact that this strategic railroad--actually spans the length of our Nation between California and Florida, handling vital cargo. The simple answer is that this project is needed to prevent future emergencies. There was no way that CSX could have waited on the Federal Government to relocate the line. This project will not be completed until 2008 at the very earliest. Therefore, there was never serious consideration given to not rebuilding the line. The urgency to restore rail operations for the benefit of customers along the corridor was paramount. That is why CSX spent private dollars to rebuild the line as quickly as possible. To be clear, no Federal money has been spent to repair the existing line, as press reports lead you to believe. It ultimately took CSX 143 days to get the line back in condition to serve customers. Six major bridges and 40 miles of track had to be rebuilt or repaired. During that time hundreds of businesses were without service, 300 CSX employees were affected. Millions of citizens, and numerous seaports depend on this critical rail artery for freight and passenger services. The gulf coast corridor serves as the Southeast's primary gateway for freight being shipped to the western United States. Even with the new construction and rebuilt infrastructure built to the best possible standards, this line would still be significantly damaged in another storm given the proximity to the storm surge. It is also important to mention, there are significant national security and energy security benefits to moving the current line away from the Nation's highest density of defense--for example, Ingalls, Keesler, Coast Guard, CBC Gulfport, CRTC Gulfport, Stennis Space Center Federal Reservation, and energy--for example, Chevron refinery, fuel transfer pipelines--infrastructure. The fact is this is not solely a Mississippi project. Remember, the CSX line runs form Jacksonville, FL, to the Port of New Orleans before continuing on to Los Angeles. The Federal investment required to relocate the line will benefit Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana by upgrading tracks within those states. Factually, this is a Southeast United States project, not a Mississippi project. Our State has not asked for anything that is unreasonable or that the people in this devastated region do not deserve. Mr. President, I know the hour is getting late and Senators have commitments. This is an issue which I feel very strongly about. It is one we have to address. These are the problems which have been created by the CSX transportation rail line across the Mississippi gulf coast. I thank Senator Cochran, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for taking the initiative to address this issue. I would like to correct several misunderstandings. First, this would provide the funds to relocate the railroad track from right along the coastline, including crossing significant bodies of water in three different places, and it would then be relocated to an area north of there, connecting several railroad tracks. It would run like this, to New Orleans, instead of all the way along the gulf coast. Keep in mind, this is a major corridor that runs from Jacksonville, in Florida, all the way to California. This issue needs to be addressed. Senator Cochran and I and our Governor and our officials in Mississippi have tried to be restrained and responsible and conservative in the requests we have made. This Congress has been very helpful, the Senate has been very helpful to meet a lot of our needs, but we need to come to terms with this issue. That is why Senator Cochran has chosen to put it in the supplemental. Let me make sure you understand that this is Katrina related, No. 1. Some people will say: Look, the old railroad tracks were rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina at the cost of $250 million. But it was not one nickel of Federal dollars in it. It was done by the rail company and was done with insurance money, because this is a major thoroughfare that serves a lot of companies that had to get back in business. If we make this move, it will be 2008 at the earliest before it can possibly happen. I wanted that corrected. There has been some suggestion that it relates to the gaming industry along the gulf coast. It does not, not at all. In fact, they would probably like for it to stay in this area, which forces traffic along Highway 90, along this coastline, instead of moving it off of the coast. By moving, then, the highway which runs right along the coast, it will be north of where the gaming area is. So there is no connection there. Why do we need this? Let me make it real clear. There are several very good reasons. No. 1, it is exposed. It does run right along the water and has been blown out several times in the past--three times. It is there because it has been there for a hundred-and-something years. This shows what happens every time we have a major blow. This is the track. It is built in marshes and on sand. It cannot stand. It will not stand. So we are going to have to do this repeatedly. This shows the strength of the hurricane. This is a railroad bridge. Look at how the railroad track is actually bent. This is going to be repeated. It causes economic dislocation. They shut down for 134 days just after this hurricane. That is one factor. The second thing is, it is a major thoroughfare. We do not have evacuation capability with the current location, where it is now. We do not have east-west rails where people can get to the north-south lines. We just do not have enough room to do that. We will take a railroad bed and turn that into a five- or six-lane road across the major county that is involved, Harrison County, MS. It is also about safety. People are killed and injured here every year. On this chart, the circles show deaths and injuries that have occurred. I will just give you the numbers we are talking about. Over a period of 10 years, there have been 147 accidents along this trackage. There have been 40 people killed in the last 10 years. There are 185 highway and rail crossings that are involved here. Some people say you should do it through the authorization process. That has been done. Last year, as part of the highway bill, we passed for the first time the National Rail Relocation Act. This sort of thing needs to be done in a lot of places in America, from State to State. We have an authorization in place, so it is authorized. This provides the funds through the authorization. But this is about hurricanes, it is about evacuation, it is about safety, and it is about getting track out right along the coastline and moving it north so we do not have this repeated problem. I ask my colleagues to look at it seriously. There are also going to be some 18 amendments to follow that will knock out various and sundry things in the bill. This is an important part of the Katrina recovery. We are still going to be able to get into New Orleans with the trackage coming north and move that transportation traffic on farther to the west coast. But I just wanted to rise and speak briefly in support of what is in the bill and against the motion to strike. I thank Senator Cochran for his leadership in providing this opportunity.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I thank our majority leader for coming to the floor and pointing out what is happening because I think this is a miscarriage of justice, very unfair, and is an indication of what is fundamentally wrong with the Senate these days. It is important that in the light of day, the American people be told why immigration reform, on which the American people feel very strongly we should act and I believe they feel we should put great focus on border security, is long overdue. We made runs on it in the past. I was around when we passed immigration reform, by title at least, in 1986 and again in 1996. It didn't work. We have to do more for border security. We have to decide if we want a temporary worker program, how is it going to be assigned, what are the responsibilities for it to be implemented, and exactly how are we going to deal with, again, 11 and 12 million people who are in this country. Frankly, I have very little to say on this subject because I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I do not consider myself an authority, an expert on the substance, as is my colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl. He worked on it. He is on the Judiciary Committee. They discussed it, considered it for weeks and months. I have a lot of respect for the work that was done in the committee. I have been proud that our majority leader, Senator Frist, has forced this issue to a head. Some people have said: Wait a minute, we are not ready, we haven't had time to cook this issue; there are too many problems. We should have done this last year, and our leader has been saying since January this issue must be addressed. It is overdue, and it is going to be addressed. And, frankly, he told us when it was coming up--last week. He forced an action in the Judiciary Committee. Maybe it was a forced action, but it was time we acted. I have made the point in a variety of forums in the last couple of days that this is what the Senate ought to be doing. This is a big, important, difficult issue. The American people expect us to act instead of sweeping around the edges on salami issues and all kinds of other issues. This is a big issue. This is an important issue. This is about who we are and who we are going to be. Thank goodness the Senate is living up to the expectations our forefathers had for us: to take up a tough issue, have a debate, have amendments, and have votes. And all of a sudden people say: Oh, we can't have votes; we can't vote on amendments on both sides of the aisles. Senators are saying: I don't want to have to cast a tough vote. Hallelujah, finally we are going to do something that matters around here. Will we get it right? I don't know. I have been trying to listen to both sides of the debate. I want action. I hope it is the right one. But we are never going to know until we go forward and consider this issue and get it done in a responsible way. If forced to vote on the bill that came out of the committee right now, I would vote against it. I don't think we have found a third way. I don't think we have found the sweet spot. I think we have to have more responsibility. Illegal aliens are illegal. This is a very difficult, sensitive problem. We have to think about it. But I don't think we can say: OK, gee, say you're sorry and pay a fine and everything will be OK. It has to be more serious than that. I was looking forward to amendments. Some people will say: Oh, vote for cloture, let's get this over with; there are too many amendments. We haven't voted on one amendment. We have been dragging around here for over a week now. Senator Kyl has tried every way in the world to get a vote, and the minority in the Senate is blocking even a vote on a critical amendment by a senior Senator in the leadership of the majority, I might add, because they don't want to vote. Frankly, for floor people, I note there are some ways this issue can be stuffed down the opposition's throat. I don't want to do that. I thought we were going to rise to the occasion and have a bipartisan debate. This is the Senate. This is not the House. And, by the way, I have been a party to stuffing the minority, and people didn't agree with me. I filled up the tree. I filed cloture instantly on bills and on amendments. But almost every way, almost every time it backfired on me. I admit it now. I remember filling up the tree and blocking Senator McCain from offering his amendment on campaign finance reform. I did it more than once. I told him I was going to do it. In the end, he won. This tactic that has been employed by the Democratic leadership blocking even a vote on amendments on an issue of this magnitude is outrageous and, quite frankly, I am offended cloture has been filed by the minority leader. It is not unprecedented. It has been done 18 times in the last 10 years. Yes, I did it, too, and again, it doesn't add to anything. It destroys the potential for good will. I will vote against any cloture motion filed by the minority leader. He does not manage the Senate. The majority leader does. And even when I disagree with him--I admire Senator McCain standing up and saying: I am not going to support that. Senator McCain has the high hand, he has the winning hand probably, but he said: Wait a minute, you can't block Senators from even having a vote on their amendments, even though he is going to vote against them and speak against them. What have we done here? This approach cannot stand, it will not stand, and what I am going to urge our leadership to consider doing is if we don't get something worked out by sunrise, then the Senate Democrats are going to be cut out. There is a way we can get an agreement between the Republicans in the House and the Senate, the majority in the House and the Senate, and force it to the floor whole- hog and say: Vote for it, up or down. It can be done. I don't want to do that. I object to that. But when David Broder writes these articles about how he can't understand why the majority doesn't work with the minority, hey, Mr. Broder, take a look at the Senate today. This is the kind of conduct which makes it impossible for us to get our work done and makes the majority decide to just ignore the minority. I am one of those people whose votes hang in the balance. I am not locked into a position. I probably am willing to go further toward what the Judiciary Committee did than some of my colleagues. But I am offended by this, and it may affect my overall vote on the final product. This bill has the potential to be bipartisan. It has the potential to be a major achievement by the Senate and by the Congress and, more importantly, for the American people. I hope our leadership will say: Oh well, maybe we just didn't talk enough to each other, and let's work this out. Let's go forward. We are not going to be able to finish this legislation this week. So what. Take next week. Take next month. This issue is too big, too important. The illegal alien problem we have in this country--and the need for immigration reform--is doing serious damage to our country. There are good aspects to the bill, but there is damage being done and the relationship between people is not moving in a positive way. This is where we show whether we are statesmen or political hacks who are just trying to find a way to avoid a tough vote. I plead with my colleagues: Let's find a way to go forward on this and get a solution we can all vote for and feel good about. Right now, we should be ashamed of what we are doing and the way we look. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have had a good debate. I know the intent of the amendment's sponsor is an honest one, but I really think we are going down a trail we should not be. And I do not see how you can start parsing it back away from it. So I would move to table the amendment at this point and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT. All right. At the appropriate time I will move to table and will ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, how much time is left?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order against the amendment.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I raise a point of order--