[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4941-S4955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 RECESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 12:35 
having arrived, the Senate stands in recess until the hour of 2:15 p.m.
  Thereupon, the Senate, at 12:35 p.m., recessed until 2:15 p.m. and 
reassembled when called to order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. 
Edwards).


                       Vote on Amendment No. 3557

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Byrd-
Stevens amendment.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S4942]]

  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) and 
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from 
New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``yea.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 131 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Domenici
     Helms
     Inouye
     Murkowski
     Rockefeller
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion 
on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent all first-degree 
amendments on H.R. 4775 be filed by today at 5 p.m. except a managers' 
amendment, an amendment by Senator Byrd, and an amendment by Senator 
Stevens, or their designee; and any second-degree amendments be 
relevant to the first degree to which offered, or deal with offsets for 
the first degree; that upon disposition of all amendments the bill be 
read the third time, the Senate vote on passage of the bill, and upon 
passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with 
the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate, without 
intervening action or debate.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I will be objecting for 
several reasons. One is that just today we received from the 
administration a statement of administration policy. I will read from 
it: If the supplemental appropriations bill were presented to the 
President in its current form, the senior advisers would recommend that 
he veto the bill.
  In this message, there are a number of specific items that the 
President mentions in his message. We will--at least I and the Senator 
from Texas and others will--try to come forward with a package of 
amendments that comports with the President's statements. There are a 
number of specifics in there, many of which we already discovered, some 
we haven't.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Would the Senator be able to have that letter from the 
administration made a part of the Record?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the President's statement of 
administration policy dated 4 June 2002 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2002.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 S. 2551--Making Supplemental Appropriations for Further Recovery From 
    and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, FY 2002

       This Statement of Administration Policy provides the 
     Administration's views on the FY 2002 Emergency Supplemental 
     Bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.
       While the Senate Committee bill funds the Defense request 
     at the President's level, it exceeds the President's request 
     for other programs by more than $4 billion and funds numerous 
     lower priority non-emergency programs as ``emergency'' needs. 
     The Administration strongly opposes this bill and also would 
     strongly oppose any amendment to further increase spending 
     above the President's request. For instance, the recently 
     enacted Farm Bill provides an historically high level of 
     agriculture spending that can accommodate funding for 
     emergencies, economic assistance, rural development, and 
     other purposes. The Administration supported the Farm Bill to 
     ensure farmers have the resources they need. The Farm Bill 
     breaks the bad fiscal habit of needing to pass emergency 
     agricultural spending bills including drought assistance and 
     other supplemental payments that make it difficult for 
     Congress to live within its budget leading to uncertainty for 
     farmers, ranchers and their creditors. The Administration 
     strongly opposes any new agriculture spending.
       In addition, the bill severely constrains the President's 
     ability to fund emergency homeland requirements by compelling 
     him to release non-emergency money provided in the bill. If 
     the supplemental appropriations bill were presented to the 
     President in its current form, his senior advisers would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.
     Overall Funding Level
       The proposals for emergency funding included in the 
     President's request were crafted to provide critical 
     resources to support the war on terrorism, secure the 
     homeland, and help dislocated workers as the Nation continues 
     to recover and rebuild following the September 11, 2001, 
     terrorist attacks. It is important to note that Congress has 
     already provided $40 billion since September 11th and only 
     half of those funds have been spent. The President's FY 2002 
     emergency supplemental request was targeted at this year's 
     immediate emergency needs and funding in addition to this 
     request is not warranted at this time.
       The Senate bill includes scores of unneeded items that 
     total billions of dollars--all classified as an 
     ``emergency.'' The bill adds unrequested funds for numerous 
     programs and projects throughout nearly all of the Federal 
     agencies. While some of these items relate to homeland 
     security, many do not, including: $11 million to the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for economic 
     assistance to New England fishermen and fishing 
     communities; $26.8 million for the U.S. Geological Survey 
     for urban mapping activities; $2 million for the 
     Smithsonian to begin design of an alcohol storage facility 
     for specimens away from the Mall (President's FY 2003 
     Budget already includes funding for this project in FY 
     2003); and, a directive for the Department of Energy to 
     construct duplicate waste treatment plants in Ohio and 
     Kentucky that will cost at least $100 million more than 
     necessary. In addition, without regard to the quality of 
     the awards, the bill requires $26 million more new 
     Advanced Technology Program awards than the Administration 
     recommends for 2002. These awards are not related to 
     homeland security needs, may not meet the Federal 
     Government's standard of peer review, and over their 
     duration are likely to cost the government over $75 
     million.
       While the Administration is pleased that the Senate 
     Committee provided $1 billion of the $1.3 billion needed to 
     finance the Pell grant shortfall, the Administration objects 
     to the provision that designates these funds as an 
     ``emergency.'' The Administration urges the Senate to follow 
     the House's lead and offset this funding. The Administration 
     will continue to work with Congress to identify offsets 
     necessary to finance this and any other non-emergency 
     activities that have not been fully paid for in the bill.
       The Administration believes the funding requested for 
     assistance to Colombia is crucial to support the struggle 
     against drugs and terrorism in that country. The reductions 
     in funding and the restrictions on the requested expansion of 
     counternarcotics authorities in Colombia will impede the 
     Administration's prospects of defeating these twin threats.
     Homeland Security Needs
       While the Senate Committee bill fully funds the President's 
     request for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 
     the Senate version of the bill provides $2.6 billion more 
     than the Administration requested for homeland security-
     related funding. This funding could not possibly be obligated 
     in the remaining months of this fiscal year, and therefore is 
     not an emergency.
       The Senate bill provides $175 million in new, unrequested 
     funding for the Agriculture Department for research, 
     inspection, and monitoring activities related to 
     bioterrorism. Significant resources have already been 
     provided through the Emergency Response Fund (ERF) as well as 
     in the FY 2003 President's Budget request. For example, 
     funding provided for the construction and renovation of an 
     Ames, Iowa facility is redundant because a total of $90 
     million has been provided for FY 2002 as part of the ERF and 
     regular appropriations, so that additional funding is not 
     needed in FY 2002 and FY 2003.

[[Page S4943]]

       The Senate Committee also added $100 million for nuclear 
     non-proliferation activities for the National Nuclear 
     Security Agency (NNSA). It is not possible for NNSA to use 
     these funds in the remaining four months of the current 
     fiscal year. The Senate bill also provides $315 million in 
     unrequested funds for Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention (CDC) buildings and facilities, including $278 
     million for accelerated planning, design, and construction of 
     new facilities, of which $28 million is designated as 
     bioterrorism-related. CDC will not be able to obligate this 
     additional funding in FY 2002 since they may not even be 
     able to obligate all of the $250 million they already 
     received in FY 2002 for buildings and facilities. To date, 
     CDC has obligated approximately $18 million (7 percent) of 
     its FY 2002 funding. In addition, the appropriate analyses 
     have not yet been completed for many of these activities 
     making it unlikely that these funds would be spent until 
     well into FY 2003.
       The bill also includes $85 million for the Justice 
     Department's COPS program to create a new grant program to 
     finance communications equipment for local first responder 
     agencies. Communications equipment is a major focus of the 
     $3.5 billion first responder initiative the President has 
     proposed for FEMA in his FY 2003 budget. The creation of a 
     new grant program for these purposes in the Department of 
     Justice runs counter to the Administration's proposal to 
     consolidate First Responder programs in FEMA, and in any 
     event is duplicative of efforts currently underway in the 
     Office of Justice Programs and FEMA.
       The Administration also objects to the proposed creation of 
     a Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General for Counter-
     terrorism. While well-intentioned, the creation of this 
     position would hinder, rather than enhance, the 
     Administration's counter-terrorism efforts by creating 
     another unnecessary layer of bureacracy. In addition, this 
     program would complicate recently announced restructuring 
     plans by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to enhance 
     counterterrorism efforts.
     Restrictions on Presidential Authorities
       The Senate version of the bill also unduly restricts the 
     President's prerogatives in numerous areas. First, it 
     requires the President to designate ``all or none'' of the 
     non-defense funding contained in the bill as an emergency. 
     The Budget Enforcement Act provides that the President retain 
     control over the release of emergency funds added by the 
     Congress to ensure that the funds respond to critical 
     emergency needs. By contravening this long-established budget 
     enforcement mechanism, the Senate would require the President 
     to waste taxpayers' dollars on low-priority, non-emergency 
     items in order to access vital high-priority homeland 
     security and recovery funding.
       The Senate version of the bill also requires payment of $34 
     million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) by July 
     10, 2002. On May 26, 2002, a three-member team returned from 
     a two-week investigation of UNFPA activities in China, 
     designed to provide information relevant to the determination 
     whether UNFPA is in compliance with the Kemp-Kasten law 
     barring support for any program involving coercion. The team 
     is in the process of completing a report outlining their 
     findings. Thus the Senate version would remove the 
     flexibility provided to the President under P.L. 107-115, the 
     FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, to weigh the 
     report's findings in his consideration of funding levels. As 
     has been U.S. policy and law since 1985, no support should be 
     provided to UNFPA if that organization's programs in China 
     support coercion.
       In addition, the bill requires that the Director of 
     Homeland Security be confirmed by the Senate, and makes the 
     provision of $5 million in homeland security funding for the 
     White House contingent upon that confirmation. The 
     Administration recognizes Congress' need to 
     receive information on homeland security, and the 
     Administration to take all steps possible to ensure that 
     this is the case while protecting the confidentiality of 
     Presidential counsel. The President has said that the 
     initial structure for organizing and overseeing homeland 
     security may evolve over time and the National Strategy 
     Review now underway may recommend an arrangement different 
     from the current one. The Administration does not want to 
     prejudge the outcome of the review process and strongly 
     urges the Senate to drop this objectionable provision.
       The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for 
     the $420 million in military assistance to Pakistan and 
     Jordan. However, we urge the Senate to provide these funds to 
     the Defense Department, as requested, to allow the Defense 
     Department to compensate coalition partners for costs 
     incurred directly related to support of U.S. military 
     operations in the way on terror. The Administration does not 
     believe the State Department should be held accountable for 
     managing or disbursing funds directly related to military 
     operations.
     Assistance to Dislocated Workers
       The Administration appreciates that the Committee provided 
     $400 million of the President's $750 million request to help 
     dislocated workers return to work. However, the 
     Administration is concerned that the Committee provided 
     insufficient funds for National Emergency Grants (NEGs); 
     provided an unrequested $80 million for State Dislocated 
     Worker formula grants; and did not provide adequate funds for 
     community economic adjustment and a targeted, high-growth job 
     training demonstration. The Administration looks forward to 
     working with the Senate to ensure that adequate assistance is 
     available to displaced workers, through National Emergency 
     Grants, and distressed communities to address higher 
     unemployment levels resulting from the recession.
     New York
       The Administration appreciates the Senate support for the 
     request for additional disaster relief efforts for New York 
     in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. However, 
     we are concerned about language that expands FEMA's Mortgage 
     and Rental Assistance program and proposes to redirect $90 
     million from FEMA to the Centers for Disease Control. The 
     Administration believes that the program expansion is 
     unnecessary because FEMA has sufficient authority to address 
     the needs of homeowners and renters and that the President's 
     full $2.75 billion request for FEMA is needed.
     Funding for Global HIV/AIDS
       The Administration appreciates the intent of the Senate in 
     recognizing this very important issue. The United States is 
     committed to providing a total of $500 million to the Global 
     Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) 
     and we look forward to continuing to work with the Congress 
     on this issue.
       The Administration is committed to working with the 
     Congress to enact an emergency supplemental appropriations 
     bill as expeditiously as possible. The Administration looks 
     forward to working with the Senate to address its concerns.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am always intrigued by a managers' 
amendment. Some of the greatest damage done around here is a 
``managers' amendment.''
  The rest of the Members around here are supposed to file our 
amendments but not managers' amendments. I will not agree to any 
unanimous consent agreement at any time unless a managers' amendment is 
filed at the same time as everyone else's amendment. The worst damage, 
the worst pork-barreling, the egregious stuff done around here is in 
managers' amendments.
  The Senator from Texas and I spent several hours late at night last 
year going through stacks of ``managers' amendments'' that amounted to 
billions of dollars in porkbarrel spending.
  I obviously disagree with that, as well.
  Managers' amendments should be filed at the same time that all other 
amendments should be filed.
  Finally, I don't know how the amendment process is going to go, but 
we are going to go after this porkbarrel spending and we are going to 
go after it and after it and after it because there is going to be 
plenty of votes and we may want additional amendments presented in 
different packages before we agree to any unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator object?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I will be brief. We have 
several problems. We just got back into town and we have a complicated 
piece of legislation before the Senate. We want an opportunity to go 
through it.
  Second, we have the problem that not only is the bill over the 
President's bill by some $3.8 billion, but there is $10 billion the 
President asked for that is not given in the bill. There is $14 billion 
he did not ask for that is provided, and with something this 
complicated I think to ask Members to limit our ability to offer 
amendments in 2 hours and 15 minutes on the first day we get back is 
unreasonable.
  On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate and understand the objections 
of my two friends, but this is the time they should make some 
suggestions. The President and the administration have been pushing 
this legislation now for many weeks. We understand the importance of 
it. The two managers of the bill understand the importance of it. We 
want to move this bill along.
  I was happy to hear the Senator from Arizona citing the problems he 
has with the bill and amendments will be offered. That is appropriate. 
That is what we want. If someone has a problem with this legislation, 
that is what they should do--offer amendments, a motion to strike, 
whatever is appropriate, rather than as we did this morning, when this 
body was basically in a quorum call, doing not much of anything. This 
is important legislation.
  I repeat, the title of this legislation is ``Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From the Response to Terrorist 
Attacks in the

[[Page S4944]]

United States.'' That is the name of the bill. That is why the two 
managers, two of the most senior Members, the most senior Members and 
one of the most senior Members, Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, have 
worked so hard to move it forward.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I wonder why there should be an exception made for a 
managers' amendment and an amendment by Senator Byrd and an amendment 
by Senator Stevens. Shouldn't all Members be treated the same in this 
scenario? Why couldn't it be amended to say that all first-degree 
amendments be filed by whatever date we agreed to, rather than adding a 
managers' amendment at any time, when we know the havoc that can wreak, 
in an amendment by Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens; why not add 
Senator Gramm, Senator McCain and the other 96 Senators, as well?

  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Please.
  Mr. STEVENS. I would like to answer that.
  Mr. President, the request for Senator Byrd and myself is because of 
absent Members who have an interest in this legislation. We had asked 
for an amendment to protect those absent Members, particularly with 
regard to the budget.
  From my point of view, I would be happy to have an agreement that all 
amendments must be filed by 5 p.m. without regard to anything else, and 
we would proceed. We would be happy with that.
  As far as the managers' amendment is concerned, those primarily are 
technical amendments that are brought to us as the day goes along. 
Sometimes people disagree with them and laugh about them, but it is 
very important that people bring them forward, and I remind the Senate 
they are adopted by unanimous consent.
  Any one Senator could have objected in the past or now to such a 
process. I am happy to leave that out. We can get the votes on the 
managers' amendment any time we want. We don't need unanimous consent 
to get a managers' package adopted.
  I would be happy to have an agreement that everything has to be filed 
by 5 o'clock. I ask the majority whip to change the request so that all 
amendments must be filed by 5 o'clock.
  Mr. McCAIN. Including the managers' amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Including the managers' amendment
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this shows the wisdom of the two managers of 
this legislation. I don't have nearly the experience the two managers 
have, but I have had some experience. There are always things that go 
wrong with legislation, most of which are technical in nature, and that 
is why you need a managers' amendment.

  These two experts on Senate procedure have asked that I propound a 
unanimous consent request, just as I have done, except eliminate the 
fact that there would be any other amendments in order.
  The two managers have more knowledge than I do, but I know the former 
chairman of the Budget Committee, the ranking member in the 
subcommittee of appropriations with whom I work, Senator Domenici, is 
not here today. They have a very important primary election in New 
Mexico. He is not here. I was happy to offer this request, keeping in 
mind that we would be protecting Senator Domenici, who is a person who 
has some knowledge of things that happen around here. But if the two 
managers are willing to go forward, I would be happy to do that.
  So I propound this unanimous consent request again, indicating--in 
fact, I will just read it.
  I ask unanimous consent all first-degree amendments to H.R. 4775 be 
filed by 5 p.m., Tuesday, June 4; that any second-degree amendments be 
relevant to the first degree to which offered or deal with offsets on 
the first degree; and that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill 
be read the third time and the Senate vote upon passage of the bill; 
that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendment, request a 
conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, 
and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  Mr. REID. I wonder, while the Senator from Texas is on the floor, 
would the Senator agree, on behalf of the minority, to having a time 
tonight, say, 5 o'clock, 5:30, for a finite list of amendments? The two 
managers would be given, by their respective cloakrooms, a finite list 
of amendments. This has worked well in the past as we proceed to 
getting a finite list of amendments.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  Mr. REID. I am sorry to interrupt. If we could get a finite list of 
amendments, then we could proceed to getting a cutoff of amendments at 
some subsequent time.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have high regard for the Senator. I 
understand he is trying to do his job.
  We just had a luncheon with the OMB Director, representing the 
President. We were given, at the luncheon, and Senator McCain put it in 
the Record so it will be immediately available to everybody--I am sure 
everybody will get a copy of it--an outline of why the President 
opposes the bill, why he will veto it if it is adopted.
  This bill is 115 pages long. Just looking through it, there are 
provisions of which I was unaware. We need time to sit down and read 
it.
  On that basis, we are not going to agree to limit amendments on this 
bill this day. What we will do tomorrow, I think, depends on where we 
are when people have had the time to look at it.
  For the people who are on the committee who studied these issues, 
obviously they are up on them; they know them. Most Members are not 
members of the Appropriations Committee. So in reading through here, I 
see we have $2.5 million to train journalists in Egypt. That may be a 
very good idea. I don't know.
  Or that, of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than 
$3.5 million shall be made available to programs and activities which 
support the development of the independent media in Pakistan.
  I would have to say, I may be exhibiting my ignorance, but I don't 
know whether or not that is a good expenditure of the taxpayers' money. 
I don't know if the President requested it in his bill. We have just 
gotten on this bill today.
  We are going to have to look at this to know where we are going and 
what we are doing. There are some very controversial amendments that 
are going be offered. I think we are going to have to see what they are 
before we are going to be ready to limit our amendments.
  I think there is a hope that this bill might be finished this week. I 
know our leader has that objective. But it is going to take us time to 
get through the bill and look at it and see to what extent we are going 
to want to offer amendments.
  Again, having just gotten the administration's position, given their 
strong opposition to the bill, I think it is going to take a day or 2 
days or so for us to get through the bill and decide how we want to go 
about it.
  I know the Senator wants the trains to run on time, but there may be 
people who decide to blow the train up. They would have a very 
different objective.
  It is going to take us time to absorb the bill and decide what we 
want to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will sit down very shortly. My friend from 
Texas is one of the smartest people in the Senate. He is an academic, 
he has a Ph.D., taught in college, and I certainly have every respect 
for not only his academic brilliance but also his common sense.
  Common sense dictates that this bill, which has been available since 
May 23--it has been available. Staffs had it; my staff had it. Other 
staffs have had an opportunity to look at it. There may be a lot of 
reasons why the Senator from Texas doesn't want to go forward with this 
legislation, but it is not that this bill just got here, because the 
bill has been here since May 23. It was reported out May 22.
  By Senate standards, it is a pretty thin bill. It is 117 pages. But 
in this there are a number of issues about which people have 
complained.
  The Egyptian journalists section was not requested by Senator Byrd; 
it was requested by Senator McConnell. That

[[Page S4945]]

is why it is in the bill. The $3.5 million for the independent media in 
Pakistan about which my friend complained, that was not requested by 
Senator Byrd; it was requested by Senator McConnell.
  So I appreciate the concern of the Senator from Texas and others. But 
he is right. We want to move this train. We have so many important 
things to do and this is the most important thing we have to do now.
  I repeat, this is a bill for further recovery and response to 
terrorist attacks in the United States. Every time we slow the train 
down, there are resources not going to agencies and entities and people 
throughout America that they desperately need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I don't want to get into lengthy debate 
here. I raised the question about the journalists because I didn't 
know. I could have spent our recess reading this bill. I did not. Maybe 
many of my colleagues did. I doubt it.

  We are not going to get this bill passed by passing it in a form that 
the President has already said he is going to veto. It seems to me if 
we are really in a hurry to pass this bill, that we need to figure out 
what we need to do to put it in a form so the President can and will 
sign it.
  I think we have three clearly identifiable problems. One, it spends 
$3.8 billion more than the President requested. No. 2, it does not fund 
$10 billion of emergency programs the President did request. And No. 
3--what the administration says----
  Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will yield, that statement is really just 
not correct. We just didn't fund it in the way he requested it, but we 
funded what he requested.
  Mr. GRAMM. All I know is if you take the programs he requested and 
you take the programs that are funded here, that there is $10 billion 
of programs, as he defined them, that are not funded in this bill. That 
is the second problem.
  The third problem is there are $14 billion of programs that he did 
not request, that he did not designate as emergencies, that are funded 
in the bill.
  So you have three major problems: It spends too much money, it leaves 
out $10 billion that the President asked for to fight the war on 
terrorism, and then it spends $14 billion for which the President did 
not ask.
  It may very well be that the way he asked and the way you provided 
are subtly different. I think that is one of the reasons we need to 
look at it.
  Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. All I am saying is that is what the administration is 
saying in these letters they are giving us. I appreciate the job of the 
Senator from Nevada. He does it well. But if our objective is to get 
the money passed for the war on terrorism so it becomes law and the 
money can be spent, we are not going to do that by passing a bill the 
President today, in writing, is saying he will veto.
  If we are in a hurry to get the money, what we ought to do is find a 
way to fix those three problems: No. 1, we are spending way too much 
money as compared to what the President requested. No. 2, $10 billion 
he asked for in some form that we didn't provide. And then $14 billion 
he didn't ask for, didn't say that they were emergencies, but we are 
calling them emergencies.
  Then we have a provision in the bill that says he cannot spend any of 
the money as an emergency unless this $14 billion is deemed as an 
emergency, even though he doesn't think it is an emergency.
  So I just think we are a long way from home. And if our objective is 
to get something the President will sign and will become law, there are 
going to have to be dramatic changes in the bill. If I knew how to fix 
the bill today, I would do it; but I do not know how. It is just going 
to take time for us to figure it out. And that is what this is about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the President asked for this money as an 
emergency. The committee has made it a contingent emergency. And in 
terms of the accounting process, that turns up in one column or the 
other, but it is $10 billion in each column.
  Now, it is true we do allocate some of that money in ways the 
President did not seek to allocate it. And there is a difference in 
whether we want money to go to one Department or the other for homeland 
defense, but it is all still there as in terms of the budget.
  I understand the comments of the Senator from Texas about vetoes. If 
every time we had a veto threat, since I have been in the Senate, we 
just stood still for 2 days, we would never pass any bills. The 
appropriations process always faces veto threats--until we come out of 
conference. And guess what. With very few exceptions, in the 30 years I 
have been on the committee, we have not had vetoes of the 
appropriations bills. It is just a tactic of the administration that 
tells us: If you don't do this and that, we are going to veto the bill. 
We will work this out, and eventually we will get the President's 
agreement to a bill.
  We have to deal with the House, too. The House bill itself was 
finally deemed acceptable after it passed, but it faced a veto threat 
before it passed. As far as I am concerned, the difficulty is we have 
to sit around for 2 days to wait for people to read a bill that has 
been here since May 22. I would like to find some way to get people to 
come here and offer amendments to a bill that was here before we left 
for the recess.
  Now, it is high time that people start thinking about what they are 
saying. They want 2 days to study this bill?
  I think maybe tomorrow we will make a motion to proceed to third 
reading and see where the votes are. Let's see where the votes are. If 
the Senate wants to get this bill to the President, what they need to 
do is let us go to conference. And I will guarantee you, the bill that 
comes out of conference will be a bill the President will accept 
because we do not want a supplemental emergency bill to be vetoed. But 
we have to get to conference to work the matter out with the House and 
not sit around here to wait for people, in 2 days, to tell us what they 
object to in this bill that is going to the House for conference in any 
event.
  So I want to serve notice, tomorrow afternoon, unless the chairman 
disagrees, I think we ought to have a test vote and see who wants to 
delay the supplemental appropriations bill. We ought to go to third 
reading tomorrow and take this bill to conference on Thursday. And if 
we did, we would have it back here next Tuesday so the matter would be 
settled as far as the President is concerned.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the statements that have been made 
by the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
the former chairman.
  We had lengthy hearings on the bill. Those hearings were well 
attended by Members on both sides of the aisle. The witnesses who came 
before the committee were witnesses who were agreed upon by both the 
ranking member, Mr. Stevens, and myself.
  Everything was done that could have been done to try to ascertain 
what the true needs of the country are. We had seven Department heads. 
We had the Director of FEMA. We had mayors, Governors, local 
responders, the people who are first on the scene: the firemen, health 
personnel, law enforcement people. And we assiduously studied the 
hearings results as we prepared the bill.
  Now, it is easy to sit around and carp and complain and criticize, 
but there are some around here who believe they have to do some things 
to help this country. We have to move a bill. It is easy to find fault, 
but it is not so easy to try to develop the kind of support that this 
bill justifies. I think we have gone a long way to try to meet the true 
needs of this country.
  I have respect for the President, but he is not the fountain of all 
wisdom. I would hope that the President would take time to look at the 
bill, to study it. I think he will find there are provisions in it that 
he did not request but which are justified. So I have faith that he 
would be reasonable in that respect.
  We appropriated the $14 billion the President requested for the 
Department of Defense. We appropriated the $5.5 billion for New York 
the President requested. We appropriated the $1.6 billion for foreign 
aid. And we appropriated the money for homeland defense in the amount 
of--we approved

[[Page S4946]]

his $5.3 billion request. He saw a need for that.
  We conducted the hearings. We are the representatives of the people. 
We are the elected representatives of the people. We come here to 
represent the people. I do not come here by virtue of any President, 
Democrat or Republican. No President sends me here, and no President is 
going to send me home. That is up to the people of West Virginia.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. REID. I was here in the Chamber when we went out a week ago last 
Friday, and there were people complaining about this bill. Remember, 
they had the bill then. And people are complaining about it today, 
nitpicking it, for lack of a better description.
  I say to my friend, the manager of the bill, people within the sound 
of our voices should understand that there is $6.7 billion in this bill 
to conduct military operations to continue the fight against terrorism. 
That is there. There is $4.1 billion for National Guard and Reserve 
personnel. People, including my friends in Nevada, have been called up. 
A Capitol policeman here, one person I know very well, left today for 6 
months of active duty. He is leaving the Capitol Police, leaving his 
family, going off to fight for us, to protect us. We have to provide 
money to take care of that--$4.1 billion.
  There is $2.7 billion for personnel, command, control, and 
communications, intelligence, and to replace munitions they are blowing 
up every day over in Afghanistan and other places.
  I also say to my friend, it is true, is it not, there is money in 
this bill for embassy security and other State Department activities 
related to the effort to respond to, deter, prevent international 
terrorism? That is in the bill.
  We have $4.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration--
and I am certain we need that--to improve airport perimeter security, 
fund research for air cargo inspections.
  There is $1 billion for first responders.
  Mr. President, firemen, policemen, paramedics died going into those 
Twin Towers. People died. We need to have better training facilities 
around this country to help first responders. That is what this money 
is for, to make my family, as well as all families, all over this 
country, safer. So I am kind of tired of people coming over and 
nitpicking this bill.
  We have $990 million for port security, $387 million for bioterrorism 
and to improve lab capacity at the Centers for Disease Control.
  I went to the Centers for Disease Control with Max Cleland. That 
place is an embarrassment. They do wonderful work, but they are in 
hundreds of buildings--little buildings, shacks. Some of them go back 
to before World War II. This money is to help them become more 
efficient. This is emergency money.
  I say to my friend, I appreciate the work that has been done. I say 
this not for me but for the people of Nevada, I appreciate the work 
that you and the Senator from Alaska have done--providing $200 million 
for security at nuclear weapons facilities.
  Senators Lieberman and Clinton and I are holding hearings tomorrow in 
the full Committee on Environment and Public Works because we believe--
and there is a large segment of our society that believes--that our 
nuclear reactors are not secure. The Senator from West Virginia 
provides money to help this, to make them safer; money for food safety; 
cyber-security; border security. There is money in the bill so that the 
EPA can complete vulnerability assessments of water systems. That is 
what they are telling us might happen; these evil people are going to 
come in and poison our water so we can't drink it or, if we drink it, 
everybody will get sick. There is money in here to take care of that. 
There is money to make sure the Postal Service can respond to 
bioterrorism attacks.
  It is time we understand that this bill is important. It is emergency 
funding for the programs I have mentioned. I am, for lack of a better 
word, kind of tired of people coming in, criticizing Senator Byrd and 
Senator Stevens for the brilliant work that was done getting the bill 
here in the first place.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, this is a defense 
bill. This is for the defense of our homeland. This is for the defense 
of our people, our schoolchildren, our people who go to church, our 
people who work in the mines and in the fields and the shipyards. We 
are talking about homeland defense. We can't get any closer to home.
  Why some people would come to the floor and attempt to be critical 
over moneys that are for the defense of our homeland, for the defense 
of our own people, and in the many areas that have been explained by 
the distinguished Democratic whip, Mr. Reid, is beyond me.
  Last year, the President requested $6 billion for homeland defense. 
The Congress appropriated $10 billion for homeland defense, $4 billion 
more than the President requested. The President signed that 
legislation.
  The President made a request last year. The Congress, in its wisdom, 
in its collective wisdom, saw a need to appropriate more money. Those 
additional moneys that Congress appropriated last year over the 
President's request have made a difference.
  With all due respect to the President, I would say the distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Stevens, and I have worked together, and the other 
Republicans on that committee, to report the bill; 14 Republicans, 15 
Democrats. That is a pretty good indication that this bill is a 
worthwhile piece of legislation.
  I hope Members will stop complaining. If they have any amendments 
they want to offer, offer them. Let's get on with the legislation and 
get it to conference and be prepared. We don't know what will happen 5 
days from now, a week from now. I hope Members will restrain their 
appetites to criticize, find fault and complain, and help us to put 
across this legislation that is for the benefit of the Nation.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there are complaints about specific items 
in this bill, offer an amendment to get rid of them. Don't come here 
and carp and complain about it. If they don't like the suggestion of 
Senator McConnell to have moneys for training journalists in other 
countries, then move to strike it, have a vote. We could have a debate 
on that in 15 or 20 minutes and move on to something else. If there is 
something else they don't like, move to strike it. These bills are not 
perfect by any sense of the word.
  I hope, rather than trying to slow down the train, as my friend from 
Texas said, we will try to move the train along. This is important 
legislation dealing with the peace and safety and security of the 
American people.
  We are back where we were this morning with a lot of talk and no 
amendments. This morning there wasn't even much talk. I hope people 
will come forward and offer amendments to this legislation. We are open 
for business. It is too bad we don't have people here. I have had a 
number of people come to me and tell me they have amendments they want 
to offer. We hope they will come forward and do that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I request permission to speak 
on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I thank you for recognizing me. 
I wanted to come and add my voice to the many that have supported the 
supplemental appropriations bill, and I want to give a unique 
perspective, that of Florida law enforcement, as to why we need this 
bill and not the House bill or the President's request.
  It is most timely that we examine the question of what we are asking 
local and State law enforcement personnel to assume in the way of 
responsibilities for investigation of crime and

[[Page S4947]]

now terrorist activity. As we face the realistic fact of the threats to 
our society, not only do we look at the threats from organized crime, 
drug crime, white-collar crime, all of those kinds of activities on 
which the FBI has traditionally done its investigation and worked with 
State and local law enforcement and worked with the U.S. attorneys and 
State attorneys, now with the additional requirement to protect the 
homeland, we have to also marshal considerable law enforcement 
investigative resources to go after the element that would try to tear 
down our society by terrorist acts. It also adds a much greater burden 
as we go about the process of investigating the activity of these 
people we otherwise would call bad guys who are trying to destroy our 
way of life in this country.
  So then we get to the point of last week's announcement by the FBI 
Director that he is going to take 400 of his approximately 11,000 
agents and shift them from going after normal criminal investigative 
procedures and shift them specifically to terrorists. I don't think 
there is any Member who disagrees.

  We have to have pause and ask: How are we going to go about the 
normal job of investigating all the other bad guys besides the 
terrorists? If we shift this resource of 400 agents, who typically have 
gone after drug crime and white-collar crime, to going only after 
terrorists, does that mean we will shift all of that burden of 
investigation to State and local law enforcement organizations?
  Unfortunately, I come from a State that has one of the most active 
criminal investigations, particularly in the Southern District of 
Florida. The U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida is one 
of the most active in the country, in large part because we have to 
prosecute so much drug crime in Florida.
  I spoke with one of my advisers this past week during the recess, the 
sheriff of Broward County, the second largest county in our State; he 
is an elected official. All the sheriffs in our 67 counties are 
elected. I asked his opinion. He clearly said, who does not support the 
shifting of these assets in going after the terrorists. In particular 
the sheriff of Broward County had a tremendous working relationship 
with the FBI, the DEA, and all the other Federal agencies that work 
with State and local law enforcement.
  He wanted to encourage that. However, he pondered how he could have 
the needed resources for that burden of criminal investigation that the 
FBI was shifting to State and local law enforcement, particularly a 
very big police force, a sheriff's department.
  That is what brings me to the floor today, to speak in favor of this 
bill, not the House bill and not the President's position. This is a 
big amount of money in a supplemental appropriations bill, $31 billion; 
the President requested $27 billion; the House passed $29 billion. 
There is a $2 billion difference.
  What are some of the major differences? One of the major differences 
in the two bills and why we ought to accept the Senate bill is $1 
billion for first responder efforts, including firefighting, State and 
local law enforcement agencies, emergency medical personnel, and 
particularly in emergency responding to biological, chemical, and 
nuclear threats. That is important. And there is more funding here than 
from the House.
  If this will give law enforcement organizations such as my 67 
sheriffs in Florida, our hundreds of police chiefs in Florida, our 
excellent Florida Department of Law Enforcement, headed by Tim Moore--
and I have had the privilege of working with him for years--if it will 
give them the resources if the FBI is going to temporarily be pulled 
over to the bad guy terrorists, that is why we need to pass this Senate 
bill.
  Furthermore, it is instructive, when you see the Web site of the FBI, 
to see what the FBI lists as its priorities. The first three priorities 
have to do with going after and investigating the activities of 
terrorists. Priority No. 4 is public corruption and priority No. 5 is 
civil rights. It is priority No. 6 that involves drug crimes and going 
after the national and international criminal enterprise, including 
lots of activities of the mob.
  Therefore, I want to make sure there is not one Member who does not 
support these priorities of the FBI. I want to make sure that in the 
process of supporting the Director as he reorients these 400 agents we 
have not put an unbearable burden of investigation on State and local 
law enforcement to the point they cannot handle it and they get 
overworked and overextended, or that they have to retrench and that 
those kinds of criminal activities in America go uninvestigated. That 
would be unacceptable.

  That is why I come to the floor today, to say to my colleagues that 
we need to pass this Senate version of the supplemental appropriations 
bill which passed by a unanimous bipartisan vote out in the 
Appropriations Committee, led in great bipartisan fashion, as they so 
often do, by Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the two leaders of their 
respective parties on this Appropriations Committee. We need to pass 
this bill and get it to a conference committee to iron out the 
differences with the House and insist on the priorities.
  There is one other priority that needs to be attended to. I come from 
Florida. We have 14 deepwater ports in Florida. Fortunately, we are 
finally waking up to the fact that terrorist activity may well happen 
in, at, or through one of those ports. Of the myriad containers that 
come into this country through our ports, only about 3 percent are 
inspected. Those who want to do bad things clearly have an avenue. 
Thus, we have to beef up our port security.
  Within this appropriations bill, there is $970 million that will help 
increase our security at these ports. That includes, clearly, Coast 
Guard surveillance. Can we get the Coast Guard to do everything? No. Do 
we need the Coast Guard to have increased surveillance in our ports? 
Yes. Do we need the Coast Guard continuing to do drug interdiction on 
the high seas? Yes. How are we going to do it? We have to provide more 
resources.
  I submit to the Senate that this supplemental appropriations bill is 
a way to do that. I urge my colleagues to get on with it; stop standing 
around. Don't make us go to a cloture motion to have to cut off debate. 
Let's get this supplemental appropriations bill passed and into a 
conference so we can go about the business of the country.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 3570

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3570.

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out a certain 
                           transfer of funds)

       On page 7, between lines 12 and 13, insert the following:
       Sec. 102. Not later than 14 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     carry out the transfer of funds under section 2507(a) of the 
     Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 
     107-171).

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my amendment simply requires the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture to take action on a recently enacted farm 
bill conservation provision. The conservation provision is important. 
It is already in the farm bill. I am simply asking that they do what 
they are already required to do.
  As many of my colleagues know, the farm bill is 1,000 pages long. The 
Department of Agriculture just met with the Senate staff to talk about 
their plans to implement this mammoth bill. It is taking the Department 
a long time to work out the details of all the programs and provisions 
of this bill. The provision to which this amendment pertains requires 
USDA to transfer conservation funds to the Bureau of Reclamation. This 
amendment does not in any way change the underlying farm bill.
  This is in there. They are required to do it. It requires the USDA to 
carry out a mandatory congressional directive by a date certain so that 
a small provision does not get lost in a sea of larger programs and 
priorities.
  I want the two managers to have time to look at this amendment. I

[[Page S4948]]

want others to, if they have any question about it. It is a fairly 
simple thing, requiring the Department of Agriculture to do something 
that the farm bill directs them to do.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the 
$417 million in additional fiscal year 2002 funding for veterans health 
care contained in this supplemental appropriation bill. First, let me 
give a little background.
  In November of last year, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony 
Principi identified a roughly $400 million shortfall in the VA medical 
care appropriation for FY2002. This shortfall, driven by increased 
demand for VA services as well as rising medical costs, threatened to 
force the Secretary to stop enrolling new veterans into the VA system.
  This was not something the Secretary wanted to do, but he is someone 
who tries to face challenges honestly and he determined that he 
couldn't maintain services for veterans already enrolled in the VA and 
serve new veterans at the same time. But rather than have that happen, 
the White House told the Secretary that they would find him additional 
money.
  But Mr. President, when the administration sent their supplemental 
request to Congress in March they only asked for $142 million for the 
VA--$258 million below the level the Secretary said he needed. To add 
insult to injury, the VA was then told that it had to make up the 
difference through ``management efficiencies.''
  Well, Mr. President, I think we all know that ``management 
efficiencies'' is just inside the beltway talk for balancing the budget 
on the backs of veterans. I was at any number of joint veterans 
committee hearings over on the House side where the veterans were 
talking about the importance of leaving no veteran behind. And 
remember, this occurs in the context of half a decade in the mid-
nineties of cost cutting and belt tightening at the VA. There really 
isn't much more fat to trim.
  I knew that the administration's request was a non-starter. I knew 
based on what I was hearing from veterans in Minnesota and the VA both 
here and in Minnesota. I know that you, the Presiding officer, was 
hearing that in South Dakota as well. Already this year's shortfall has 
had a tremendous impact in Minnesota and throughout VISN 23:
  Higher waiting times generally for care at both hospitals and 
community based outpatient clinics--28 days for current patients 
seeking primary care, 30-150 days for new patients seeking primary 
care, 4 to 170 days for specialty care at the medical centers.
  A freeze on new CBOCs.
  A freeze on new patients at some of our medical centers.
  The closing of clinics at our hospitals--specifically, for example, 
the night clinics at the Minneapolis facility--the flagship hospital in 
our network. And at St. Cloud, the caregivers there tell me they have 
never seen it so bad, in terms of the cuts they are having to make in 
personnel and the way it is affecting quality of services.
  But these problems are not unique to Minnesota, they are happening 
all over the country. That's why these additional funds are so 
critical. Something had to be done.
  I, Senator Johnson, now the Presiding Officer, and Senator Collins 
drafted a bipartisan letter to the Appropriations Committee asking that 
the committee include at least $400 million for VA health care in the 
supplemental. Altogether, 27 Senators signed our letter--Republicans 
and Democrats. The veterans organizations that put together the 
Independent Budget endorsed our effort. I ask unanimous consent that a 
copy of each of those letters be printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  [See Exhibit 1.]
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am pleased to say that the committee 
agreed to our request. In particular I want to thank Chairman Byrd and 
Senator Stevens as well as Senator Mikulski and Senator Bond, the chair 
and ranking member of the VA/HUD subcommittee. They all care deeply 
about our veterans and they know better than anyone the challenges that 
the VA faces.
  The $417 million for veterans health care in this bill will mean that 
Minnesota's Network, VISN 23, will get an additional $21.4 million to 
reduce waiting times, keep clinics open, open new clinics, and improve 
the quality of healthcare. This is very badly needed.
  Mr. President, this bill has drawn criticism for going beyond the 
President's request. Well, at least on veterans health care the 
President didn't ask for enough. The VA is straining to serve more 
veterans while spending much less per patient. The VA is our back-up 
health care provider for the U.S. military. It is the back up provider 
for our public health care system should there be--heaven forbid--
another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is money that will be well 
spent. I am proud to support it.
  I say to the Chair, Senator Johnson from South Dakota, it has been an 
honor to be involved with you in this joint effort. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee got it right. We need to get this bill to the 
President as quickly as possible.
  I have seen the same pattern again and again. I will just tell you 
that there are incredibly powerful and important claims by veterans who 
believe they are being left behind because they are not able to access 
the kind of health care we promised we would deliver to them, because 
of the budget constraints. This supplemental will help, though it is 
not a whole answer to the problem.
  I have heard it and seen it with the education community. My State of 
Minnesota is still waiting for the $2 billion our State deserves--if 
the Federal Government had lived up to its commitment on special 
education over 10 years. I think it would have been an additional $40 
million this past year. It would have made all the difference in the 
world. Half of it would have been for special education, but the other 
half could have been applied to other programs that we had to take 
money from in order to fund special education.
  I have had people come into my office to talk about the need for more 
research money for cancer, all kinds of cancer. This morning we were 
talking about pancreatic cancer. Of course, we have talked about breast 
cancer and all kinds of cancer.
  I have had people, more recently, come in and talk to me about the 
need for more money for MS, muscular dystrophy, muscular dystrophy that 
affects children, Parkinson's disease, diabetes. Frankly, the list goes 
on and on. The last thing we want is for one group of people struggling 
with an illness to be pitted against another group. The concern is, 
will there be enough money to dramatically continue with the research 
effort within NIH?
  By the way, I would argue that ultimately a healthy Medicare 
recipient makes for a better Medicare system. And to the extent we can 
find a cure for some of these disabling diseases--including 
Alzheimer's--we will all be much better. There is the old adage: But 
for the grace of God go I or my parent or my grandparent.
  I have heard from people in Minnesota--elderly people, but not just 
senior citizens, others as well--about what we talk about all the 
time--and the majority leader said, indeed, we will bring this to the 
floor of the Senate--affordable prescription drug legislation. But just 
as important as that is, our health care delivery system in Minnesota 
is in crisis. The Medicare reimbursement, which was dramatically cut in 
the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, has just been devastating to our rural 
hospital system and, frankly, to metro as well--whether it be our 
hospitals, our nursing homes, our home health care providers, whether 
it be the whole issue of physician reimbursement vis-a-vis Medicare 
recipients, whether it be the County Medical Center, which is one of 
the best public hospitals in the United States. In Medicare and 
Medicaid, we are faced with some severe problems of underfunding.
  To go back to the issue of veterans' health care, when I visit 
veterans in our medical centers, and then maybe spend some time talking 
to their

[[Page S4949]]

spouses, their spouses do not have a clue about what they are going to 
do when their husbands get home. Maybe one of the veterans has had hip 
surgery, and he is 75 or 80 years old. We don't know what to do about 
home health care, how we can support people so they can stay at home.
  But that does not affect just veterans; it affects all of us as we 
get older or, God forbid, it affects others who struggle with 
disabilities at a much younger age.
  I have been hearing from small businesses more in recent years. 
Although I have always believed our failure to finance, organize, and 
deliver health care in our country in a way that makes sense most 
seriously affects, obviously, people with no insurance and people who 
are underinsured, my gosh, the self-employed and small businesspeople 
are getting killed by these spiraling health care costs. This is a 
system that is imploding.
  Frankly, I think we ultimately have to get back to health security 
for all. I think we have to get back to comprehensive health care 
coverage.
  I remind my colleagues about some of the reports in the New York 
Times about nursing home conditions. These are elderly people who have 
built a country, who are infirm, who wind up in nursing homes with 
inadequate staffing and some pretty horrendous conditions. And it is 
not because the people in the nursing homes are cruel; it is that they 
do not have adequate funding.

  I could not believe the New York Times front page story, a three-part 
series. I think the journalist should receive a Pulitzer for his work 
on adult care for people struggling with mental illness, people who 
jump out of windows and take their lives because they never received 
pharmacological treatment, people who have died in heat, people who 
wear the same urine-soaked and urine-smelling clothing day after day 
because they have received no care.
  This is in the United States of America in the year 2002. Surely we 
can do better.
  By the way, this Thursday there will be maybe as many as 2,000 men 
and women, who will have come to Washington, DC, from all across the 
country, who are basically going to say: When are you going to pass a 
mental health parity bill? When are you going to end the 
discrimination? We are here to meet with you, Representatives.
  They are going to focus most of their effort on the House side. We 
passed this as an amendment last year in the appropriations bill. We 
have 66 cosponsors. Senator Domenici has done a great job taking the 
lead. It has been an honor to be his partner in this effort.
  But these are people who are just getting tired of waiting, tired of 
the delay. It is their loved ones or themselves who are affected.
  My only point is, I really do think we are on a collision course 
between tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts--too much of this, of course, 
focused on the wealthiest citizens or multinational corporations--and 
not having, therefore, any of the revenue or the funding to make any 
investment in these other areas.
  I do not think, when it comes to education and health care, when it 
comes to the question of conditions in nursing homes, and when it comes 
to the question of whether we are going to do everything we can to do 
the research and find the cure for horrible diseases, that we should 
basically be put in a position of not making the investment. How can we 
do that? We will not be a better nation if that is the case.
  So I really believe these tax cuts have put us in a straitjacket. 
When I look at what is being asked for the Pentagon, and then look at 
what is being asked--and probably there should be more--for homeland 
defense, and then I look at these other compelling needs, and then I 
look at all the tax cuts, I ask myself the question: How can you do all 
of it at the same time? And you can't.
  So I hope we will sort that out and make some of these decisions. 
That is part of what this battle has been about--veterans' health care. 
Everybody is for veterans. No Senator would ever make a speech saying 
they were not for veterans. But veterans are saying: Look, when push 
comes to shove, there is the Fourth of July, there is Memorial Day, and 
there is Veterans Day. We appreciate the parades and we appreciate the 
ceremonies, but the truth is, the best way you can honor us is by, 
please, living up to your commitment to give us the very best health 
care, by honoring us when we are in the later years of our lives, if we 
are World War II veterans, by making sure we are not tucked away in 
some nursing home; if we are Vietnam veterans and we are homeless, and 
we are struggling with PTSD, try to give us care; if we are Persian 
Gulf veterans trying to figure out what happened to us, make sure we 
get the health care.
  I think this supplemental bill is, at least in part, a recognition of 
that. I appreciate the work of all involved, and I especially 
appreciate the work of the Presiding Officer, Senator Johnson. The 
Presiding Officer has been a real leader in this area. I know veterans 
in South Dakota thank Senator Johnson as well. And I thank Senator 
Collins for her good work also.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 2002.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The Capital, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Appropriations, The 
         Capital, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator Stevens: We write to urge you 
     to include $400 million for veterans medical care in the 
     FY2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill. This is the minimum 
     amount necessary to allow the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     (VA) to maintain current services in the current fiscal year 
     without impairing veterans' access to quality, timely health 
     care.
       The VA in recent years has stretched their appropriation as 
     far as possible, even as the number of veterans seeking VA 
     care has risen dramatically. In November of last year, 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi identified a 
     $400 million shortfall in the VA medical care appropriation 
     for FY2002. This shortfall, driven by increased demand for VA 
     services as well as rising medical costs, threatened to force 
     the Secretary to restrict enrollment of new veterans into the 
     VA system.
       The Administration has requested a $142 million 
     supplemental appropriation for the VA--$258 million below the 
     level the Secretary said he needed. While we appreciate that 
     the President included veterans medical care in his 
     supplemental request, we are concerned that it will not cover 
     the entire shortfall. VA has said the Veterans Health 
     Administration will make up the difference through 
     ``management efficiencies.'' However, such steps will 
     severely undermine the VA's ability to delivery quality, 
     timely health care to America's veterans. The impact of this 
     budget gap has already affected many veterans in the form of 
     longer waiting times for medical appointments, stressed and 
     overworked VA staff, closing of clinics, moratoriums on new 
     Community Based Outpatient Clinics and frozen enrollment at 
     existing CBOCs.
       We know that the fiscal strains on the federal budget are 
     significant. However, the crisis in the veterans health care 
     system requires that it be made a top priority. To avert 
     further hardship on veterans, the supplemental should reflect 
     VA's actual need and include $400 million for medical care.
       Thank you for your attention this request, We know of your 
     commitment to our veterans and look forward to working with 
     you as the appropriation process moves forward.
           Sincerely,
         Paul D. Wellstone; Susan Collins; James M. Jeffords; 
           Byran L. Dorgan; Harry Reid; Max Baucus; Barbara Boxer; 
           Dick Durbin; Robert G. Torricelli; John F. Kerry; Mark 
           Dayton; Patty Murray; Patrick Leahy; Tim Johnson; Jay 
           Rockefeller; Debbie Stabenow; Kent Conrad; Bill Nelson; 
           Tom Daschle; Max Cleland; Zell Miller; Gordon Smith; 
           Ted Kennedy; Olympia Snowe; Tom Harkin; Jean Carnahan.
                                  ____

                                           The Independent Budget,


                            A Budget for Veterans by Veterans,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 2002.
       Dear Senator: Last Autumn, Secretary of Veterans Affairs 
     Anthony Principi stated that the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs (VA) was facing a shortfall of $400 million in this 
     fiscal year. In fact, the VA came perilously close to 
     curtailing the enrollment of veterans seeking health care in 
     order to meet this deficit. The co-authors of The Independent 
     Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed 
     Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, urge 
     you to sign-on to the Dear Colleague letter being circulated 
     by Senators Paul Wellstone, Susan Collins and Tim Johnson 
     seeking $400 million in FY 2002 supplemental funding for 
     veterans' health care.
       The Administration has requested only $142 million in 
     supplemental funding for veterans' health care, $258 million 
     below the demonstrated need. Because of inadequate funding, 
     the VA health care system is in crisis and veterans are 
     facing de facto health care rationing. In fact, almost 
     175,000 veterans are waiting months and months for basic 
     appointments. This is why The Independent Budget has 
     recommended a $3.1 billion increase in FY 2003, and why we 
     urge

[[Page S4950]]

     you to help us achieve the $400 million in supplemental 
     funding veterans' health care needs this year.
       Again, we urge you to support the funding levels needed by 
     veterans' health care.
           Sincerely,
     Rick Jones,
       National Legislative Director, AMVETS.
     Richard B. Fuller,
       National Legislative director, Paralyzed Veterans of 
     America.
     Joseph A. Violante,
       National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans.
     Dennis Cullinan,
       National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of 
     the United States.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. REID. Can the Presiding Officer tell me when is the last time an 
amendment was offered; what time was that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. At 3:47 p.m.
  Mr. REID. At 3:47 p.m., Mr. President. It is now 4:47 p.m. That is an 
hour.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. The debate on that amendment took approximately 2 minutes. 
So following the vote this afternoon, there was some dialog as to what 
we should do on this bill. We asked unanimous consent to move forward, 
having expedited time for filing amendments. At that time, there were a 
number of people who said they did not like certain provisions in the 
bill. There was an example of some money that had been suggested by 
Senator McConnell for training journalists in the Middle East and in 
Pakistan. Some colleagues said they did not like that part of the bill.
  I would hope we would do what we are supposed to do. If Senators do 
not like what is in the bill, let's do something about it. We are 
waiting around here doing nothing on a bill that is called by title the 
``Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery from and 
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States,'' and nothing is 
happening.
  People complain about the bill. There are major programs in this bill 
that are not being funded. The President has told us on numerous 
occasions this is an important bill to move along. We are trying to do 
that. But for his own party, we cannot do that.
  I talked with Senator Byrd today publicly about some of the items in 
this legislation: $6.7 billion to conduct military operations to 
continue the fight against terrorism. I do not think anyone would 
dispute that is necessary; $4.1 billion for National Guard and Reserve 
personnel who have been called up to active duty, and I used the 
example of one of the police officers who is part of the plain clothes 
detail. He has very important duties on Capitol Hill. He has been 
called away for 6 months. There are thousands and thousands of people, 
just as James Proctor, who have been called to active duty.
  We have to pay for this activity, and that is part of what Senator 
Byrd and Senator Stevens are trying to do with this bill they are 
managing.
  There is $.3 billion for combat air patrol missions within the United 
States for obvious reasons. Because of September 11, we need these air 
patrol missions; $200 million for Guantanamo Bay support, fuel, and 
miscellaneous costs. We have ongoing activities that certainly have 
become more difficult with the war on terrorism and because of what 
Castro has done in the past and also what he has threatened to do and 
the fact we have moved al-Qaida and Taliban from Afghanistan to a 
protective facility at Guantanamo Bay. There is $200 million in this 
bill to take care of those activities.
  In this legislation, there are moneys requested by the President to 
better protect our embassy personnel, to prevent international 
terrorism, as well as for military and economic assistance programs to 
strengthen the ability of other countries to fight terrorism.
  In this bill there is $4.4 billion for the Transportation and 
Security Administration which funds their request. The bill includes 
$265 million in additional airport security funds. These monies would 
help airports meet the new Federal security standards. Local 
governments are eating these costs now.
  We need to move forward. If there is something in the bill that 
people do not like, let them move to take it out, have a debate, and an 
up-or-down vote. If it is not necessary to have something in the bill, 
they can make their case. I am sure Senator Stevens and Senator Byrd 
would be happy if that were done.
  There are things in this bill for port security. These funds would 
improve security at our ports, allow for increased surveillance by the 
Coast Guard, improve container inspections by the Customs Service, as 
well as improve inspection technology generally. In this bill, there is 
$387 million for bioterrorism, including funds to improve lab capacity 
at the Centers for Disease Control and security at the National 
Institutes of Health; $200 million for security at nuclear weapons 
facilities and nuclear laboratories.
  I traveled with Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman in recent 
months to the Los Alamos and Sandia Laboratories, something of which 
this country should be very proud, but the problem is they have 
inadequate security. Maybe we should not announce that on the Senate 
floor, but that is a fact. Some of the most sensitive work done in this 
Government is done in New Mexico at those two laboratories. We are 
trying to get more money so that these laboratories are not subject to 
terrorist attack as easily as they might be.
  I spoke to a Member of the House of Representatives today and I spoke 
yesterday to Senator Lugar. They traveled to Russia during the break, 
spent almost a week there. I am so happy we have improved our 
relationship with Russia. It is so important we have done that. I am so 
happy we have this treaty where each country is going to cut back by 
two-thirds the number of nuclear warheads, but we are a country that 
has the means to help the former Soviet Union, Russia, get rid of some 
of those materials. They need help. There are biological weapons and 
nuclear weapons stored in facilities that one cannot believe how 
inadequate they are.
  There is money in this bill--not very much, in my opinion, compared 
to what is needed, but in this bill there is $100 million for nuclear 
nonproliferation programs. That is important money. That is money well 
spent. One hundred fifty-four million dollars is for cyber-security.
  This funding would help the private sector and Federal agencies 
defend themselves from cyber-attack; $125 million for border security; 
$100 million so the EPA can complete vulnerability assessments of water 
security systems; $286 million for miscellaneous home and defense 
needs, Secret Service efforts to combat electronic crime, FBI 
counterterrorist efforts, courthouse security, Department of Justice 
information systems. We even have to look at security for visitors to 
Federal monuments and museums.
  So there is more in this legislation than I have outlined, but I am 
dumbfounded why people who oppose this legislation are, as my friend 
from Texas said, slowing down the train. This is not hurting the 
Democrats. It is hurting our country. We need not slow down the train. 
If there is something on the train that people do not like, have them 
try to remove it.
  This bill would provide the money that has been promised, that is, 
$5.5 billion to assist New York City for the response to the September 
11 terrorist attacks. These funds would be channeled through FEMA for 
disaster relief. The Transportation Department will help replace, 
rebuild, or enhance mass transit systems and restore or reconstruct 
roads; the Department of Housing and Urban Development for grants to 
rebuild utility infrastructure.

  We heard last week, the day before the event that was to commemorate 
the removal of the last load of rubbish from the terrorist attack, that 
in New York City manhole covers were being blown into the sky. They 
were being blown into the sky because the utility infrastructure that 
is now in existence

[[Page S4951]]

is overworked. They need to repair that and replace what was damaged 
and demolished by virtue of that terrorist attack. We need to do that. 
That is what this money is all about.
  I hope, and I guess this is a cry upon deaf ears, that somebody would 
come, if they have amendments, and offer them. It is 5 p.m. All day 
long we have done nothing. There was an amendment that was called up 
that passed 95 to 4 or something like that. I do not know the vote, but 
it was basically an unnecessary vote. That is all we have done today, 
something the House put in the bill that everyone wanted out dealing 
with making sure the airlines remain sound, secure, and strong 
financially. That is all we have done.
  I think it is too bad that people who oppose something as much as 
people say they oppose this emergency legislation for further recovery 
from and response to terrorist attacks in the United States are not 
willing to come forward. We know it is only a few people, but a few 
people can stop this body from moving sometimes.
  Senator Stevens said he was going to move to third reading tomorrow, 
and if people did not want to go to third reading, they would have to 
respond. That really is a debatable motion. People need to come over 
and tell us why they do not want to move forward.
  I can understand that in this bill there may be parts of it people do 
not like. If they do not like part of it, I repeat, try to get rid of 
it. It is not as if we are working on insignificant legislation. The 
President has devoted his weekly Saturday address to how important this 
legislation is. He has given press conferences about how important this 
legislation is, and for people to say the President is going to veto 
it, the President is not going to veto this legislation. We have a 
statement of administration policy, unsigned, of course, and we all 
know it came from some staff. The President certainly has not had 
anything to do with this, or if he has, it is general in nature.
  If we pass something out of here, there is nothing for the President 
to veto. It goes to conference with the House, and then we would do as 
we always do on something this important: We would work with the House, 
as we have to; work with the administration, as we have to; and work 
out differences if indeed there is something at that time that he does 
not like.
  Remember, this bill is going to pass by a wide margin anyway, so the 
President also has to be very careful as to what happens.
  I heard a statement today from the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Miller, 
who has just come into the Chamber. Having been Governor and being, as 
some say, a legend in his own time as to popularity in the State of 
Georgia for all the good things he has done in education and other 
things, he was lamenting the fact how can this body, the Senate, on 
something that is this important do nothing? He was talking about 
prescription drugs. How can we keep going day by day and do nothing?
  I say to my friend from Georgia, we have a bill for further recovery 
from the response to terrorist attacks in the United States and nobody 
is here. I have been here all day. Nothing has happened. We had some 
meaningless vote that everybody supported basically, passing 94 to 4, 
or whatever it was. I am not too sure of the--anyway, I do not need to 
give an editorial comment.
  I think the Senator is so right. The only thing I would say to the 
Senator from Georgia is the Senator from Georgia said that it seems 
that people who are a little older--and he mentioned specifically the 
Senator from West Virginia and the Senators from South Carolina and the 
Senator from Georgia--may understand how important it is to move 
forward. More than those Members with white hair understand the 
importance of this, but a small minority are stopping the Senate from 
moving forward on legislation, not only on this but other areas.

  I did not have the chance at our luncheon to discuss the remarks of 
Senator Miller because time was short as Senators spoke on this 
subject, but I wanted to propound before all the Democratic Senators 
how good I thought the statement was this morning. I say now to the 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from Georgia, how good that statement 
was. I underscore, underline, and put exclamation marks on everything 
the Senator said.
  How can we take up the time of this country and do nothing? We are 
doing nothing. If Members do not like this bill or something in it, 
give a speech, offer an amendment, do something. Staff sits around here 
staring into space like I have all day.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I yield to my friend from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I ask the Senator from Nevada, is there any 
parliamentary obstacle to anyone bringing an amendment to the floor at 
any time? Is there anything the leader, or you, would do to interfere 
with our right to offer an amendment, have a debate, and vote up or 
down on any amendments?
  Mr. REID. The answer is no.
  I speak from pretty good information: I bet the minority leader, the 
Republican leader, wants the bill passed. His President wants the bill 
passed. A few people are stopping us. We were told they want to slow 
down the train.
  I repeat to my friend from South Dakota, if they don't like something 
on the train, take it off.
  Mr. JOHNSON. If I may continue, I am struck that it is one thing to 
slow down the train on noncontroversial legislation, but is this not 
the very legislation that our troops in uniform are relying on so they 
can continue to be equipped, continue to have ammunition, continue to 
have resources they need to fight in Afghanistan and around the world?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from South Dakota, I remember a very 
emotional time when the son of the Senator from South Dakota was called 
into harm's way in Bosnia, the Balkans, wearing a uniform, carrying a 
gun, representing the United States. I remember that. I remember the 
emotion the Senator from South Dakota felt in expressing to me how 
concerned the Senator was but at the same time proud of his son.
  There are hundreds of thousands of American troops like your son, all 
over the world, waiting for the items included in this bill.
  Part of this is to replace munitions. There is no endless supply. 
They have to be manufactured in the United States and taken over there. 
This legislation calls for part of this money to replenish our 
munitions supply.
  I say to my friend from South Dakota, the Senator is absolutely 
right. This bill is a supplemental appropriation for further recovery 
from and response to terrorist activities. There are major provisions, 
including $14 billion for the Department of Defense.
  Mr. JOHNSON. My oldest son returned from Afghanistan with the 101st 
Airborne just this week. We are proud to have him back.
  I wish Members obstructing this legislation could go to Afghanistan 
and look at our forces in the north, at Baghram, our forces in the 
south in Kandahar, look them in the eye and tell them: We have other 
things to do; we don't want to pass this legislation that allows you to 
have the resources to conduct our war against terror, to defend 
American families all over this Nation.

  I cannot imagine what the Members obstructing this legislation must 
be thinking or how they could look in the eye our law enforcement 
officers, our firefighters, our first responders, our military, all of 
whom it appears to me are going to be suffering from the lack of 
passage of this legislation, not to mention the fact, as Senator 
Wellstone said so ably on the floor earlier today, this also contains 
the funding necessary to keep our Veterans' Administration health care 
program going through the remainder of this year, for the people who in 
the past have fought so hard to preserve our liberty, to preserve our 
democracy.
  We have a handful who apparently are going to renege on those 
obligations, as well. This strikes me as truly an outrage. I certainly 
hope Senator Lott will do all he can and that the President of the 
United States will do all he can to prevail on those Members of their 
political party to allow this legislation to move forward, to allow 
free up-or-down votes. Perhaps the Senator from Nevada and I will have 
provisions in this bill which will be defeated. So be it. We will have 
a fair up-or-down vote and debate.

[[Page S4952]]

  To have no debate and no opportunity to move the legislation forward, 
win or lose, is truly an outrage.
  I commend the Senator from Nevada for being on the floor today to 
clarify why this needed legislation, which frankly should have passed 
weeks ago, is still floundering.
  Mr. REID. I apologize to my friend. I did not know that your son also 
not only has served in a combat role in the Balkans but also in 
Afghanistan. Is that the same son?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Same son, just returned from the 101st this past week.
  Mr. REID. I saw the pictures of this very young man who I knew as a 
boy, as an athlete. I am glad he is home.
  The Presiding Officer proudly wears his marine pin. He has written a 
book about the Marines.
  I mentioned briefly, I attended a reception across the floor this 
morning and met four of the wind talkers, the Navajo Indians who did so 
much. Here these old men were, finally after all these years, 4 of 29 
wind talkers, getting recognition, value for what they did.
  I also mentioned on the floor this morning, I talked to them and 
asked them where they went. They talked about Guadalcanal and Guam. One 
of the Navajo Indians spoke in the native Tarawa: That is where I lost 
a lot of my buddies. He had tears in his eyes.
  Mr. President, I don't want to be overly dramatic, but we had 3,000 
people killed at the Pentagon and New York City. That is what this 
legislation is all about. It is about the war we have going on with 
terrorists. The next bill we will bring up is the hate crimes bill. We 
should get this done and move to that. Why not legislate?
  I have said it 10 times today, and I will say it for the 11th time. 
If there is something in this bill that somebody does not like, move to 
strike it. Get rid of it. Instead, nothing is happening. I don't 
understand how anyone can do that to our troops; the Senator is 
absolutely right.
  Part of this legislation provides $1.1 billion for payment of 
veterans' disability compensation. Veterans are not freeloaders. Talk 
about something they need--disability compensation.
  Mr. JOHNSON. I am sure the Senator from Nevada finds the same 
circumstances when he returns home to his State. We talk to our 
veterans, we talk to our military, we talk to our firefighters, we talk 
to our law enforcement officers, our ambulance people, our first 
responders. These are all people willing to put their lives in harm's 
way, willing to work at very modest wages. They are willing to disrupt 
their families. They are willing to do a great deal. All they ask is 
that the American people and the Senate stand behind them, reinforce 
them, and show support.

  What kind of signal does this inaction, this obstruction--what kind 
of signal does this send to those men and women in uniform who do so 
very much for our Nation during this difficult time? This must be 
dispiriting to each and every one of them the longer this goes on. I 
wonder if the Senator has any observations from the people he has 
talked to in his State about their expectation, that they will do these 
hard tasks and put their lives on the line but they do expect their 
Nation to stand behind them.
  Mr. REID. I confirm what the Senator said, of course, from my trip to 
Nevada. I also traveled during the break and went to other places doing 
some work as relates to the Senate--Utah, various parts of California, 
and Colorado. All over the country, not only Nevada and South Dakota, 
all over the country people want our soldiers, sailors, airmen, 
coastguardsmen, to have enough resources to do their job. But also, as 
the Senator from South Dakota has said, it is important that those 
people who are first responders know they have the necessary equipment 
and the resources.
  The problem we have is, every minute this bill does not pass, people 
in Georgia, South Dakota, and Nevada are having moneys paid out of 
their own budgets for issues that are the responsibility of the Federal 
Government. So the people of Nevada are being hurt as we speak because 
programs that must be provided for first responders--fire, police, 
paramedics, and medical personnel--are being paid for out of their own 
budgets. This will relieve them of some of that responsibility.
  So the Senator is absolutely right. It is a shame. I do not 
understand why we are here doing nothing--I mean nothing. If somebody 
doesn't like the bill, let them have the intestinal fortitude to come 
and tell us what they are going to do about it.
  I say to my friend from South Dakota, we even tried: OK, if you don't 
like the bill, let's have a time for a finite number of amendments. 
They responded: No, we can't agree to that. We haven't had a chance to 
look at the bill.
  This bill, by Senate standards, is pretty small. I could sit down and 
read this bill from cover to cover in 10 to 12 minutes. It is 167 
pages, but it is great big print--let's say a half-hour. I think 
somebody could find, from May 22 to today, a half-hour to read the 
bill. If not, if you are really slow, maybe assign several staff 
members and they could divide it up, 25 pages each, and give a report.
  We could not get amendments. They said they needed more time to study 
the bill. Then when I said why don't we try having a time when the two 
cloakrooms' staff would exchange amendments, we would have a finite 
list of amendments--you may not want to offer all those, but we would 
have a finite list, we could cut the amendments off, maybe 25, maybe 
250--whatever, they said: No, can't do that. We have to have time to 
study the bill.
  But they did say the President had already studied it and sent us a 
statement of administration policy. So some of the moles down in the 
administration--I do not say that negatively, I mean people who work in 
the bowels of the White House--have had a chance to look at this bill. 
From May 22 until today, they found a half-hour to look over it.

  I would also say the threat of a veto doesn't work. If we passed the 
bill 10 minutes from now, the President would not have anything to 
veto. It has to go to conference with the House. That, I repeat, is 
where the House will work with us, work with the administration, and 
come up with something the President will not veto.
  Senator Byrd, Senator Stevens, some of the most senior Members of the 
Senate, have said they cannot remember an appropriations bill they 
could not work out with a President. Senator Byrd I think has been here 
since President Truman.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Would the Senator concur as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, as this Senator is--I recall the hearings, 
which were substantial, that went into the formulation of this 
legislation. Then I seem to recall a markup in the Appropriations 
Committee where I believe this bill was passed something like 19 to 0.
  Mr. REID. Every Member of the Senate who is on the committee voted 
for the bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON. This is not some legislation which the Democratic Party 
is somehow trying to shove past our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle. In fact, Senator Stevens voted for this bill. We had unanimous 
bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee by the people who 
focused very closely on this and attended the many hearings that went 
into the legislation.
  If I understood the Senator correctly, Senator Lott as well would 
just as soon see this legislation move forward now.
  I think it does need to be clear that this is not some sort of 
partisan, one-party-against-the-other gridlock. This is an instance 
where a small handful of people are using and manipulating the rules of 
the Senate to thwart the will, not just of one political party but the 
large overall majority of the Senate who would wish to go forward.
  So we have heard references to obstructionism around this Chamber 
over the course of this past year. I ask the Senator, what is the 
source of the obstruction on this legislation and why are we not 
proceeding with it and the whole array of additional legislation which 
the majority leader has outlined for us just today, which is daunting 
in terms of the scope and breadth of legislation this body is obligated 
to deal with in the coming couple of months. But we cannot begin to 
even move on that unless we take care of this urgent matter. That 
obstructionism appears to me to be not only a political tactic but one 
that is a disservice to the men

[[Page S4953]]

and women in the uniform of this Nation, a disservice to those of us 
who believe this Nation needs to move aggressively to prepare itself 
against terror.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have said and I believe Senator Lott 
supports this legislation. I have not spoken to him in that regard. I 
have spoken to those who have spoken to him, and that is my 
understanding. I do not want to put words in Senator Lott's mouth, but 
I do believe he wants this legislation passed.
  I say to my friend from South Dakota, I very much appreciate his 
statements. I think the perspective he has added dealing with his son 
speaks volumes.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this is our first full day back. We were 
in session yesterday. We are not off to a very strong start. I was 
hoping we could have a vigorous debate today on the supplemental; we 
could offer amendments; we could move the process forward.
  For those who may not be aware, we are now debating the supplemental 
appropriations for further recovery from and response to terrorist 
attacks on the United States. Let me repeat that because people ought 
to be cognizant of the gravity of the bill we are considering. It is 
the supplemental appropriations act for further recovery from and 
response to terrorist attacks on the United States.
  It includes $14 billion requested by the President of the United 
States for the Department of Defense; $8 billion for homeland security 
efforts. It includes $5 billion for recovery in New York City. It 
includes money for the global AIDs trust fund, and a number of very 
high priorities.
  This legislation passed on a unanimous basis in the Appropriations 
Committee.
  We are told by some of our colleagues on the other side that--I think 
the phrase was--they wanted to ``slow walk'' this. For the life of me, 
I don't understand why our colleagues would want to slow walk a request 
by the President of the United States to address the supplemental needs 
on an emergency basis for homeland defense and for the defense of our 
country under these circumstances. I don't understand that. But it is 
clear that is what is underway.
  We must get this legislation passed. It must go to conference. We 
have to get this done. We have virtually wasted an entire day. Senators 
have not come to the floor to offer their amendments, and the calendar 
pages are turning. I have shared a list of additional legislation with 
our caucus and with Senator Lott, and I must say that list is 
ambitious. The Presiding Officer talked about the importance of getting 
prescription drug benefits passed. I said I would like to get that done 
before we complete our work this summer.
  But it is hard to see how we can take on any priorities unless we can 
complete our work on an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. We 
have been negotiating with a number of other colleagues with regard to 
the budget and the deeming resolution that has been the subject of some 
discussion over the last several weeks.
  We also must pass, at some point in the not-too-distant future, a 
debt limit increase. That is not something anybody relishes. I 
indicated to Senator Lott this morning that if we cannot put a deeming 
mechanism in the supplemental--and I am told there is opposition on the 
other side to doing that--we will have no choice but to file a 
freestanding debt limit resolution with the deeming language associated 
with it. I intend to rule XIV--that is, put the legislation on the 
calendar this week--as early as tomorrow. So we will do it one way or 
the other. We will do it in concert with the supplemental 
appropriations bill or we will do it in a freestanding resolution. But 
it will be done. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
work to achieve what we know must be done. So I hope we can find a way 
to resolve whatever other outstanding questions there are with regard 
to the deeming and the supplemental budget so we can move forward.
  Mr. President, I must say that this has been a very unproductive day, 
and it is not a good beginning to what I hoped would be a very 
productive week.
  In order to expedite our consideration of the supplemental, I intend 
to send a cloture motion to the desk today so we might accelerate and 
bring to a close the debate on this bill so we can move to the other 
pieces of legislation that must be considered, attended to, and 
addressed in a meaningful way in the short period of time we have 
during the work period this month.


                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I send that cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:


                             Cloture Motion

  We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of 
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to 
a close the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 4775:
  Harry Reid, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jack Reed, 
Dick Durbin, Tim Johnson, Jeff Bingaman, Robert Torricelli, Tom Harkin, 
Daniel Akaka, Byron Dorgan, Joe Lieberman, Tom Carper, Bill Nelson, 
Maria Cantwell, Barbara Mikulski.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I had not intended to offer a cloture 
motion this soon, but when I hear colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle saying they intend to ``slow the train down''--those were the 
words used on the Senate floor--on a bill to provide funding for 
defense, for homeland security, and for New York City, we have no 
choice but to accelerate the debate and bring this bill to a successful 
close.
  I am hopeful that, on a bipartisan basis, my colleagues will support 
cloture and that we can get this bill done this week.
  I, very regrettably, announce that there are no more votes tonight. 
But those Senators who are concerned about amendments are invited to 
come to the floor early tomorrow and proceed with offering, 
considering, and voting on their amendments prior to the cloture vote 
on Thursday. I know that on both sides there are amendments to be 
offered. Let's get on with that debate, get these amendments on the 
floor, and let's have these votes.
  Let's complete our work so we can move to the other pieces of 
legislation that I know so many colleagues anticipated we would 
consider this month and next.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record).
 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the airline stabilization 
program is vitally important to my State, and I am pleased that we have 
reached agreement to strike a potentially threatening provision in the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  Last September, we created the Airline Stabilization Loan Guarantee 
program to prevent a collapse of our airline industry in the wake of 
the September 11th terrorist attacks. Such a collapse would have had a 
disastrous effect on the national economy, and on communities 
throughout America.
  The loan program is a last alternative to bankruptcy for airlines 
struggling to recover after September 11. The Air Transportation 
Stabilization Board has been a strict guardian of public funds with 
respect to the terms it has required of applicants. The program was 
intended to be a last resort for airlines and passengers when they have 
no place else to go.
  We established the airline loan guarantee program less than 2 weeks 
after September 11 because a number of airlines faced crushing losses 
and the threat of losing their insurance altogether. The law gives the 
airlines until

[[Page S4954]]

June 28 to apply for loans because we knew the full effects of 
September 11 would take at least that long to be realized. The 
airlines' continuing poor financial health has proven the case.
  It is essential that we not undermine the industry's slow recovery by 
freezing funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. Absent this 
amendment, the supplemental would have prevented applicants from 
obtaining loan guarantees until October 1. Some major carriers, 
including West Virginia's most prominent airline, just can't wait that 
long for relief. Here is why.
  First, a freeze would have sent negative signals to the financial 
markets. Airline stocks are low already, and the only reason they 
aren't even lower is because Wall Street is reasonably expecting 
support of the airlines from the loan guarantee program. Eliminating 
funding--even if only temporarily--could signal Wall Street that the 
program is unstable and subject to changes in each Congress. Given the 
financial predicament of many airlines, these signals alone could be 
devastating.
  Second, airlines would not have been able to obtain commercial bridge 
loans between now and October. I know from hard experience in my 
efforts to help the steel industry that lenders do not offer bridge 
loans without a reliable Federal guarantee. Anything short of actual 
issuance of the credit instrument would be insufficient for the private 
market. A freeze on the loan board would have prevented this from 
happening.
  Without this important amendment, we were almost certain to see more 
airline bankruptcies. This would have been a terrible result, not just 
for the airlines, but for the hundreds of communities that depend on 
them.
  My State of West Virginia would have been particularly hard hit, as 
would rural regions throughout America--regions which frequently have 
little or no choice of airlines. The predominant airline serving West 
Virginia is US Airways, and it is expected to apply for a critically-
needed loan guarantee within the next couple of weeks.
  As of March 31, US Airways had cash reserves of $561 million and was 
losing $3.5 million per day. Airline officials said in a recent SEC 
filing that, without the loan program, they will be forced to declare 
bankruptcy as early as this summer.
  In Beckley, Bluefield, Parkersburg, and Morgantown, WV, US Airways is 
the only provider of passenger air service. US Airways is the only way 
to fly from Clarksburg to Pittsburgh. It is the only way to fly from 
Huntington to Charlotte or Pittsburgh. It is also the only way to fly 
from Lewisburg to Charlotte or Pittsburgh. And it is the only way to 
fly from Charleston to Baltimore, Charlotte, Philadelphia, or 
Pittsburgh.
  For people all across West Virginia, US Airways is a critical 
connection to the rest of the world, and a major force in our local 
economy. If US Airways were to go under, the result would be a serious 
blow to my state.
  Today's amendment is not about any one airline or state. It is about 
communities across the country that will suffer if airlines go 
bankrupt.
  Last September, we decided that we could not permit the attacks of 
September 11 to bring down our entire airline industry. That was the 
right decision then. And I am glad that my colleagues recognize that it 
is also the right decision today. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  I should also note that today is a very proud day for my family as we 
gather for my youngest son's college graduation. I am confident the 
amendment will pass by a large margin, and had I been present, I would 
have cast my vote in support of the amendment. I am grateful for 
everyone's hard work in recent weeks to achieve this good 
result.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise to offer for the record the Budget 
Committee's official scoring of S. 2551, the 2002 Supplemental 
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist 
Attacks on the United States.
  The Senate bill provides $31 billion in net, new discretionary budget 
authority, of which $13.9 billion is for defense activities and $17.1 
billion is for nondefense activities. That additional budget authority 
will increase outlays by a total of $8.43 billion in 2002. Of the total 
spending authority provided, the Appropriations Committee has 
designated $31.007 billion as emergency spending, which will increase 
outlays by $8.243 billion in 2002. In accordance with standard budget 
practice, the Budget Committee will adjust the Appropriations 
Committee's allocation for emergency spending at the end of conference. 
The Senate bill is within the committee's revised section 302(a) and 
302(b) allocations for budget authority and outlays. In addition, it 
provides more than $1 billion less in net, nonemergency spending 
authority than either provided by the House Appropriations Committee or 
requested by the President.
  The Senate bill violates section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001, by including 
a number of emergency designations for spending on nondefense 
activities.
  I ask unanimous consent that two tables displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of this bill be printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   TABLE 1.--S. 2551, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER
  RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
[Spending comparison--302(a) Allocations to Appropriations Committee (in
                          millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Current
                                    level plus      Senate    Difference
                                   supplemental  allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Purpose:
  BA.............................      704,234       704,240          -6
  OT.............................      686,966       692,717      -5,751
Highways:
  BA.............................  ............  ...........  ..........
  OT.............................       28,489        28,489  ..........
Mass Transit:
  BA.............................  ............  ...........  ..........
  OT.............................        5,275         5,275  ..........
Conservation:
  BA.............................        1,758         1,760          -2
  OT.............................        1,392         1,473         -81
Mandatory:
  BA.............................      358,567       358,567  ..........
  OT.............................      350,837       350,837  ..........
                                  --------------------------------------
    Total:
  BA.............................    1,064,559     1,064,567          -8
  OT.............................    1,072,959     1,078,791     -5,832
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The Senate-
  reported bill includes $31,007 million in emergency BA and $8,243
  million in emergency outlays. The Senate Budget Committee increases
  the committee's 302(a) allocation for emergencies when a bill is
  reported out of conference.
The Senate Appropriations Committee has allocated its remaining room
  under its 302(a) allocation as follows: (1) $1 million in BA and $6
  million in outlays to the Commerce, State, Justice subcommittee for
  the conservation category, (2) $1 million in BA and $75 million in
  outlays to the Interior subcommittee for the conservation category,
  and (3) $6 million in BA and $5,751 million in outlays to the full
  committee. All other subcommittees are exactly at their allocations
  for each category.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, June 3, 2002.


   TABLE 2.--S. 2551, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER
  RECOVERY FROM AND RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES
  [Spending comparisons--Senate-Reported Bill (in millions of dollars)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Defense  Nondefense  Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
  Emergency:
    Budget Authority.........    13,932     17,075   .........    31,007
    Outlays..................     5,286      2,957   .........     8,243
  Nonemergency:
    Budget Authority.........  ........         -7   .........        -7
    Outlays..................  ........        187   .........       187
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total:
        Budget Authority.....    13,932     17,068   .........    31,000
        Outlays..............     5,286      3,144   .........     8,430
House-passed bill:\1\
  Emergency:
    Budget Authority.........    16,079     12,955   .........    29,034
    Outlays..................     5,632      2,441   .........     8,073
  Nonemergency:
    Budget Authority.........       -59      1,112   .........     1,053
    Outlays..................        -7        261   .........       254
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total:
        Budget Authority.....    16,020     14,067   .........    30,087
        Outlays..............     5,625      2,702   .........     8,327
President's request:\2\
  Emergency:
    Budget Authority.........    14,048     13,095   .........    27,143
    Outlays..................     5,310      2,491   .........     7,801
  Nonemergency:
    Budget Authority.........  ........      1,262   .........     1,262
    Outlays..................        35        232   .........       267
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total:
        Budget Authority.....    14,048     14,357   .........    28,405
        Outlays..............     5,345      2,723   .........     8,068
 
SENATE-REPORTED BILL COMPARED
             TO:
 
House-passed bill:
  Emergency:
    Budget Authority.........    -2,147      4,120   .........     1,973
    Outlays..................      -346        516   .........       170
  Nonemergency:
    Budget Authority.........        59     -1,119   .........    -1,060
    Outlays..................         7        -74   .........        67
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total:
        Budget Authority.....    -2,088      3,001   .........       913
        Outlays..............      -339        442   .........       103
President's request:
  Emergency:
    Budget Authority.........      -116      3,980   .........     3,864
    Outlays..................       -24        466   .........       442
  Nonemergency:
    Budget Authority.........  ........     -1,269   .........    -1,269
    Outlays..................       -35        -45   .........       -80
                              ------------------------------------------
      Total:
        Budget Authority.....      -116      2,711   .........     2,595

[[Page S4955]]

 
        Outlays..............       -59        421   .........       362
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The table removes directives of the House Budget Committee to the
  Congressional Budget Office on how to score certain provisions in the
  House-passed supplemental bill. The adjustments provide comparability
  between the House and Senate numbers. In addition to its increase in
  spending, the House-passed bill also would decrease revenues by $60
  million in 2003 and approximately $800 million over 10 years.
\2\ Includes the President's request, transmitted with his 2003 budget,
  to provide supplemental funding in 2002 for Pell grants.
 
Notes: Details may not add total due to rounding. The committee is
  within both its 302(a) and 302(b) allocations and the statutory caps
  on discretionary spending on 2002. The Senate Budget Committee
  increases the committee's 302(a) allocation for emergencies when a
  bill is reported out of conference.
Prepared by SBC Majority Staff, June 3, 2002.



                          ____________________