[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.
____________________