[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 73 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5159-S5195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S5159]]

Senate

          SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

                              (Continued)


                           amendment no. 3729

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
the amendment introduced by Senators Durbin and Specter with 
cosponsorship by several colleagues and myself. The amendment would 
increase the amount of money in this emergency appropriations bill for 
several purposes related to combating the most pernicious infectious 
diseases confronting humankind today.
  The amendment would raise the U.S. contribution to the Global Fund to 
Combat AIDS, Turberluclosis and Malaria, increase the resources of our 
Centers for Disease Control for prevention, treatment, control of, and 
research on HIV/AIDS, and provide funds for child survival, maternal 
health, and other programs to combat tuberculosis and to address the 
consequences of the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
  The United States of America contributed last year to the Global Fund 
and correctly urges other developed countries to participate actively 
and generously in that global initiative. Nevertheless, I feel we can 
and must do more to overcome the debilitating effects of these diseases 
on societies that are struggling.
  The dimensions of the global HIV/AIDS crisis are overwhelming. At 
current rates of infection, it is estimated that 100 million people 
will have had HIV/AIDS by 2005. More than 36 million people are 
currently infected with the virus and 22 million people have already 
died from it, more than the number of soldiers killed in all major wars 
of the twentieth century. Thirteen million children worldwide have lost 
one or both parents to AIDS, and that number is expected to triple to 
42 million by 2010. In 10 African countries life expectancy has dropped 
by more than 20 years, which is almost entirely as a result of AIDS 
deaths. In China, the number of people with HIV increased by 69 percent 
in 1999 and another 37 percent in 2000, according to official 
statistics, and nearly 80 percent of those testing positive for 
infection are between 20 and 40 years of age. In Russia, Ukraine and 
throughout the Commonwealth of Independent States, HIV increased five 
times between 1997 and 1998; in 1999, the region recorded the highest 
increase in HIV infection in the world.
  The AIDS pandemic is having a disastrous impact on economic growth 
rates, public services and private companies, impoverishing millions of 
families and orphaning children and rolling back hard-won social gains 
in human development, including life expectancy, income and education. 
It is unprecedented in its destructive impact on regional development, 
because it kills so many adults in the prime of their working and 
parenting lives, it decimates the workforce, fractures and impoverishes 
families, orphans millions, and shreds the fabric of communities. In 
its wake it leaves desperation--one of the greatest threats to peace 
within and between peoples and nations.
  In the face of this challenge, the United States should not treat the 
major global initiative against infectious disease as a bargaining 
table at which to challenge other governments' commitment and 
generosity. We should lead by example. It is in our national interest 
and consistent with the humanitarian values of America that we 
contribute substantially to the global fight against infectious 
disease. I hope all my colleagues will vote to do so by adopting this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, have other Senators spoken on this 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All other Senators have spoken on the 
amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, 
has offered this amendment, and I think he has spoken for a good cause. 
He is a very highly respected member of the Appropriations Committee, 
the committee that I chair.
  I salute him for speaking out on this matter. I have listened to the 
poignant cases that he has referred to of persons who have been 
infected with AIDS. There is no question but that the cause for which 
he speaks is one which the world should be greatly concerned about.
  But there is a limit, in the first place, to our ability as a nation 
to fund even the good causes. We can only do so much. And regardless of 
how much we might appropriate today for this purpose, we can never 
appropriate enough. There will never be enough money in the U.S. 
Treasury that we can utilize for this purpose. There will never be 
enough to fully deal with this pandemic.
  So, Mr. President, I salute the distinguished Senator from Illinois 
for his determination, for his humanitarianism, and for the appeal that 
he has made in this matter. But I have to oppose the amendment. We have 
a bill here that has been carefully worked out on a bipartisan basis. 
The ranking member and I, and all the members on his side of the aisle 
and the members on my side of the aisle--including the distinguished 
Senator from Illinois--have worked laboriously to produce a bill that 
will bring the necessary appropriations for the protection of the 
homeland.
  The President made a request, and based on the very thorough hearings 
that were conducted by my full Committee on Appropriations, we have 
enlarged over and above the President's request. But we think we are 
acting judiciously and based on the hearings of the people at the local 
level: the firemen, the policemen, the health service, the medical 
personnel. And we have listened to the Governors and the mayors

[[Page S5160]]

and seven of the Cabinet officers of this executive branch, and the 
Director of FEMA.
  It has been a long and tenuous ordeal as far as I am concerned. I 
have been working on this bill for months. I think it is important we 
get it to conference, and that we get it on the President's desk.
  Now, the President sent word to this committee last year that he did 
not need the additional moneys this committee was proposing for 
homeland defense. And Mr. Tom Ridge wrote me a letter saying they did 
not need the money, did not need more money. But we appropriated $4 
billion more for homeland security last year, and the President signed 
that bill. And that money has been well spent. It is producing results. 
And it is making a difference.
  We think we have acted judiciously and very carefully in this 
instance. So we are adding moneys this year over and above the 
President's request. But we have a responsibility, as elected Members 
of this body, elected by the American people, elected by the people of 
our States, to use our judgment; that is what we are doing. No 
President sends any Senator here--no President, whether he be Democrat 
or Republican. I would say this if we had a Democratic President. We 
have only our own judgment. And we do the best we can to represent the 
people.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  I have to oppose the amendment. And so I will make a point of order. 
I hope Senators will support the point of order and will oppose any 
motion to waive.
  Section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 concurrent 
resolution on the budget, created a point of order against an emergency 
designation on nondefense spending.
  Now, I was against the kind of vote that is required to support that. 
But that is what we have. And I am going to use it. I am going to use 
that point of order. It is the same point of order I used against an 
equally good cause when Senator Kennedy had his amendment before the 
Senate with respect to summer schools.
  The amendment contains nondefense spending with an emergency 
designation.
  Pursuant to section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the fiscal year 2001 
concurrent resolution on the budget, I make a point of order against 
the emergency designation contained in the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. DURBIN. Yes, I will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately 
following the next vote, if Senator Durbin's amendment is not agreed 
to, Senator Frist be recognized to offer his amendment No. 3725; that 
he be permitted to modify it with the changes that I now send to the 
desk--they are at the desk--that there be 5 minutes for debate, equally 
divided, between Senator Frist and Senator Byrd, and 5 minutes under 
the control of Senator DeWine; and that at the conclusion of that time 
the Senate vote, without any intervening action or debate, in relation 
to the Frist amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I 
would like to add to the unanimous consent request that I be given 2 
minutes in response.
  Mr. REID. That is appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator modify his request?
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, if the emergency designation 
falls on this point of order, there still has to be another point of 
order which should be immediate. And I hope the distinguished whip will 
take that into consideration in his request.
  Mr. REID. I would accept the suggestion of the Senator from West 
Virginia that that be part of the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request, as 
modified?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pursuant to the point of order raised by 
the Senator from West Virginia, I move to waive section 205 of H. Con. 
Res. 290, the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001, 
for purposes of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 46, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 141 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Helms
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 46, the nays are 
49. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained. The emergency designation is removed.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, it remains necessary to make a point of 
order against the amendment under section 302(f) of the Congressional 
Budget Act. Section 302(f) is the point of order against spending in 
excess of the relevant 302(b) allocation, and there is no general 
purpose discretionary headroom in the allocation of any subcommittee.
  Therefore, I make the point of order under section 302(f) of the 
Budget Act, as amended, that the amendment provides spending in excess 
of the relevant subcommittees' 302(b) allocation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is sustained. The amendment 
falls.
  The Senator from Tennessee.


                    Amendment No. 3725, As Modified

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, under the order, I now call up amendment 
No. 3725, with a modification now at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for Mr. Helms, for 
     himself and Mr. Frist, proposes an amendment numbered 3725, 
     as modified.

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

 (Purpose: To increase the amount provided for the Child Survival and 
            Health Programs Fund, and to impose conditions)

       On page 55, strike lines 10 through 19, and insert the 
     following:
       For an additional amount for the ``Child Survival and 
     Health Programs Fund'', $200,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended: Provided, That such funds shall be

[[Page S5161]]

     made available only for programs for the prevention, 
     treatment, and control of, and research on, HIV/AIDS: 
     Provided further, That special emphasis shall be given to 
     assistance directed at the prevention of transmission of HIV/
     AIDS from mother to child, including medications to prevent 
     such transmission: Provided further, That of the funds 
     appropriated by this paragraph, the President, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, may make such 
     contribution as the President considers appropriate to the 
     Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria to be 
     used for any of the purposes of the Global Fund: Provided 
     further, That funds appropriated by this paragraph, other 
     than those made available as a contribution to the Global 
     Fund, shall not exceed the total resources provided, 
     including on an in-kind basis, from other donors: Provided 
     further, That not more than seven percent of the amount of 
     the funds appropriated by this paragraph, in addition to 
     funds otherwise available for such purpose, may be made 
     available for the administrative costs of United States 
     Government agencies in carrying out programs funded under 
     this paragraph: Provided further, That funds appropriated by 
     this paragraph shall be subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations: Provided 
     further, That the entire amount is designated by the Congress 
     as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) 
     of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 
     1985, as amended: Provided further, That the entire amount 
     shall be available only to the extent that an official budget 
     request that includes designation of the entire amount as an 
     emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as 
     amended, is transmitted by the President to Congress.

  Mr. FRIST. I ask for a clarification. In terms of the time agreement, 
just so our colleagues will know what has been agreed to, I understand 
I have 2\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. And then the opponents have 2\1/2\ minutes and then 5 
minutes for Senator DeWine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. Then Senator Durbin has 2 minutes after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, Senator Jesse Helms wrote me a letter 
yesterday regarding the Helms-Frist amendment. In that letter he said:

       You and I know the stunning facts: Nearly one million 
     children are infected by HIV each year from their mothers 
     during labor, delivery, or breast feeding. Our amendment will 
     prevent hundreds of thousands of innocent young people from 
     being infected in this manner.
       I wish you and the rest of our colleagues all the best as 
     you deliberate on this important matter.

  Again, that was Senator Helms in a letter to me yesterday that was 
entered into the Record earlier tonight.
  For my colleagues, our amendment very simply strikes, on page 55, 
lines 10 through 19, and replaces that section with $200 million, $100 
million more than in the underlying bill, to add to the U.S. effort to 
combat the ravages of global HIV/AIDS.
  The amendment does three things:
  No. 1, it requires that the new funds be focused on reducing mother-
to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS, a problem we know how to respond to, 
thereby greatly reducing the ravages of HIV/AIDS in innocent newborns.
  No. 2, it grants flexible authority to the President in spending the 
money so as to optimize the impact of the AIDS-fighting efforts of our 
Government.
  No. 3, it requires that this money be leveraged through funds matched 
by sources other than the U.S. Government in order to maximize their 
impact.
  Mr. President, this is a straightforward amendment that recognizes 
the travesty, the tragedy, and indeed the challenge we have before us 
in combating HIV/AIDS globally. Every 10 seconds, one person dies. 
Every 10 seconds, there are two new infections. Globally we are losing 
this battle.
  Finally, in the next several days, the President will introduce a 
major initiative addressing global HIV/AIDS that will be devoting 
increased resources with a strategic plan to combat HIV/AIDS.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding I have 2 minutes 
under the unanimous consent agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I will not use the full 2 minutes.
  Clearly, I believed very strongly that $500 million was the right 
number. It was the number Senator Frist and Senator Helms proposed. It 
was a number I compromised to offer to the Senate, but it was not 
accepted. I am disappointed, but I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats 
and Republicans, to join in supporting the Frist amendment. It will add 
another $100 million. We need every penny we can get.
  Senator Frist believes, and he has told me, the administration is 
going to come through with even more money on their own. I sincerely 
hope he is right, and I hope we can all stand and applaud the 
administration for doing that.
  I urge all of my colleagues now to join in supporting the Frist 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of increasing 
funds to respond to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. I cannot think of a more 
pressing humanitarian and health emergency than this global crisis. 
That is why Senator Frist, I, and others have worked with Senator Helms 
to propose this amendment to significantly increase the U.S. 
contribution to the global AIDS fight.
  At the end of the day, all of us are working for the same objective: 
To substantially increase our overall funding level and to work towards 
alleviating the continued suffering caused by this epidemic. Quite 
simply, we have a moral obligation to do so.
  Many of my colleagues have already come to the Chamber and painted 
the very disturbing and realistic picture of the impact this disease is 
having worldwide, particularly on children. In the year 2000, the U.S. 
Agency for International Development released a study which concluded 
that over 34 million children worldwide have lost one or both parents 
to AIDS or related causes.
  USAID further estimated this number will increase to 44 million 
children--44 million--by the year 2010. Yet as alarming as these 
numbers are, they hardly begin to tell the whole story. Today, nearly 3 
million children are infected with the virus. Last year, over 800,000 
children contracted HIV/AIDS, primarily from mother-to-child 
transmission.
  While the problem is especially profound in sub-Saharan Africa, many 
children who are contracting the disease are living right in our own 
backyard in the Caribbean, in nations such as Haiti and Guyana. I have 
seen firsthand, as have many of my colleagues, the devastation this 
disease causes. I have seen it in Haiti, a nation with the second 
highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the world, second only to sub-Saharan 
Africa.

  In the year 2000, an estimated 250,000 Haitians, out of a population 
of only 8 million, are estimated to be currently living with AIDS. 
According to the Centers for Disease Control projections, Haiti will 
experience up to 44,000 new HIV/AIDS cases this year. That is at least 
4,000 more than the number expected in the United States, a nation with 
a population nearly 35 times larger.
  In Haiti, HIV/AIDS already has orphaned 163,000 children, a number 
expected to skyrocket to between 323,000 to 393,000 over the next 10 
years. Haiti also continues to suffer from an unbelievably high HIV 
transmission rate from mother to child, and, of course, 65 percent of 
the infants born with the disease, we know, will die within the first 
year.
  This truly is a tragedy because we know that the transmission of HIV 
from mother to child can be substantially reduced with proper 
counseling and proper medication. The reality is that millions of 
children are dying, and we can do something about it. We must do 
something about this.
  Now is the time to work to end the human tragedy caused by 
preventable, treatable diseases around the world. We have a moral 
obligation to fight HIV/AIDS, and I believe we must show the leadership 
today by tackling the problem in our backyard and around the world.
  I thank all of my colleagues who have come to this Chamber to talk 
about this issue and show support for dealing with this problem. I 
thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

[[Page S5162]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Miller). Who yields time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, who has the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senators from Illinois and Ohio have 1 
minute each. The Senator from West Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield back my time, unless someone wants 
the time.
  Mr. BYRD. Does any other Senator have time? I have 2\1/2\ minutes. 
Does any other Senator have time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois still retains 1 
minute.
  Mr. DeWINE. I yield to my colleague my minute.
  Mr. BYRD. Where does that leave us, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Has the Senator yielded me the time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield back my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois yields back his 
time. The Senator from West Virginia has 4\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I do not need 4\1/2\ minutes.
  The distinguished Senator from Illinois has made a very generous 
suggestion in asking all of his colleagues to support the amendment. He 
has made an excellent case for his amendment. He was not successful in 
this instance, but he has been very generous, very gracious, and I want 
to, in particular, thank him for the fine example he sets in this 
regard.
  I am willing to accept the amendment on this side of the aisle, and I 
hope my counterpart will do the same on the other side. I think Senator 
Stevens will do that.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will request a rollcall vote.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator wants a rollcall?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I might be 
recognized for the purpose of making a point of order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, what is the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, is the Senator going to make a point of 
order?
  Mr. GRAMM. I have asked unanimous consent to make a point of order.
  Mr. BYRD. On this amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not yet been ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I understand the Senator from Tennessee wants the yeas and 
nays.
  Mr. FRIST. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield back the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back. The question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 3725, as modified. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Mr. Dayton), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from 
Mississippi (Mr. Lott) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 14, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 142 Leg.]

                                YEAS--79

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--14

     Allard
     Allen
     Craig
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     McCain
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Helms
     Lieberman
     Lott
  The amendment (No. 3725), as modified, was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3569

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

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], for himself and Mr. 
     DeWine, Mr. McCain, Mr. Miller, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Sessions, 
     Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson 
     of Nebraska, and Mr. Allard, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3569.

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

(Purpose: To provide authority regarding the availability of funds for 
 the Department of Defense for counterterrorism activities in Colombia)

       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 307. (a) Availability of Funds for Assistance for 
     Colombia.--In fiscal year 2002, funds described in subsection 
     (b) shall be available for the following purposes:
       (1) To support a unified campaign against narcotics 
     trafficking and against activities by organizations 
     designated as terrorist organizations, including the 
     Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National 
     Liberation Army (ELN), and the United Self-Defense Forces of 
     Colombia (AUC).
       (2) To take actions to protect human health and welfare in 
     emergency circumstances, including rescue operations.
       (b) Funds.--The funds described in this subsection are as 
     follows:
       (1) Funds available to the Department of Defense in this 
     Act for assistance to the Government of Colombia.
       (2) Funds available to the Department of Defense in 
     appropriations Acts enacted before the date of the enactment 
     of this Act for assistance to the Government of Colombia that 
     remain available for obligation.
       (c) Construction.--The authority in subsection (a) is in 
     addition to any other authority under law regarding the 
     availability of assistance to the Government of Colombia.

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, Senators 
DeWine, McCain, Miller, Thompson, Sessions, Rockefeller, Bayh, Nelson 
of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, and Allard, I rise today to offer an 
amendment to provide the Department of Defense the authority necessary 
to support Colombia's war against narcotics trafficking and terrorist 
activities.
  September 11 served as a horrible moment in history--a moment that 
revealed the evils, the hatred, and the degree to which those who wish 
to do us harm are prepared to go. Unfortunately, this reality is not 
limited to North America. It is not limited to the Middle East or to 
central Asia. It is a global phenomenon.
  The United States, at home and around the world, must do better with 
our intelligence, law enforcement, and foreign policy efforts. We must 
do more as well to work with our allies.
  In Latin America, the evil hand of terror has been an everyday 
reality for too long, a fact which I believe most Americans of the 
United States will find stunning, but not to Americans

[[Page S5163]]

who live in other parts of the Western Hemisphere.
  In the year 2000, over 44 percent of all of the worldwide incidents 
of terrorism against U.S. citizens and U.S. interests were committed in 
one country. That country was Colombia. Three groups that were 
responsible for these atrocities are all on the U.S. Department of 
State's list of foreign terrorist organizations. These attacks pose a 
threat to the democratic institutions of Colombia, to the stability of 
Latin America, and to the security of the Western Hemisphere.
  The Taliban and al-Qaida networks derived much of their funds from 
the illegal narcotics trade--heroin, primarily. But the linkage is no 
more pervasive anywhere in the world between illegal narcotics and 
terrorism than it is in Colombia where former guerrillas have evolved 
into drug trafficking terrorists.
  That is why a large number of our colleagues and I are offering this 
amendment that would allow the Department of Defense to use its 
appropriated funds to provide additional equipment, training, and 
intelligence to Colombia to combat both narcotics trafficking and 
terrorism.
  Current law allows the U.S. equipment and funds from the Department 
of Defense to be used solely for counterdrug operations.
  In Colombia, the reality is that the line between narcotics and 
terrorism is extremely thin. It is virtually mythical.
  The House of Representatives has already passed an authorization bill 
as part of the legislation that we consider this evening, and these 
authorities to expand the use of defense funds to combat the twin evils 
of narcotics and terrorism are provided in the House bill; these 
authorities are being aggressively sought by the President of the 
United States.
  The administration seeks more explicit legal authority to support 
``Colombia's unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and 
terrorist activities.''
  This provides greater flexibility to counter the threat from groups 
using narcotics trafficking to fund both terrorist and criminal 
activities.
  I assure our colleagues that I am not proposing any changes to 
previous requirements in human rights, certifications, and limits on 
personnel--civilian and military. And in no way am I suggesting the 
Department of Defense deploy U.S. troops to a combat role.

  The Government of Colombia, both under its current President, 
President Pastrana, and under its newly elected President, Alvaro 
Uribe, has stated its intention to carry the war to the terrorist drug 
traffickers.
  What we are being asked to do is to allow equipment that has been 
procured in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Defense to be 
used in both wars, terrorism and narcotics.
  These counterterrorism efforts will not hurt our counternarcotics 
program. In fact, they will be of great assistance to our 
counternarcotics program.
  The Department of Defense has assured me that it remains committed to 
a robust counternarcotics program in Colombia, and it will bear that in 
mind as the details are developed regarding the use of defense-funded 
equipment, training, and intelligence for counterterrorist missions.
  I am also pleased, despite the rampant violence in Colombia on May 26 
of this year, that the citizens and Government of Colombia carried out 
democratic elections which were deemed by international standards and 
observers to be free, fair, and the expression of the will of the 
Colombian people.
  When the United States first authorized Plan Colombia in 2000, we 
made a commitment. The commitment was to help our Colombian neighbors 
in their long struggle against the drug trade and the violence it 
causes. Anything less than that would not only be a violation of our 
promise to be good neighbors but a neglected front on the war against 
terrorism.
  I ask my colleagues to support Colombia, an important democratic and 
hemispheric ally by supporting this amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, at a time of bipartisan agreement that the 
Colombian government must pursue a unified campaign against the narco-
trafficking and terrorist threat to Colombia's democracy, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has chosen to deny the Administration's 
request for the authority to support our Colombian ally.
  As my colleagues know, our assistance to Colombia is channeled 
through both the State and Defense Departments. To the President's 
credit, American policy has dispensed with the illusion that the 
Colombian government is fighting two separate wars, one against drug 
trafficking and another against domestic terrorists. The democratic 
government of Colombia has long insisted that it is the nexus of 
terrorists involved in the drug trade that threatens Colombian society. 
American policy now recognizes that reality, and abandons any fictional 
distinctions between counter-narcotic and counter-insurgency 
operations.
  Our government properly allies itself with the Colombian people 
against the narco-terrorists who threaten the government they elected, 
and the system of government that rejects the violent and absolutist 
aims of those who would overthrow it by force of arms. We in the United 
States have a considerable stake in the Colombian government's success, 
for the narcoterrorist state the enemies of the Colombian government 
would establish would present a compelling national security threat to 
the United States in our own hemisphere.
  Congress has shown an admirable commitment to supporting the 
Colombian government's campaign to bring basic security to its people. 
But America's commitment has been limited to providing training and 
assistance to combat drug production and trafficking. The 
Administration has requested not new money but new authority to use 
appropriated funds to combat narco-terrorism. Yet this Supplemental 
Appropriations bill grants that authority only to the Department of 
State, and places overly restrictive and burdensome constraints on that 
authority.
  Our amendment would provide the Administration the authority it has 
requested, in consultation with the Congress, to use appropriated funds 
to support a unified campaign by the Colombian government against drug 
trafficking and terrorist insurgency. The House-passed version of this 
bill provides both the departments of State and Defense with this 
authority for the current fiscal year. The Senate bill would leave in 
place existing restrictions prohibiting use of Department of Defense 
assistance in the war against the FARC and the ELN. Our amendment 
mirrors the President's request to provide the Department of Defense 
the authority to use funds already appropriated for this purpose to 
support our Colombian ally. I hope the conference committee to this 
bill will provide the Administration with this authority.
  In a presidential election last month, the Colombian people gave 
their leadership a clear mandate to defeat narco-terrorism by electing 
Alvaro Uribe as President. President-elect Uribe campaigned on a 
platform of decisively defeating the FARC terrorists, who have shown 
little interest in a negotiated, peaceful solution to the war they have 
been waging against Colombia's government for four decades.
  This is not an authoritarian regime located in a far-off corner of 
Central Asia. This is a democratic government, one of the longest-
standing in our hemisphere, that has allied itself with the United 
States in order to defeat the threat to our common values posed by the 
FARC and the ELN terrorists, as well as by AUC paramilitary forces 
whose abysmal human rights record rivals that of their opponents.
  Under existing law, human rights conditionality and restrictions on 
the American military presence in Colombia remain in effect on all U.S. 
assistance to that country. Our amendment would ensure that existing 
American funds appropriated to support American policy in Colombia 
reflect the reality that the Colombian government is not simply 
fighting a drug war.
  It is estimated that one million would-be voters in Colombia could 
not express their preference at the ballot box last month due to FARC 
violence and intimidation. The number of political candidates who have 
been intimidated, abducted, or murdered for their ambition to serve 
their people is staggering. One presidential candidate, Ingrid 
Betancourt, remains a hostage to

[[Page S5164]]

the FARC, who abducted her on the way to a campaign rally in February.
  On May 2, 2002, a rocket fired by FARC guerrillas killed 117 
civilians taking refuge in a small church. Forty of the dead were 
children. Colombian officials call it the worst single loss of civilian 
life in the nation's 38-year civil war.
  President-elect Uribe has been given a clear mandate by his people to 
give them back their country. Our values and our interests require us 
to support our ally. There is an important role for the United States, 
not only to provide assistance and technical support to the Colombian 
police and armed forces, but also to exercise our influence to ensure 
that our values triumph over both terrorist violence and paramilitary 
brutality.
  These values are worth fighting for. We should stand proudly with the 
people of Colombia in their struggle.
  To reiterate Mr. President, the situation in our own hemisphere in 
regard to Colombia is a very serious one. We are understandably worried 
about events between Pakistan and India, Afghanistan, et cetera. The 
situation in our own hemisphere as regards Colombia is of the utmost 
seriousness because that is where the drugs come from that destroy the 
minds and bodies of our children.
  On May 2, 2002, a rocket fired by FARC guerrillas killed 117 
civilians that were taking refuge in a small church. Forty of the dead 
were children. Colombian officials call it the worst single loss of 
civilian life in the nation's 38-year civil war.
  It is estimated that 1 million voters in Colombia couldn't express 
their preference at the ballot box last month due to FARC violence and 
intimidation. The number of political candidates who have been 
intimidated, abducted, or murdered for their ambition to serve their 
people is staggering.
  One Presidential candidate, Ingrid Betancourt, remains a hostage to 
the FARC who abducted her on the way to a campaign rally in February.
  I understand the reluctance of Members of this body to relax certain 
restrictions that are associated with our assistance to Colombia. I 
hope all of my colleagues will review the situation as it exists 
today--a direct threat to the security of the United States of 
America--if Colombia collapsed in a civil war between different 
parties.
  There is the ELN, the paramilitary, the FARC, and there is the 
Government. They are all fighting amongst one another, and the FARC 
recently being rejected from the sanctuary they were granted, I 
believe, is a mistaken policy on the part of the Colombian Government.
  We now have a new President, Alvaro Uribe, who is committed to using 
whatever sources and means necessary to bring peace and stability back 
to its country.
  Again, I don't want to take the time of the Senate at this late hour. 
It is in our national security interests to see some kind of Government 
peace and stability restored to Colombia because that is where the 
drugs are coming from that are killing our kids.
  I hope in the days ahead we will devote some of our attention to the 
country of Colombia and see what the United States can do not only to 
help these people who are literally afraid to leave their own homes, 
but to try to combat the great threat of narcoterrorism and the flow of 
narcotics, which is another aspect of our war on terrorism that we need 
to do whatever is necessary to combat.
  I thank Senator Graham not only for his amendment but for his 
continued involvement in the affairs of our hemisphere.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will speak for a couple minutes.
  I say to Senator Graham, I rise to congratulate him, and not only for 
the amendment. And whatever happens to it tonight, its destiny is 
already determined. We have already waited too long. It is time that 
some of us, especially those of us who come from States that are not 
too far from the other hemisphere, where mostly Hispanic Americans live 
and work--to have that hemisphere as if it were not really our friend 
and we should not be concerned about it is truly one of the giant 
mistakes we make. And every year that passes we say something about 
doing better.
  But I believe the situations are going to get even worse, and sooner 
or later--let's hope sooner--the United States will do something while 
we are still acceptable down there and while we can still be of some 
significant positive impact.
  I say to Senator McCain, I heard his remarks. And I have heard them 
before. I think it is time, with real vigor and enthusiasm, with 
resources and leadership, we consider this hemisphere to be a big part 
of America's foreign involvement. Why so far away when we have problems 
in abundance so close? Why neighbors thousands of miles away and no 
acts of friendliness to those who are really our neighbors?
  With that, I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute to introduce a bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Domenici pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2599 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first, I note to my friend from Ohio, I 
am going to call up an amendment shortly.
  Does the Senator wish to make a comment on the last amendment?
  Mr. DeWINE. Just a couple comments on the amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I defer to my colleague from Ohio so he 
can make comments on that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I congratulate my colleague from the State of Florida 
for his leadership on this amendment. Once again, he is correct. Once 
again, he is a leader on issues having to do with this hemisphere, 
having to do with the drug problem.
  We have a lot at stake in Colombia. Colombia is our neighbor. We do a 
lot of trade with Colombia. This is, I believe, the second oldest 
democracy in this hemisphere. It is a country that obviously borders 
the Panama Canal. It is a democracy, though, that is in peril. It is a 
democracy that has at least three very tough groups gnawing at it, 
trying to overthrow the Government, trying to grab pieces of the land 
of Colombia. These are three very tough, tough groups: the FARC, the 
ELN, and the paramilitary.
  So a lot is at stake in Colombia. Colombia is important to us because 
this is one of the countries that is a major supplier of drugs into the 
United States. So what happens down there is important.
  We have seen something develop in Colombia in the last few years that 
I do not know we have seen anywhere in the world; that is this very 
close relationship, over now an extended period of time, between the 
drug dealers and the terrorists. They are working literally hand in 
glove in a synergistic relationship.
  Unfortunately, as we try to help our friends in Colombia, we have 
created an artificial barrier in our law. That barrier creates a 
distinction between the use of our money to help to deal with terrorist 
problems or our use of the money to deal with narcotics problems. It 
says, in effect, we can use it for one but we cannot use it for the 
other. That makes absolutely no sense.
  It is time we take that artificial barrier down because really the 
problem is one and the same. And they are the same people. It is time 
we recognize that and that we stop handcuffing the use of our aid, 
handcuffing the Government of Colombia as it literally fights for its 
survival.
  So I congratulate my colleague on this amendment. It is time, 
frankly, that we face up to the reality of what is really going on in 
Colombia and help this ally of the United States to try to preserve 
democracy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I would like to make some remarks on the 
Colombia amendment.
  Mr. NICKLES. That is fine. I inform my colleagues, we only have a 
couple more amendments that will require votes. Mine is one of them. We 
will try to do that in the very near future. Certainly, if my colleague 
from Alabama wants to make remarks, go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I will be very brief. This is a very 
important

[[Page S5165]]

matter. Colombia is a longtime ally of the United States. It is the 
second oldest democracy in the Western Hemisphere. Its former 
President, President Pastrana--a wonderful person--worked exceedingly 
hard to try to build a peace process that would work. After everything 
he tried, he could not make that occur.
  The new President has been elected. President Pastrana--before he 
left office--admitted that they had to fight to preserve their 
democracy. Democracies frequently have to do that.
  We have a $9.5 billion trading relationship with Colombia. It is an 
important ally, an important democracy. It is key to South America. We 
must do what we can to assist them as they now wage a life-and-death 
struggle to preserve their democracy and their economy.
  Mr. President, just 10 days ago the people of Colombia overwhelmingly 
expressed their desire to fight the scourges of terrorism and narcotics 
trafficking, that have killed tens of thousands of their countrymen 
over the past forty years, by electing Alvaro Uribe as their new 
President. President-elect Uribe has stated that he intends to double 
the size of the Colombian Army and the Colombian National Police and to 
call up thousands of reservists to fight the terrorists. This is 
exactly what the United States has been asking the Colombians to do for 
many years now.
  Included as part of this Supplemental request is proposed legislation 
that would remove the ``counter-narcotics only'' restriction on the use 
of helicopters and other military equipment and assistance that the 
United States provides to Colombia.
  The pending Amendment provides authority to the Department of 
Defense, as well as the Department of State, to provide assistance to 
the government of Colombia as they fight their war against terrorism.
  The Department of State has designated the Revolutionary Armed Forces 
of Colombia--FARC--the National Liberation Army of Colombia--ELN--and 
the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia--AUC--as foreign terrorist 
organizations and has specifically identified the FARC as ``the most 
dangerous international terrorist group based in the Western 
Hemisphere.'' On March 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft 
announced the indictment of three leaders of FARC with conspiracy to 
import cocaine into the United States and to manufacture and distribute 
cocaine in Colombia with the intent of exporting it to the United 
States. To all of these actions I say ``Amen''.
  Transnational terrorism is a threat to freedom throughout the world. 
Many of these groups have been working together for years to share the 
lessons of terror and mayhem. They have searched for new sources of 
income and have become inextricably involved with transnational 
criminal syndicates who traffic in weapons and drugs and provide 
resources for extortion and money laundering.
  This is a global phenomenon and must be fought on a global scale. One 
country that has been fighting this war against terrorism for the past 
few decades is Colombia. Colombia is one of our closest Allies and we 
must come to her aid. They need our help in terms of intelligence 
sharing, equipment and training.
  Why should the United States help Colombia? The answer to this lies 
not only in the fact that it is the source for prodigious quantities of 
cocaine, heroin, and marijuana, but Colombia is the second oldest 
democracy in the Western Hemisphere, next to our great country. 
Colombia is a friend and ally of the United States who has been 
fighting for its very survival against a variety of threats, ranging 
from drug cartels, terrorist organizations and Marxist insurgents for 
over forty years. It is a nation of 40 million people and is a source 
of significant trade with the US. The United States is Colombia's 
principal trading partner with over $9.5 billion in annual trade 
between our two nations. When we help Colombia secure its own territory 
from the threat of overthrow from the Marxist narco-terrorists, we will 
also help stabilize the neighboring countries in the Andean region from 
spillover effects of the drug trade and insurgency.
  There are more acts of terrorism committed in Colombia every day than 
in all the other countries of the world combined. And make no mistake 
about it, the forces that are acting to overthrow the democratically 
elected government of Colombia are terrorists. While their 
organizations did have their genesis as a ``people's revolution'' with 
Marxist ties they are now no more than terrorists. General Fernando 
Tapias, Commander of the Colombian Armed Forces, stated recently that 
while the Army in the 1960s and 1970s used to find the writings of Marx 
and Lenin in the documents captured during raids on FARC hideouts now 
all they find are receipts and documentation of the smuggling of drugs, 
pre-cursor chemicals used to process cocaine and weapons shipments.
  The FARC, ELN and AUC get the vast majority of their funding from 
narcotics trafficking. All three of these groups also obtains large 
amounts of money from the terrorist tactics of kidnapping and 
extortion. FARC has extensive ties with international terrorist and 
criminal organizations. Right now there are three members of the Irish 
Republican Army in the custody of the government of Colombia after they 
were arrested for providing training to the FARC on bombmaking and 
other terrorist tactics.
  Colombian President Andres Pastrana was elected in 1998 on a platform 
that called for making peace with the Marxist guerrillas that have 
operated in his country since the 1960s. He has engaged in negotiations 
with the FARC and the ELN since before he took office. In fact, 
President Pastrana, in an act of good faith, gave total control of a 
piece of central Colombia the size of Switzerland, which was supposed 
to remain demilitarized, to the FARC as an enticement for continuing 
negotiations. In the four years since President Pastrana opened 
negotiations the FARC has continued to engage in narcotics trafficking 
and terrorist activities. In fact, in the past few months they have 
engaged in countless terrorist attacks throughout the country that have 
killed hundreds of people. The FARC is responsible for the kidnapping 
of Colombian presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt, who they still 
hold hostage. They tortured and murdered Colombian Senator Martha 
Daniels who was attempting to negotiate the release of two kidnapping 
victims. And just a few months ago, they attempted to assassinate 
President-elect Alvaro Uribe with a car bomb that killed three civilian 
bystanders. In the face of these acts of terrorism, President Pastrana 
declared an end to peace negotiations and reclaimed the demilitarized 
zone that he ceded to the FARC. When the Colombian Armed Forces re-
captured this territory they found that terrorists had been using the 
territory for all kinds of illegal activity. The Colombian Army found 
27 new airstrips that were used for drug and weapons transports, 
numerous drug laboratories and storage areas for pre-cursor drug 
processing chemicals, several training bases for terrorist activities 
that were used by international terrorist organizations, and evidence 
that 14 new guerrilla units had been established and trained in this 
``demilitarized'' zone. This was also the area where the FARC had 
landed several hijacked aircraft and drastically increased the 
production of coca. So it is now undoubtedly clear that the FARC is not 
interested in serious negotiations and does not want peace. They are 
only interested in maintaining and expanding their narcotics funded 
terrorist activities.
  The United States must do the right thing and support our friends and 
allies in Colombia. The government of Colombia has categorically stated 
that they do not want US troops to come and fight their war for them. 
They are willing and able to destroy this threat to their country and 
the world. I am glad that the Administration has made the decision to 
request the removal of the counter-narcotics restrictions on our aid to 
Colombia. Colombia is looking into the abyss and this threatens the 
entire Andean region.
  Congress needs to pass this legislation so that we can keep up the 
pressure on terrorists within our own hemisphere and across the globe.
  I thank the Senator from Florida for his leadership. I am pleased to 
join with him and stress this is an exceedingly important matter for 
us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page S5166]]

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, everyone has spoken on one side.
  I ask for 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, one other perspective: For the record, 
the FARC and ELN are involved in narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. 
For the record, the paramilitary and the AUC are involved in 
narcotrafficking up to their eyeballs. For the record, two-thirds of 
the extrajudicial killings last year were by the AUC and the 
paramilitary. And for the record, there is one documented case after 
another after another about the military and the paramilitary being all 
too connected.
  So before we provide direct military assistance and weapons that can 
be used in counterinsurgency by the military, we ought to take a real 
close look at what is going on in Colombia. I wanted to say that 
tonight. We will have debate later.
  I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 3569 Withdrawn

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, offering this amendment was for the 
purpose of affording our colleagues an opportunity to express their 
strong opinions and to indicate to the American people the great 
importance of the relationship between our Nation and the peoples of 
Colombia for our mutual well-being. As our colleague from Minnesota has 
just said, this is an issue that deserves full debate.
  Given the hour of the night, given the fact that it is my hope that 
when this matter reaches conference, the Senate conferees will look 
carefully at the proposals that our House colleagues have already 
adopted to allow the use of Department of Defense-funded equipment in 
the war against terrorism as well as the counternarcotics war, I will 
ask to withdraw the amendment and hope we will have an opportunity at a 
future date to have a full debate on the United States relationship 
with Colombia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, we 
are getting closer to finalizing this bill. To my knowledge, there are 
possibly two additional amendments that will require rollcall votes. I 
also think the time for debate on both of those can be fairly brief. We 
will have a managers' amendment, and I guess we will have a vote on 
final passage.
  I don't think we would have come this far had it not been for the 
very competent and capable leadership of Senators Byrd and Stevens as 
well as my colleague and friend, Senator Reid. To finish this bill, 
frankly, for this many amendments and for the most part with votes 
taken in one day is pretty remarkable.
  I make one editorial comment. I thank the managers for supporting an 
amendment offered by Senator Inhofe and myself dealing with $12 million 
for restoration of the I-40 bridge in Oklahoma which was hit by barge 
traffic. It caused 14 fatalities, the largest number of fatalities of 
any bridge accident in U.S. history. It also shut down east-west 
traffic into our State. This is one of our major east-west corridors. 
It is a major inconvenience not just for our State but for the entire 
country. We have some money, as requested by the Department of 
Transportation, in this bill. I thank my colleagues for their 
assistance in that proposal. Also, I particularly thank my colleague, 
Senator Inhofe, who is on the authorizing committee and worked very 
hard to make that happen. I compliment him for it.


                           Amendment No. 3588

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 3588 be called 
up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3588.

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

  (Purpose: To restore the discretion of the President to agree with 
             Congressionally-designated emergency spending)

       Strike section 2002 of the bill.

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, this amendment is very straightforward. 
It would strike section 2002 that is on page 116 of the bill. Section 
2002 deals with the emergency provisions in the bill.
  I have been in the Senate for 22 years. We have never done this. Ever 
since we have had emergency provisions in the bill, we have never done 
it. The impact of the amendment is that it prohibits the President from 
spending any money, any nondefense emergency spending in the bill 
unless he spends it all. That is not the way we have done emergencies 
under the Clinton administration. That is not the way we have handled 
emergencies under President Bush's administration since 1990.
  I will read the language in the bill on page 116:

       Any amount appropriated in this Act that is designated by 
     Congress as emergency requirement pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985, as amended, shall not be available for 
     obligation unless all such amounts appropriated in this Act 
     are designated by the President, upon enactment of this Act, 
     as emergency requirements pursuant to that section.

  What that means is, for nondefense, there are some sections in this 
bill and in the President's requirements calling for emergency 
designations. This says if he spends any of it, he has to spend it all. 
We have never done this before. We didn't do that in the Clinton 
administration. The Clinton administration had emergency requests every 
year. We granted almost all of them plus some.
  This President requested the emergency designation. He came to 
Congress and actually requested $24.47 billion in emergency assistance, 
emergency appropriations, and an additional 2.7 under contingency 
emergency appropriations. He requested that. We are getting ready to 
give him more.
  What has happened is, the House has already passed a bill. They 
passed a bill at $29 billion. The President's total was 27. The House 
came back and said: We will give you the $27 billion you requested, and 
we will do an additional $1.5 billion for defense. But the additional 
$1.5 billion for defense was under contingency. If the President 
declared it an emergency, he could spend it. But if he didn't, he 
wouldn't. So the President is basically saying: He still is getting his 
$27.3 billion of emergency assistance. He doesn't have to spend that 
additional $1.5 billion. That is the way we have done it.
  In other words, when we go into emergency spending, the special 
designation means it doesn't count. We have budgets every year. Until 
this year, we have passed budgets. Those budgets have had targets. But 
when we have an emergency, we say it doesn't count towards the caps; we 
are going to waive it because there is a special emergency. Maybe we 
have had an earthquake, a fire, a flood, serious damage, so we call 
that an emergency. They were not budgeted, they were not planned, they 
were not expected, such as the World Trade Center incident of 9-11. We 
had a very significant, as a matter of fact, $40 billion emergency that 
we paid for last year. But it was with the concurrence of the President 
and the Congress.
  Now in this case we are saying: Mr. President, that is fine, we will 
take your emergency, but you have to take all of our emergencies or you 
don't get any of yours on nondefense. We have never done that before, 
to my knowledge.
  I used to be on the Appropriations Committee. I happen to still be on 
the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee should be outraged by this. 
Every once in a while one committee kind of exceeds jurisdiction or 
goes into the jurisdiction of another committee. That is what we are 
doing right here. We have never had a supplemental appropriations bill, 
to my knowledge, that had language like this.

  Incidentally, this has the attention of the administration. The 
administration's position basically states that they will veto the bill 
if this is in there. I will read from the administration's statement of 
policy dated June 4, the first page:

       In addition, the bill severely constrains the President's 
     ability to fund emergency homeland requirements by compelling 
     him to release nonemergency money provided in the bill. If 
     the supplemental appropriation bill were presented to the 
     President in its current form, his senior advisors would 
     recommend that he veto the bill.


[[Page S5167]]


  That is on the first page. On the third page of the statement of 
administration policy it says:

       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 
     nondefense 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 Congress 
     to ensure that the funds respond to critical emergency needs. 
     By contravening in this long established budget enforcement 
     mechanism, the Senate would require the President to waste 
     taxpayers' dollars on low priority, nonemergency items in 
     order to access vital, high priority homeland security 
     recovery funding.

  It is very clear, the administration is adamantly opposed to this 
provision. This is as direct a veto threat as we have had from this 
administration in their time in office. It is reversing a precedent we 
have followed on emergency spending for the last 13 years.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. NICKLES. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Can he give an example, to those of us who are not 
experts on the budgetary process, of what the President might not 
decide to spend and then would be forced to spend?
  Mr. NICKLES. To give an example--I appreciate the question--there are 
a lot of things in this bill. My friend from Arizona pointed out a 
couple of them earlier today. There is one where the President said, 
some of these provisions don't relate to homeland security, including 
$11 million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
NOAA, for economic assistance to New England fishing and fishing 
communities; $26.8 million for the USGS survey for urban mapping 
activities. The administration said that is not urgent; it wasn't 
requested.
  If section 2002 is not stricken, those things will have to be funded 
or you don't get funding for New York City. You don't get funding for 
homeland security needs that are requested. There is billions of 
dollars in here that the President did request that we are putting in 
jeopardy because of this bill's ``all or nothing'' approach.
  We do that on normal appropriations. We don't do it on emergency 
bills. The reason we don't do it on emergency bills is that the 
emergency bills are outside the budget. They are special. They are 
figures over and above set spending levels. We have agreed to a budget. 
We have agreed to caps. We shake hands. That is what we are going to 
abide by. But when it comes to emergencies, we say we are going to 
waive the budget. The budget no longer applies. Therefore, caps no 
longer apply.
  This is the national emergency. That is what we passed, the $40 
billion following the World Trade Center. It is a national emergency. 
We agreed to do it. Usually, we do it with overwhelming majorities, if 
it is truly an emergency. This is saying, well, before you get part of 
that emergency, you have to take the entire thing.
  All I am saying is that previous Presidents have always said we have 
to concur. When we made the budget deal--and this goes back, I tell my 
colleagues to Andrews Air Force Base in 1990. That basically said if 
you are going to have caps, cases in which we have an emergency might 
pose a problem. So we put in emergency provisions, and you can waive 
the caps if there is truly an emergency, and that could be designated 
if it is agreed upon by both Congress and the administration.
  Now we are saying if Congress has it in there, Mr. President, you 
have to take it all, or you don't get a dime. I think that is an 
infringement on the budget process.
  I think the emergency process all together is a big waiver of the 
budget, a big way to get around budgets, one of the reasons why 
spending can grow astronomically. It has grown dramatically over the 
last few years. If we allow this provision, I think we are opening up 
the door to greater abuse of the emergency provisions.
  Very quickly and briefly I urge colleagues to strike section 2002 and 
keep the emergency provisions we have had for the last 13 years at 
least the same as they are. Let's not change them. We have a new 
President. Why should we curtail his authority, vis-a-vis his 
predecessors? I think that would open the door to a lot of spending and 
abuse of the emergency process. I urge my colleagues to strike section 
2002.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, let me try to set this in historical 
context. In 1990, in the so-called budget summit agreement, a decision 
was made to allow the Congress and the President, acting jointly, to 
declare items emergency items and, therefore, allow the spending on 
that item to operate outside the budget process. In other words, where 
the President and the Congress agreed that something was an emergency, 
then the budget process did not apply. But what was required to make it 
an emergency was two things: The President said it was an emergency and 
Congress said it was an emergency, and the combination of the two 
triggered the exemption.
  Now, I have been here a long time, and my memory fades, but I don't 
believe that we have ever had a provision such as the one in this bill 
because in this bill we have a situation where there is $14 billion of 
funding that the President did not say was an emergency. Congress says 
it is an emergency and, therefore, by the definition of the emergency 
waiver that was written into permanent law in 1990, this $14 billion 
would not qualify. It would not qualify because it only has half of the 
action that is required to provide the emergency. It has Congress 
saying it is an emergency, but the President says it is not an 
emergency.
  This bill gets around that 1990 permanent law provision by saying the 
President has a choice. He can take the whole bill as a deemed 
emergency or he cannot spend any part of it as an emergency. In other 
words, it overrides the President's prerogative in this process by 
saying to him that under the law you had to say it was an emergency and 
Congress had to say it was an emergency, and you had to be talking 
about the same thing. But now we want to spend $14 billion that you say 
is not an emergency. We have $18 billion in the bill that you say is an 
emergency and we say is an emergency. But we are not going to let you 
spend that $18 billion unless you spend our $14 billion and say it is 
an emergency. So this is a complete perversion of that emergency 
waiver.

  Now, I have to say that the waiver has been probably the most misused 
part of every budget that has been adopted since 1990. If I had known 
then at Andrews Air Force Base what I know today, I would have never 
agreed to this waiver because it has been abused over and over again. 
But it has never been abused--at least to the best of my knowledge--the 
way it is being abused today because the President is being forced to 
make this an emergency, even though he did not designate it, in order 
to get the genuine emergency money which he designated and Congress 
approved. I think this really perverts the process, and I really 
believe this amendment ought to be adopted.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. How long has the Senator been involved in budgetary 
issues?
  Mr. GRAMM. For 24 years.
  Mr. McCAIN. And the Senator has never seen anything like this in 
those 24 years?
  Mr. GRAMM. Not that I can recall. So many things have gone by my old 
eyes; there may have been something, but I don't remember it.
  Mr. McCAIN. As the Senator knows, we will not have a budget this 
year.
  Mr. GRAMM. It sure enough looks like we are not going to have one.
  Mr. McCAIN. With this new wrinkle, or new provision, in the 
appropriations bill, that really does give all power to the 
Appropriations Committee, even overriding any authority that the 
President might have, doesn't it?
  Mr. GRAMM. In one sense it does, and in one sense it doesn't. In all 
fairness, this doesn't make the President spend a single penny of this 
money. But he cannot spend a penny of it unless he designates all of it 
in an emergency. The way this is being used, it doesn't make the 
President spend the money, but it says that if the President is going 
to spend the $18 billion that Congress and the President agree on as 
being an emergency, he cannot spend a penny of that unless he also 
designates this $14 billion that he says

[[Page S5168]]

is not an emergency. The Appropriations Committee says it is an 
emergency and, obviously, if Congress passes it, we will say that. So 
the President has to spend it as an emergency if he is to get a penny 
of the $18 billion. But he could, theoretically, under this, sign the 
bill and then not spend any of it. But, obviously, it puts him in the 
position that he cannot get this $18 billion of homeland security funds 
unless he takes this $14 billion he doesn't want and counts it as an 
emergency so it doesn't come under the budget process, and that is the 
perversion of the system I was talking about.
  Mr. McCAIN. I don't like to drag out the debate, but I ask the 
Senator this. This seems to me like it is almost a constitutional 
issue.
  Mr. GRAMM. Well, there is certainly a separation of powers issue. 
Whether it gets to the constitutional level or not, I don't know. The 
point is, this is taking away the President's role in the emergency 
designation by changing the system so that he cannot get any of the 
money, even the amount we agree is a genuine emergency, when the 
President says so and we say so. Therefore, by law, that makes it an 
emergency. He cannot get a penny of that money unless he takes the $14 
billion that he says is not an emergency, but he has to say it is an 
emergency to get the other $18 billion.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Texas and 
other Senators--I believe the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma made 
the same statement--say that this is a precedent. Am I correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. As far as I am aware, it is a precedent. As I said, I 
haven't gone back and researched it, but I don't remember one.
  Mr. BYRD. Let me state to the Senate the real precedent. It was 
enacted by this Congress when it was under the control of the 
Republican Party--both Houses--in 2001. It was in title I of the bill 
making appropriations for Kosovo and other national security matters.
  Here is what the provision said at that time:

       Section 126. Any amount appropriated in this chapter that 
     is designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(B)(2)(a) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended, shall not 
     be available for obligation unless all--

  Not just part--

     unless all such amounts are designated by the President upon 
     enactment of this Act as emergency requirements pursuant to 
     such section.

  That was the precedent, and I voted for it, and the Senator from 
Texas voted for it.
  Mr. GRAMM. Are you sure I voted for it?
  Mr. BYRD. I voted for it then, and I am for it now.
  Mr. GRAMM. If the Senator will yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Oh, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. I do not know if I voted for it or not, but it was a bad 
precedent.
  (Laughter.)
  Mr. BYRD. I have been to many a revival meeting, and when the altar 
call came, the Senators hit the sawdust trail. The Senator remembers 
Billy Sunday, that great evangelist. So that is a time for admitting 
one's errors. Maybe I was in error then, but I voted with the 
Republican-controlled Congress and against my own President in that 
instance.
  What we are doing here tonight is certainly not a precedent. We are 
just following in the wake. It was that language that gave us the idea. 
That was the precedent. Without that, we might not have thought of 
this.
  Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike 
section 2002 of the bill. Congress should be proud of the lead it has 
taken in funding homeland defense programs that will help prevent, 
detect, and respond to potential terrorist attacks.
  Last year, we acted on a bipartisan basis to provide $10 billion for 
homeland defense programs. Last year, in the face of a veto threat from 
the President, this Congress, this Appropriations Committee added $4 
billion more than what was requested by the President. That money is 
being well spent, and it is making a difference. The veto was 
threatened then. So we have heard that before.
  We have a responsibility to use our own judgment in behalf of the 
American people, in behalf of the security of this homeland. We should 
make our own judgment. No President sends any Senator here. Calling him 
the Commander in Chief, if you will--that is what the Constitution says 
he is, but I do not think that has a thing to do with this bill.
  I have heard that term thrown around here today, the ``Commander in 
Chief.'' No Commander in Chief sends me here. No Commander in Chief 
sends the Senator from Vermont here. No Commander in Chief sends the 
Senator from Louisiana here. No Commander in Chief sends the 
distinguished Senator from Texas here. He comes here by virtue of the 
wisdom and good judgment of the good people of Texas. Thank God. We are 
not made or unmade by any President. I have served not under but 
certainly with, I believe, 10 or 11 Presidents. None of them sent me 
here, Democrats and Republicans.
  I have stood by the principles that I see as being important 
principles in upholding the prerogatives of this institution and the 
Constitution, and I have stood against; I have opposed the wishes of 
Democrat Presidents in this regard, and I opposed those Republican 
Presidents. It does not make any difference to me who is President. He 
puts on his trousers just like I put mine on, two legs at a time, two 
legs at a time. Some say you cannot do that, but you can.

  (Laughter.)
  I have tried it. You can. If you do not believe it, just sit down in 
a chair and pull them on both legs.
  (Laughter.)
  I like this man from Texas. He will smile, he will yield, and he is 
not only a good Senator, but he is a good sport.
  Mr. President, I have seen Presidents come and go. I have never bowed 
and scraped to any of them. I do not expect the people to bow and 
scrape to me, and I do not expect to do that to any President. I am for 
using Robert Byrd's judgment, as far as my votes are concerned. Paul 
Sarbanes will use his own judgment.
  We are not here at the beck and call of any President, even if he is 
the Commander in Chief. We have our own judgments on this. This 
committee, on a bipartisan basis, supported by the Republicans, 14 of 
them, and 15 Democrats, reported out this bill. We had hearings. Those 
hearings were attended by Republicans and Democrats to ask questions. 
We heard people from the local level. I have said this before but 
should say it again. We heard the firefighters. We heard the policemen. 
We heard the health personnel. We heard mayors. We heard Governors. We 
heard county commissioners. We heard seven Department heads in the 
executive branch. We heard the Director of FEMA. And based on those 
hearings, this committee, in its considered judgment, elected to 
increase the amount by $3 billion.
  We increased the amount by $4 billion last year. That money has made 
a difference. I have stated already what is being done with that money, 
$4 billion more than the President requested. This year it is $3 
billion more.
  Let's use our own judgment. Let's not be here at the beck and call of 
any President. I am here because the people of West Virginia sent me 
here, and so is every other Senator here because of the people of their 
State.
  I hear all this business about Commander in Chief. I get a little 
tired of hearing Commander in Chief, Commander in Chief. Under the 
English history, there were commanders in chief all over the continent, 
all over the islands. So they were called commanders in chief. So what, 
Commander in Chief.
  The Constitution says the Congress will enact the laws. It will have 
all power herein provided to enact laws. It says that the Congress will 
make the appropriations of moneys. So let's use our own judgment.
  Mr. President, I will not be much longer. I emphasized in my opening 
remarks on this bill that Congress came together on a bipartisan basis 
to increase funding for homeland defense programs, and that funding is 
now making a difference.
  I do not understand why my friend from Oklahoma, who offers this 
amendment, would want to give the President what would essentially be a 
line-item veto. In other words, he can pick and choose. No, when it 
comes to defense,

[[Page S5169]]

there will be emergencies, but when it comes to homeland defense, 
nondefense spending, then he can pick and choose. He does not have to 
call that an emergency.
  What do Senators think will happen? The President, in my judgment, 
will certainly support the making of an emergency on defense moneys, 
but when it comes to homeland defense, he may or he may not. So why 
should we give him that authority to pick and choose? The Supreme Court 
turned down the line-item veto which I opposed on this floor and which 
several Senators here--Mr. Sarbanes and Mr. Reid and others--opposed. 
Now we have it in a different form. This is a kind of line-item veto. 
The President can pick and choose. I am not for that.
  Which programs would the President choose not to make available? The 
firefighter equipment and training funds? The port security grants? The 
money for the Coast Guard? The money for the Customs Service to inspect 
cargo containers overseas when we currently inspect only 2 percent of 
our imports? Or how about the money for making sure our first 
responders, our police, our fire and emergency medical care personnel 
have communications equipment that is interoperable?
  The one thing we do know is that the President has already designated 
as an emergency $1.6 billion for foreign aid. Why would we want the 
President to have the authority to use the emergency designation for 
$1.6 billion of foreign aid but not require him to designate the 
homeland defense fund as an emergency?
  This amendment is not just about homeland defense. If this amendment 
were adopted, it would allow the President to not release $275 million 
for veterans' medical care. How about that? It would allow him not to 
release the $80 million for the Sierra Grande fire victims. How about 
that? It would allow him not to release $1 billion for the Pell grant 
shortfall. How about that? Do we want to give the President that kind 
of authority? No, not I.
  I want to assure all Senators that there is precedent for this 
language, as I indicated at the beginning of my remarks. I urge all 
Senators to stand by their priorities, stand by their people back home, 
and oppose this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Carnahan). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senator from West Virginia, our 
chairman, is correct. I was chairman of the committee at the time we 
imposed the same requirement on the past President. I have further 
memories of some of the bills we have passed in which we said the 
President could not spend specific monies until he had obligated 
others. We have had ways through our career in appropriations of making 
certain that the congressional priorities were met as the President 
executed his powers under the Constitution.
  I have another reason for supporting the provisions in the bill. I do 
say parenthetically I know the House of Representatives has the same 
feelings as expressed by the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
Texas. We are probably going to have to work out some sort of a 
compromise before the bill is through.
  I want a bill that will be signed by the President, but my problem is 
this: After the disasters of September 11, the President requested 
funds from the Congress, and he requested $10 billion--no hearings, no 
strings attached, just $10 billion, no accounting whatsoever to the 
Congress. We granted that. He then also wanted another $10 billion, and 
this time we said we would like to know how he was going to spend it, 
so we agreed that we would get an accounting for those monies after 
they were spent, which is entirely contrary to existing law and our 
procedures.
  Following that, he asked for more money. As the Senator from West 
Virginia said, we added $4 billion to the monies he requested, and that 
money was in accordance with the normal procedures. Every dime the 
President asked for was appropriated.

  When we look at what we have done this year, we have labored hard 
over the debate on homeland security. I am delighted to hear the 
President's proposal tonight about the creation of a new Department of 
Homeland Security. I think most of us have wanted that from the very 
beginning. In any event, we have also had some priorities that have 
come to us from our various States and from people who have been 
involved in security in the United States for a long time, and they 
have pointed out a great many things.
  One, for instance, is the incompatibility of our communications 
systems. Our communications systems are not national. As a matter of 
fact, if we think about it, every function of government--Federal, 
State and local--in the United States awards the contracts to the 
lowest bidder. There is no requirement that when they buy radios or any 
kind of communications equipment, they be able to communicate with the 
people in the next county, let alone the next State or let alone 
nationally. We found that out in New York when so many of the fire 
trucks and ambulances that came into New York could not be used because 
they could not answer the dispatcher. No one could tell them where to 
go or what to do.
  In hearings, we have discovered from FEMA, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, the horrendous burden we have now of trying to make 
first responders capable of interacting with anybody who comes to help 
them. That is something that has not been done so far. We have some 
money in the bill to start that process.
  My point is this: We are entitled to have some say in what is spent 
now to prevent further emergencies and to deal with those as they come 
up, God forbid, when they do come up. I believe we are entitled to say 
to the President, we have worked with you, we have tried to work with 
you, but we have some priorities we ask you to recognize and to concur 
in. If it were not for the fact that we have the necessity of going to 
an emergency because the existing budget does not allow us any further 
funds--by that I mean we had a budget for this year, we have fulfilled 
that budget--any amounts in addition to that now must be by virtue of 
an emergency. The President himself requested these monies on the basis 
of an emergency or they were offset partially.
  What we are saying in this bill is, after these hearings, after the 
long debates we have had, both last year and now on this subject, we 
have some priorities. We want the President to recognize those, and we 
will allocate the monies we believe should be allocated before we agree 
to this additional money that he wants.
  I know the OMB does not like that. They do not like it any more than 
I like it every time when we make a change in an appropriations bill, 
that is called a congressional add-on. That request is something made 
by an elected representative to the Congress and not made by request 
from some unknown bureaucratic and the millions of people who work for 
the Departments. Anything they want comes through, and no one 
challenges it. No one challenges it at all.
  The appropriations process affects about 3 percent of the total 
budget. Our budget now is about $700 billion for this year. We change 
less than 3 percent. In terms of the total budget of the United States, 
total expenditures, $1.7 billion, if one looks at it, we do not even 
control half of that in terms of the appropriations process anymore. 
The entitlement created by the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means 
Committee, spent $1.1 billion this year. We will spend about $700 
billion through the total process of the appropriations, but we are 
going to change less than 3 percent.

  On this bill, we have changed a little less than $4 billion. Last 
year, we changed $4 billion in the bills that were signed.
  Now, what is all the hullabaloo about? Are we entitled to have any 
role in setting the priorities for spending for homeland defense? Are 
we allowed to have any priorities in terms of spending of the balance 
of the monies that are available to us through offsets in this year?
  I would like to work it out with the bureau of the budget, and I 
would like to have some accommodation of views. One of the 
accommodations I want is that if we make a recommendation pursuant to 
our constitutional powers to spend specific money in a specific way, it 
is not going to be put aside because it is a congressional add-on but 
everything that has been requested by

[[Page S5170]]

some agency of the Federal Government is going to be spent without any 
further review.
  Of all the monies that come through this Congress, the monies in the 
supplemental appropriations bill get more attention than anything else. 
We pass 13 bills, and we pass them usually very quickly. They are 
pretty well debated among us. But in terms of the items in them, they 
do not get the attention that the supplemental bills do. The 
supplemental bills, of necessity, are additions to the current year. We 
have authorized expenditures and appropriated expenditures for this 
year. This adds to that amount.
  I think the Senator from West Virginia deserves a lot of credit for 
having stood for the proposition that we should not enlarge this bill 
beyond the scope that the President will approve. We have had to vote 
against things that each one of us agrees with. Twice today we voted 
against things on a point of order that we would like to see approved, 
but because of our roles we must hold the line and try to get a bill 
the President will approve.
  When we get to conference, we will try to get a bill the President 
will approve. I know he wants this bill. I know the Nation needs this 
bill. I regret that it does not have the debt ceiling change in it. I 
regret that we do not have a provision that establishes some mechanism 
for handling the 13 bills we have yet to handle in this Congress. We do 
not have a budget yet. Before we start the process for appropriations, 
I hope we have it. I hope the Senate will let us take this to 
conference.
  I have said to my friend from West Virginia, the chairman of our 
committee, I know we want to get the President to sign it and currently 
his people say he is objecting to this very much.

  But in the final analysis, maybe we can select out of this whole bill 
some of the things that will be available and go back to the old 
provision we used to use. In other words, he cannot get the money he 
wants until we obligate the money we want. I did that as chairman 
several times with a President of a different party.
  What is wrong with doing it now when the roles are changed? My 
friend, as chairman today, has accorded himself with great distinction 
as chairman of the Appropriations Committee in facing up to the 
problems we have had today. I intend to stay with him and make a motion 
to table this amendment.
  First, I want to give time to anyone who wants a chance for a 
rebuttal.
  Mr. GRAMM. I don't want to make a rebuttal but try to save the Senate 
a little time. The only thing I know that remains to be done is a point 
of order against the bill. I don't think it will change a single vote. 
If we could agree to let me make the point of order and then have these 
two votes back to back, we could save people some time--if we wanted to 
do that.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is above my pay grade.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to make a point of 
order against the bill and that, when that point of order is made, the 
Senator from Alaska be immediately recognized to move to table the 
pending amendment, and that those two votes occur back to back, with 
the vote on the motion to table to occur first and then the motion to 
waive this point of order to occur second. By doing it that way we save 
people some time. Given that it is 9:30, that would probably be 
welcome.
  Mr. BYRD. How much time did we have for making some comments?
  Mr. GRAMM. I don't need to make any. If you want to make some 
comments, you have all the time you need.
  Mr. BYRD. I will want to move to waive the Gramm point of order for 
nondefense emergency in the bill.
  Mr. GRAMM. If that unanimous consent request is agreed to, I would go 
ahead and then make a point of order and the Senator can move to waive 
it.
  Mr. BYRD. Is the Senator going to make any remarks in support of his 
point?
  Mr. GRAMM. I would say we have spoken all day. I think people know 
what the issue is. This really questions whether everything in the bill 
is an emergency. It is that simple. As provided in section 205(b) of 
House Con. Res. 290, I raise a point of order against the emergency 
designation on the nondefense spending items.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I move to waive the Gramm point of order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am in opposition to the amendment to 
strike section 2002 of the bill. Congress should be proud of the lead 
that it has taken in funding homeland defense programs that will help 
prevent, detect and respond to potential terrorist attacks. Last year, 
we acted together on a bipartisan basis and provided $10 billion for 
homeland defense programs, $4 billion more than was requested by the 
President.
  Last December, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense 
Appropriations bill if it contained funding for homeland defense 
programs that he regarded as excessive. Last November, Homeland 
Security Director Tom Ridge wrote me and said, ``no additional 
resources beyond what the President has already requested are needed at 
this time.''
  Yet, as I emphasized in my opening remarks on this bill, the Congress 
came together on a bi-partisan basis to increase funding for homeland 
defense programs and that funding is now making a difference. Over 
2,200 more INS border agents and Customs inspectors are being hired. 
The INS is now implementing a system for tracking foreign students in 
this country. Our police, fire and medical personnel are getting better 
training and equipment for detecting and responding to potential 
biological, chemical or nuclear attacks. The FBI is hiring hundreds of 
new agents. 750 more food inspectors and investigators are being hired. 
The number of ports with Food and Drug Administration investigators is 
being doubled. 324 additional protective personnel are being hired to 
protect our nuclear weapons complex, and additional resources are being 
spent on efforts to destroy or secure nuclear materials overseas.
  I do not understand why the Senator offering this amendment would 
want to give the President what would essentially be line item veto 
authority over the homeland defense funds contained in this bill. If 
this amendment is adopted, the President would be able to completely 
disregard the priorities contained in this bill.
  Which programs would the President choose not to make available, the 
firefighter equipment and training funds, the port security grants, the 
money for the Coast Guard, the money for the Customs Service to inspect 
cargo containers overseas when we currently inspect only 2 percent of 
our imports, or how about the money for making sure that our first 
responders, our police, fire and emergency medical care personnel have 
communications equipment that are interoperable?
  One thing we do know is that the President has already designated as 
an emergency $1.6 billion for foreign aid. Why would we want the 
President to have the authority to use the emergency designation for 
$1.6 billion of foreign aid but not require him to designate the 
homeland defense funds as an emergency?
  And this amendment is not just about homeland defense. If this 
amendment were adopted, it would allow the President to not release 
$275 million for Veterans Medical Care. It would allow him to not 
release the $80 million for the Cerro Grande fire victims. It would 
allow him to not release $1 billion for the Pell grant shortfall.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to assure all Senators that there is 
precedent for this language. In fact, two years ago, the Republican 
House and the Republican Senate approved substantially the same 
language on a fiscal year 2000 supplemental appropriations bill for 
President Clinton. I supported that bill, when the conference

[[Page S5171]]

report passed the Senate on a voice vote.
  I urge all Senators to stand by their priorities and oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 36, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 143 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Biden
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--36

     Allard
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Helms
     Thurmond
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to waive the 
emergency designation point of order.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Should this point of order be 
agreed to, what is the impact on the bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be open to a budget point of order.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If the point of 
order should be sustained, would there be a vote on final passage on 
the bill tonight requiring us to stay here to cast it?
  (Laughter.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is probably not an inquiry for the Chair.
  Mr. REID. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Chair state the question for the 
Record so that all who read it may understand on what we are voting?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
waive the emergency designation point of order.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the 
clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), and the Senator from 
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Campbell), and the Senator from 
South Carolina (Mr. Thurmond) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schumer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 25, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 144 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--25

     Allard
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Chafee
     Crapo
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Helms
     Thurmond
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are 
25. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order fails.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and to lay 
that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I yield the floor, without losing my right 
to the floor, to the Senator from Utah for the purpose of withdrawing 
an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Utah is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 3759

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate 
amendment No. 3759 relating to resources for the Food and Drug 
Administration be recalled.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for many years now, it has been abundantly 
clear to many of us that one of the most important Federal agencies, 
the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, is woefully underfunded. It was 
for that reason that I reluctantly agreed to pharmaceutical user fees 
in 1992, even though I preferred that safety and efficacy review of new 
drugs remain a government function.
  Integrally related to the operations of the FDA are the agency's 
facility needs. Studies dating back to 1976 have cited serious 
deficiencies in FDA's facilities. For example, one 1976 FDA study found 
that the condition of agency laboratories at five of nine locations 
were ``unacceptable.'' Another two labs were found to be ``marginal,'' 
and the remaining two were cited as ``generally suitable'' with some 
marginal deficiencies. Many of these deficiencies remain today.
  As long ago as 1988, the Labor and Human Resources Committee 
recognized this fact by approving legislation I authored, S. 2468, the 
Food and Drug Administration Revitalization Act. Enacted in 1990 as 
Public Law 101-635, this

[[Page S5172]]

law improved FDA's resources in a number of areas, including, most 
importantly, granting the Secretary and the General Services 
Administration enhanced authority to modernize and improve FDA's real 
property needs.
  I still recall the motivation for that legislation as if it were 
today, the shocking reports we read about FDA facilities being 
scattered across far-flung locations. I remember hearing of renowned 
scientists literally working in converted chicken coops. More recently, 
in 1996, one FDA official testified before that Congress that FDA was 
scattered in more than 40 buildings, many with outdated and 
unacceptable laboratories, in more than 18 different locations. For an 
agency that is responsible for one-quarter of every consumer dollar, 
for an agency that makes decisions that are literally life and death, 
that was--and is--simply unacceptable.
  A number of us, including Senator Mikulski and Senator Kennedy, and 
on the House side, Representative Connie Morella, have been working to 
accomplish a consolidation of the FDA headquarters in one location. It 
is our belief that this enhanced, state-of-the-art facility will enable 
the agency to operate more efficiently. In short, we will be enabling 
agency personnel to do the job that the American people expect of them.
  Through the Base Realignment and Closure Act process, the Naval 
Surface Warfare Center in White Oak, Maryland, was transferred to the 
General Services Administration (GSA). This property will be used 
pursuant to the FDA Revitalization Act to consolidate new laboratories, 
office buildings, and support facilities of FDA's most important 
functions: the Office of the Commissioner; the Office of Regulatory 
Affairs; the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; the Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health; and the Center for Biologics 
Evaluation and Research. If there were a dietary supplement center, I 
feel certain it would go there as well. I was encouraged to learn that, 
under the most recent plan, 6,235 headquarters personnel would be 
located in over 2.3 million square feet of office and laboratory space.

  Unfortunately, though, our history of financial support for the 
consolidation is not as promising. For example, by 1994, a total of 
$325 million had been provided for the project, but $228 million of 
that was rescinded in FY 1995 based on concerns about the scope of the 
project as well as its location. The current budget only proposes $5.5 
million for FY 2003, delaying the project by an estimated year and 
resulting in almost $23 million in increased costs due to commercial 
lease extensions, delays in design and construction, and the impact on 
management and inspection of the project.
  This delay would have the most adverse effect on the Center for 
Devices and Radiological Health, CDRH, which occupies seven leased 
buildings in Rockville. Efficient operations of CDRH are critically 
important for my home state of Utah, which is proud to be the home base 
for literally dozens of thriving medical device manufacturers. They 
need to be able to count on FDA to maintain its gold standard review of 
devices to assure the public of their safety and efficacy. This is 
increasingly hard for FDA personnel to do, given that one of the two 
device labs is about 40 years old and in need of considerable 
attention. In fact, I am advised by the GSA that this CDRH lab is in 
``extensive disrepair''. The ventilation system is old and at risk of 
failure, and the owner has blocked even temporary repairs.
  The unfortunate events of September 11 have made this consolidation 
even more crucial. Many FDA facilities are currently leased and 
physical security varies by building. The new complex will improve 
security dramatically, both for current employees, and for the 128 
additional headquarters personnel funded by the counter-terrorism 
appropriation.
  In short, I remain discouraged by our lack of progress on this 
project over the last 15 years or so. I recognize that resources are 
constrained, but providing the FDA with necessary resources to assure 
public health and safety is a very important government function that 
needs to be funded.
  In an effort to provide new funds for this project, and to reassure 
the thousands of FDA employees that we are behind them and their 
important work, earlier this week Senators Mikulski, Kennedy and I 
proposed that the record $500 million settlement resolving quality-
control problems at four Schering-Plough factories be devoted to the 
FDA consolidated headquarters. We believe it is entirely fitting that 
this pharmaceutical money be used to improve the operations of the FDA, 
rather than being dispersed into the general receipts of the Treasury.
  Unfortunately, it now appears that a budget point of order would be 
lodged against our amendment, despite its important purpose. Therefore, 
deferring to the guidance of our colleagues on the Appropriations 
Committee, and recognizing the administration's serious concerns about 
the overall costs of the bill, I am reluctantly recalling this 
amendment. However, I am encouraged that the subcommittee chairman and 
ranking Republican member have indicated their willingness to work with 
us during formulation of the FY 2003 Treasury-Postal bill, and we 
intend to work closely with them to provide this necessary funding in 
the weeks to come.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada objects.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Reserving the right to object, I am sorry; I did not hear.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may not reserve the right to 
object.
  Mr. GRAMM. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. I asked unanimous consent the call of the quorum be 
terminated.
  Mr. GRAMM. Fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to try to work our way through 
this in various stages. The first stage is a group of amendments that 
everyone has agreed to--good guys, bad guys, those in between.
  I send this list of amendments to the desk and ask the clerk to read 
them individually, report them individually.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments.


                    Amendment No. 3676, As Modified

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3676, as modified.

  Mr. REID. I waive further reading of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 67, line 19, strike ``established'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``committed, in writing, to establish''.


                           Amendment No. 3677

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3677.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 67, line 17, strike ``inaugurated'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``elected''.


                           Amendment No. 3678

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3678.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 67, line 15, strike ``certify'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``report.''


                           Amendment No. 3679

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3679.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, line 12, after ``or'' insert ``United States''.

[[Page S5173]]

                    Amendment No. 3680, As Modified

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3680, as modified.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 68, line 6, strike ``dedicated'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``committed, in writing, to support''.


                           Amendment No. 3696

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3696.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, line 15, strike ``or subsequent Acts''.


                           Amendment No. 3697

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3697.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 60, line 4, strike ``and equipment'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``, equipment and related assistance''.


                           Amendment No. 3698

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3698.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, line 19, strike ``may'' and everything that 
     follows through ``Initiative'' on line 20, and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``shall be made available for any of the programs and 
     activities identified in clause (i) to improve the lives of 
     the Colombian people''.


                           Amendment No. 3715

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada, [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Leahy, for 
     himself and Mr. McConnell, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3715.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 63, line 12, strike ``ownership share of'' and 
     insert in lieu thereof ``financial interest in''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to all the Members, these 
amendments are offered on behalf of Senator Leahy. I think without 
exception they have been cosponsored by Senator McConnell.
  Mr. LOTT. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. That is right.
  Mr. REID. As I indicated to the Senators, the two managers approve 
these amendments, and they have been through the cleansing operation. 
These amendments have been available for people to look at. One I 
looked at changes the word ``election'' to ``inauguration,'' dealing 
with the matters in Central or South America.
  So I think it would be to everyone's best interests--I don't think we 
need to go through each one of these and debate them. That is because 
we also know then we are going to ask consent that a list of the 
managers' amendments on which we have not had general agreement, that 
we will ask that be sent to the desk after we get this accepted, and 
then there will be rulings on the germaneness of a number of these that 
have not been approved.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have an inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wanted to inquire if the Senator would consider 
amendment No. 3581, to which I believe there is no objection. Although 
it may not be technically germane, I do not believe there is objection 
to No. 3581, to add to that list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Louisiana, we have been told by the 
Parliamentarian that is not germane. We would have to pass that and we 
might have trouble doing that at this time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I understand that, just as long as we have had 
opportunity to consider it, is my question.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, let us adopt a group of amendments. We 
are going to get to a number of amendments like yours that are 
nongermane. These have been approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, I would say your amendment No. 
3581 is on a list that would be given an opportunity to be considered, 
or acted on in some way, once we get this noncontroversial list that 
was offered agreed to. We are trying to move forward on the process.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator from Mississippi. I understand it 
has no objection, so I wanted to make sure it would have a chance to 
come up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the amendments that have just been 
sent to the desk be adopted en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, the 
amendments are adopted en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3676, as modified, through 3680, as modified, 
3696, 3697, 3698, and 3715) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would say to all Members, this is a very 
important bill. We know that or we would not be working going on the 
midnight hour. There has been a tremendous amount of work done by staff 
and by the two managers of the bill. We are now at a stage where the 
end is in sight. Just because that is the case, it doesn't necessarily 
mean we are going to get to the end.
  I ask the cooperation of all Members to work with us here a little 
bit. If there is something we feel strongly about, we will explain to 
them why the managers, or the subcommittee chairs, other Members did 
not accept their particular amendment. Of course, the Chair is the one 
who rules on whether or not they are germane.
  So I ask we move through these as rapidly as possible. I yield to my 
friend, the Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I know the hour is late and Members would like to try to 
find a way to bring this to conclusion. I know this is not the ideal 
way to proceed. But I ask Senators at this point to be cooperative.
  Many of us might have an amendment or amendments we would like to 
have included. If they are not germane or they have been objected to 
one way or the other, there will be other bills. This is not the last 
opportunity.
  I hope we will cooperate at this point with Senator Reid and the 
Members who are involved on both sides and bring this bill to a 
conclusion. If any Senator starts objecting and insists on votes, the 
horse is out of the barn and we will never end it.
  This is an important bill. We have done good work. It is time to 
bring it to a conclusion. I hope all Senators will wait for another 
opportunity if they didn't get their nongermane amendments on this 
bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this is not normal Senate procedure. 
Normally in the Senate there is an indefinite time. We have a definite 
time. This bill is going to end either tonight or at 5:30 tomorrow 
afternoon. We are going to finish the bill. It is not a question of 
being able to hold up this bill because this bill is going forward. The 
President wants it. The two managers worked hard. The House is waiting 
for it to be brought to conference.
  The list of amendments commonly referred to as ``the managers' 
amendment'' I know causes people's hair to bristle at the back of their 
neck. But that is what this is. The managers worked on this for about 7 
hours. Senator McCain and Senator Gramm have been going through it for 
about 3 hours. The staff has worked. We now have this list that has 
been culled.
  We would like to go through these. There are some to which the 
respective parties have agreed. Some will fall because they are not 
germane.
  I ask for the cooperation of the two managers of the bill. Senator 
Stevens is ready, it is my understanding, to move through these. He has 
a list of those that have been accepted. He has a list of those that 
are nongermane.
  I ask if the Senator from Alaska is ready to move through this 
package. Senator Byrd and I have spoken to the ranking member. He has 
worked with Senators Gramm and McCain.

[[Page S5174]]

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, in order to facilitate this, I send to 
the desk a list of the items that the Parliamentarian has ruled are not 
germane. I ask the Parliamentarian to examine that and confer. These 
have been ruled as not germane. There are eight of them.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Has the Parliamentarian confirmed that those 
have been ruled to be not germane?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


  Amendments Nos. 3558, 3581, 3584, 3604, 3625, 3740, 3744, and 3745, 
                            Recalled En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I will read the list so Senators know 
what is on the list: amendment No. 3558 by Senator Murray; amendment 
No. 3581 by Senator Landrieu; amendment No. 3584 by Senator Stabenow; 
amendment No. 3604 by Senator Hollings; amendment No. 3625 by Senator 
Cochran; amendment No. 3740 by Senator Hollings; amendment No. 3744 by 
Senator Durbin; and amendment No. 3745 by Senator Sarbanes. Those are 
the eight that have been ruled to be nongermane.
  It is my understanding that if those amendments were called up and 
objection was made the Parliamentarian would rule them not be germane 
and not in order to be considered at this time. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask if any Senator objects if I ask those amendments 
be withdrawn at this time?
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Is the Senator proposing these amendments? Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. Parliamentary inquiry: Is Senator Landrieu's amendment, 
No. 3581, the $2.5 million requested to eliminate the need to recover 
funds from States under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and 
Bill of Rights Act? Is that the right amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. It is my understanding that the Senator from Texas and 
the Senator from Arizona object to that. Is that correct?
  Mr. GRAMM. That is correct. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Alaska offered that 
amendment?
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am prepared to offer a request that all 
of those amendments be withdrawn as they would be knocked down if 
called up.
  I recall those amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has asked that those amendments be 
recalled.
  Mr. STEVENS. All eight en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


   Amendment Nos. 3559, 3568, 3591, 3593, 3598, 3602, 3607, 3614, as 
  modified; 3615, 3616, 3624, as modified; 3631, 3632, 3653, 3656, as 
 modified; 3657, 3658, 3665, 3666, 3667, 3669, 3682, 3702, 3716, 3754, 
              as modified; and 3766, as modified, En Bloc

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send to the desk the list. There is a 
list of amendments that were proposed by Senators and that were 
examined by the majority and minority of the Appropriations Committee 
and which they agreed to accept. Those that sought to review the list 
had no objection to the amendments on this list. I ask that these 
amendments be called up and considered en bloc and adopted en bloc.
  I am pleased to read the list, in case anyone has any question of 
what is on it: amendment No. 3559 by Senator Hutchison; amendment No. 
3568 by Senator Nelson of Florida; amendment No. 3591 by Senator Biden; 
amendment No. 3593 by Senator McConnell; amendment No. 3598 by Senator 
Clinton; amendment No. 3602 by Senator Torricelli; amendment No. 3607 
by Senator Bunning; amendment No. 3614 by Senator Wyden; amendment No. 
3615 by Senator Daschle; amendment No. 3616 by Senator Byrd; amendment 
No. 3624 by Senator Wellstone; amendment No. 3631 by Senator Kyl; 
amendment No. 3632 by Senator Kyl; amendment No. 3653 by Senator 
Sessions; amendment No. 3656 by Senator McConnell; amendment No. 3657 
by Senator Kohl; amendment No. 3658 by Senator Harkin; amendment No. 
3665, my own amendment, amendment No. 3666; my amendment, No. 3667; my 
amendment, amendment No. 3669 by Senator Kerry; amendment No. 3682 by 
Senator Kohl; amendment No. 3702, another amendment that I offered; 
amendment No. 3716 by Senator Leahy; amendment No. 3754 by Senator 
Hutchinson; and amendment No. 3766 by Senator Craig.
  Those are the amendments that have been agreed to. No objection has 
been raised to date by any Senator.
  I ask that this list of amendments, together with modifications that 
have been filed with the list, and the statements made on each of the 
amendments by Senators involved be printed in the Record. I ask 
unanimous consent that these amendments be called up en bloc and agreed 
to en bloc.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there are 
some amendments on this list that have not been included. As soon as we 
complete this, we will discuss those, if necessary, one by one.
  Mr. STEVENS. There are other amendments that are in sort of an 
uncertain category.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have an 
inquiry of my friend from Alaska. It is my understanding that amendment 
No. 3657 is not in a dubious category, is germane, and is supported by 
both managers.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the number?
  Mr. LEVIN. Amendment No. 3627. It has to do with flood damage repairs 
for six States that both managers have supported--and it is germane--
including Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Illinois, and 
Michigan.
  Mr. STEVENS. What is the amendment number?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. 3627.
  Mr. STEVENS. No. 3627, unfortunately, was objected to by two Senators 
who wish to be heard on it.
  Mr. LEVIN. I understand it is a germane amendment which the managers 
have supported; is that correct?
  Mr. STEVENS. It is on another list. It is supported by both managers. 
And it is germane.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. But there is an objection to be heard.
  Mr. LEVIN. There will be then another list offered?
  Mr. STEVENS. There is another list right behind this one. But this is 
the agreed-to list that we submitted to those who wished to review the 
managers' package. The managers' package was composed of amendments 
that had been referred to the subcommittees involved, checked, on a 
bipartisan basis, by the subcommittees, reviewed by Senator Byrd's 
staff, my staff, and by the two of us personally, submitted to those 
who wished to review it, and this is the agreed-to package with no 
objection to be raised to date to any one of them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendments?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object for purposes of inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida reserves the right to 
object.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Amendment No. 3747, which has been ruled germane, relates 
to an emergency for additional U.S. marshals.
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes, that is germane. It has the approval of the 
managers in the subcommittees. There are two Senators who wish to 
object. That would be subject to debate. It is in that undecided 
package.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the package of the 
Senator from Alaska?
  Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendments are adopted.
  The amendments (Nos. 3559; 3568; 3591; 3593; 3598; 3602; 3607; 3614, 
as modified; 3615; 3616; 3624, as modified; 3631; 3632; 3653; 3656, as 
modified; 3657; 3658; 3665; 3666; 3667; 3669; 3682; 3702; 3716; 3754, 
as modified; and 3766, as modified) were agreed to, as follows:


                           Amendment No. 3559

                      (Purpose: Technical change)

       On pages 6 and 7, strike section 101 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 101. ASSISTANCE TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS THAT HAVE USED 
                   WATER FOR IRRIGATION FROM RIO GRANDE RIVER.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall use 
     $10,000,000 of the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation 
     to make a grant to the State of Texas, acting through the 
     Texas Department of Agriculture, to provide assistance to 
     agricultural producers in

[[Page S5175]]

     the State of Texas with farming operations along the Rio 
     Grande River that have suffered economic losses during the 
     2001 crop year due to the failure of Mexico to deliver water 
     to the United States in accordance with the Treaty Relating 
     to the Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana 
     Rivers and of the Rio Grande, and Supplementary Protocol 
     signed November 14, 1944, signed at Washington on February 3, 
     1944 (59 Stat. 1219; TS 944).
       (b) Amount.--The amount of assistance provided to 
     individual agricultural producers under this section shall be 
     proportional to the amount of actual losses described in 
     subsection (a) that were incurred by the producers.
       (c) Emergency Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section shall be available only to the extent that an 
     official budget request for the entire amount, that includes 
     designation of the entire amount of the request as an 
     emergency requirement under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900 et seq.), is 
     transmitted by the President to Congress.
       (2) Designation.--The entire amount necessary to carry out 
     this section is designated by Congress as an emergency 
     requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of that Act (2 
     U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3568

      (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the 
   reorganization of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct 
                     counter terrorism activities)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. ____. (a) The Senate finds that--
       (1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the principle 
     investigative arm of the Department of Justice;
       (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation has the authority 
     and responsibility to investigate specific crimes assigned to 
     it, including violations concerning organized crime and 
     drugs, civil rights, violent crimes, financial crimes, 
     counterterrorism, and foreign counterintelligence; and
       (3) the mission of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is--
       (A) to uphold the law through the investigation of 
     violations of Federal criminal law;
       (B) to protect the United States from foreign intelligence 
     and terrorist activities;
       (C) provide leadership and law enforcement assistance to 
     Federal, State, local, and international agencies; and
       (D) to perform these responsibilities in a manner that is 
     responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful to the 
     Constitution of the United States.
       (b) It is the sense of the Senate that--
       (1) the reorganization of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation is a positive and important response to 
     challenges posed by the increased threat of terrorism and 
     that continued constructive dialog between FBI Director 
     Robert Mueller and Congress will help make the reorganization 
     a success;
       (2) the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall continue to 
     allocate adequate resources for the purpose of investigating 
     all crimes under its jurisdiction;
       (3) the reallocation of agents and resources to 
     counterterrorism investigations should not hamper the ability 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate crimes 
     involving drugs; and
       (4) sufficient homeland security resources should be made 
     available to State and local law enforcement and public 
     safety officials to enable them to meet their 
     responsibilities as the Nation's first responders.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3591

(Purpose: To make funds available for the preservation of a commercial 
       manufacturing capability for defense grade nitrocellulose)

       At the end of chapter 3 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 307. The Secretary of the Army shall obligate and 
     expend the $2,000,000 appropriated for the Army by Public Law 
     107-117 for procurement of smokeless nitrocellulose under 
     Activity 1, instead under Activity 2, Production Base Support 
     Industrial Facilities, for the purpose of preserving a 
     commercially owned and operated capability of producing 
     defense grade nitrocellulose at the rate of at least 
     10,000,000 pounds per year in order to preserve a commercial 
     manufacturing capability for munitions precursor supplies for 
     the High Zone Modular Artillery Charge System and to preserve 
     competition in that manufacturing capability.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3593

(Purpose: To transfer, and merge, Economic Support Fund assistance for 
  Israel with funds appropriated by this Act for ``Nonproliferation, 
Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related Programs'' for activities relating 
                 to combating international terrorism)

       On page 58, line 10, after ``Israel'' insert the following: 
     ``, all or a portion of which may be transferred to, and 
     merged with, funds appropriated by this Act under the heading 
     ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related 
     Programs'' for defensive, non-lethal anti-terrorism 
     assistance in accordance with the provisions of chapter 8 of 
     part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3598

(Purpose: To provide that the local educational agency serving New York 
  City distribute funds in fiscal year 2002 that are in excess of the 
fiscal year 2001 allocation on an equal per-pupil basis consistent with 
 section 1113(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965)

       On page 89, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 807. LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY SERVING NEW YORK CITY.

       Notwithstanding section 1124(c)(2) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333(c)(2)), for 
     fiscal year 2002, if the local educational agency serving New 
     York City receives an allocation under section 1124 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6333) in an amount that is greater than the amount received 
     by the agency under section 1124 of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6333) for fiscal 
     year 2001, then--
       (1) the agency shall distribute any funds in excess of the 
     amount of the fiscal year 2001 allocation on an equal per-
     pupil basis consistent with section 1113(c) of the Elementary 
     and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6313(c)); and
       (2) each county in New York City shall receive an amount 
     from the agency that is not less than the amount the county 
     received in fiscal year 2001.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3602

 (Purpose: To require the Federal Aviation Administration to report to 
  Congress on the air traffic controller staffing shortage at Newark 
                         International Airport)

       On page 101, after line 23, insert the following:
       Sec. 1008. Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall submit to Congress a report--
       (1) explaining how the Administrator will address the air 
     traffic controller staffing shortage at Newark International 
     Airport; and
       (B) providing a deadline by which the airport will have an 
     adequate number of air traffic controllers.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3607

   (Purpose: To redirect previously appropriated funds for safe and 
           reliable water services to residents in Kentucky)

       On page 111, after line 2 insert the following:


                   state and tribal assistance grants

       The referenced statement of the managers under this heading 
     in Public Law 106-377 is deemed to be amended by striking 
     everything after ``$1,000,000'' in reference to item 91 and 
     inserting ``to the Northern Kentucky Area Development 
     District for Carroll County Wastewater Infrastructure Project 
     ($500,000), City of Owenton Water Collection and Treatment 
     System Improvements and Freshwater Intake Project ($400,000), 
     Grant County Williamstown Lake Expansion Study ($50,000), and 
     Pendleton County Williamstown Lake Expansion Study 
     ($50,000)''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3614, as modified

  (Purpose: To provide $500,000 to carry out a West Coast groundfish 
                  fishing capacity reduction program)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 210. Of the amounts appropriated in Public Law 107-77, 
     under the heading ``Department of Commerce, National Oceanic 
     and Atmospheric Administration, Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities'', for Oregon groundfish cooperative research, 
     $500,000 shall be for the cost of a reduction loan of 
     $50,000,000 as authorized under sections 1111 and 1112 of 
     title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 U.S.C. App. 
     1279f and 1279g) to carry out a West Coast groundfish fishing 
     capacity reduction program under section 312(b) of the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1871a(b)).
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3615

       On page 71, at the end of line 23, strike the ``.'' and 
     insert the following: ``: Provided, That the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall draft and submit to Congress legislation 
     implementing the agreement recently reached between the 
     interested parties including the Department of Justice and 
     the Department of Agriculture, regarding management of the 
     Black Hills National Forest which shall include actions for 
     protection of resources and communities from fire.''
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3616

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding avian influenza)

        On page 7, after line 12, insert the following:

     ``SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE ON COMPENSATION TO PRODUCERS 
                   OF POULTRY AFFECTED BY AVIAN INFLUENZA.

       It is the sense of the Senate that the Secretary of 
     Agriculture act expeditiously to provide compensation through 
     the Commodity Credit Corporation to producers of poultry that 
     have been affected by outbreaks of avian influenza in 
     Virginia, West Virginia, and other states which have resulted 
     in the destruction of poultry flocks in order to contain this 
     disease.''

[[Page S5176]]

     
                                  ____
                    AMENDMENT NO. 3624, AS MODIFIED

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding the provision of 
 surplus non-fat dry milk to combat HIV/AIDS, with a special focus on 
                   HIV-positive mothers and children)

       At the appropriate place, insert:
       ``Sec. 102. Whereas of the 40 million people living with 
     HIV/AIDS, nearly 2.7 million are children under 15, and 11.8 
     million are young people aged 15-24, more than 540,000 
     children were infected in mother-to-child transmission in 
     2000, and a baby born to an HIV-positive mother has a 25 to 
     35 per cent chance of becoming infected;
       Whereas targeted provision of dairy products for HIV/AIDS 
     mitigation provides an economical and efficient means to 
     strengthen nutrition, ward off infectious diseases and extend 
     the lives of HIV-positive individuals;
       Whereas good nutrition including dairy products is critical 
     to programs that provide and enhance anti-retroviral drugs to 
     prevent mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS, and 
     nutrition experts recommend the use of dairy products with 
     anti-retroviral drugs to combat mother-to-child transmission;
       Whereas in the diets of young children, growing adolescents 
     and pregnant women, milk has been proven to provide a 
     concentration of critical nutritional elements that promote 
     growth and robust health, and the National Institutes of 
     Health (NIH) recommends that dairy products be used to boost 
     the nutrition of HIV-positive young children.
       Whereas it is imperative that attempts to improve the 
     availability of dairy products to the HIV/AIDS afflicted do 
     not undermine the security and stability of the indigenous 
     dairy production and processing sector.
       Whereas the United States has more than one billion pounds 
     (450,000 metric tons) of surplus non-fat dry milk in storage 
     that has been acquired at an average cost of over 90 cents 
     per pound for a total cost approaching $1 billion, and 
     storage costs are $1.5 million per month and growing;
       Whereas this huge amount of milk overhangs U.S. and world 
     markets and deteriorates rapidly, going out of condition in 
     about three years when it must be sold for a salvage value of 
     only a few cents per pound;
       Whereas the impacts of breast-feeding on mother to child 
     transmission remain controversial and appropriate 
     interventions are not yet scientifically proven, especially 
     in low-income communities where appropriate alternatives are 
     not available and may be unsafe;
       Whereas there is a need for non-fat dry milk in 
     international relief to use in human feeding programs that 
     target the most vulnerable in society, particularly those 
     affected by HIV/AIDS: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 
     Secretary of Agriculture should--
       (A) utilize the existing 416(b) authority of the 
     Agricultural Act of 1949 to dispose of dairy surpluses for 
     direct feeding programs to mothers and children living with 
     HIV/AIDS and communities heavily impacted by the HIV/AIDS 
     pandemic;
       (B) Make available funds for the provision of 100,000 
     metric tons of surplus non-fat dry milk to combat HIV/AIDS, 
     with a special focus on HIV-positive mothers and children, to 
     include ocean and inland transportation, accounting, 
     monitoring and evaluation expenses incurred by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture, and expenses incurred by private and 
     voluntary organizations and cooperatives related to market 
     assessments, project design, fortification, distribution, and 
     other project expenses;
       (C) Give careful consideration to the local market 
     conditions before dairy products are donated or monetized 
     into a local economy, so as not to undermine the security and 
     stability of the indigenous dairy production and processing 
     sector; and
       (D) Use none of these funds or commodities in any programs 
     that would substitute dairy products for breast-feeding.
                                  ____


(Purpose: To require the transfer of funds to cover an increase in pay 
for Border Patrol agents and immigration inspectors and to make certain 
requirements with respect to the Chimera system and the expenditure of 
  information technology funds by the Immigration and Naturalization 
                                Service)

       On page 26, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       Sec. 210. (a) Subject to subsection (b), the Attorney 
     General shall, out of appropriations available to the 
     Department of Justice made in Public Law 107-77, transfer to, 
     and merge with, the appropriations account for the 
     Immigration and Naturalization Service entitled ``Salaries 
     and Expenses'' the following amounts for the following 
     purposes:
       (1) $4,900,000 to cover an increase in pay for all Border 
     Patrol agents who have completed at least one year's service 
     and are receiving an annual rate of basic pay for positions 
     at GS-9 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 
     5, United States Code, from the annual rate of basic pay 
     payable for positions at GS-9 of the General Schedule under 
     such section 5332, to an annual rate of basic pay payable for 
     positions at GS-11 of the General Schedule under such section 
     5332; and
       (2) $3,800,000 to cover an increase in pay for all 
     immigration inspectors who have completed at least one year's 
     service and are receiving an annual rate of basic pay for 
     positions at GS-9 of the General Schedule under section 5332 
     of title 5, United States Code, from the annual rate of basic 
     pay payable for positions at GS-9 of the General Schedule 
     under such section 5332, to an annual rate of basic pay 
     payable for positions at GS-11 of the General Schedule under 
     such section 5332.
       (b) Funds tranferred under subsection (a) shall be 
     available for obligation and expenditure only in accordance 
     with the procedures applicable to reprogramming notifications 
     set forth in section 605 of the Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107-77; 115 Stat. 798).
       (c) Not later than September 30, 2002, the Justice 
     Management Division of the Department of Justice shall submit 
     a report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives describing the progress made 
     in the development of the Chimera system.
       (d) No funds available to the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service for technology activities in the 
     fiscal year 2003 may be obligated or expended unless the 
     program manager of the Chimera system approves the obligation 
     or expenditure of those funds and so reports to the Attorney 
     General.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3632

  (Purpose: To make available funds for the Center for Identification 
Technology Research at the West Virginia University for the purpose of 
 developing interoperability standards and an application profile for 
     technology neutral, portable, and data independent biometrics)

       On page 14, line 19, before the period insert the 
     following: ``: Provided, That of the amount appropriated 
     under this heading, $500,000 shall be for the Center for 
     Identification Technology Research at the West Virginia 
     University for the purpose of developing interoperability 
     standards and an application profile for technology neutral, 
     portable, and data independent biometrics, in accordance with 
     section 403(c)(2) of The USA PATRIOT Act (Public Law 107-56) 
     and sections 201(c)(5) and 202(a)(4)(B) and title III of the 
     Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act (Public Law 107-
     173), and the amendments made by those provisions''.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3653

 (Purpose: To make available funds to the National Forum Foundation to 
implement the TRANSFORM Program to obtain available space on commercial 
  ships for the shipment of humanitarian assistance to needy foreign 
                              countries.)

       On page 69, after line 23, add the following:
       Sec. 605. Of the amounts appropriated to the President for 
     the United States Agency for International Development 
     (USAID) for the fiscal year 2002 and made available for the 
     Ocean Freight Reimbursement Program of USAID, $300,000 shall 
     be made available to the National Forum Foundation to 
     implement the TRANSFORM Program to obtain available space on 
     commercial ships for the shipment of humanitarian assistance 
     to needy foreign countries.
                                  ____



                    Amendment No. 3656, As Modified

   (Purpose: To provide a substitute for section 503 (relating to a 
  contract for the construction of a facility for the disposition of 
  depleted uranium hexafluoride on the site of the gaseous diffusion 
 plant at Paducah, Kentucky, and a similar facility on the site of the 
              gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth, Ohio)

       Strike section 503 and insert the following:
       Sec. 503. Section 1 of Public Law 105-204 (112 Stat. 681) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``until the date'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``until the date that is 30 
     days after the date on which the Secretary of Energy awards a 
     contract under subsection (c), and no such amounts shall be 
     available for any purpose except to implement the 
     contract.''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Contracting Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law (except section 1341 of title 31, United States Code), 
     the Secretary of Energy shall--
       ``(A) not later than 10 days after the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph, request offerors whose proposals in response 
     to Request for Proposals No. DE-RP05-010R22717 (`Acquisition 
     of Facilities and Services for Depleted Uranium Hexalfluoride 
     (DUF6) Conversion Project') were included in the competitive 
     range as of January 15, 2002, to confirm or reinstate the 
     offers in accordance with this paragraph, with a deadline for 
     offerors to deliver reinstatement or confirmation to the 
     Secretary of Energy not later than 20 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph; and
       ``(B) not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of 
     this paragraph, select for award of a contract the best value 
     of proposals confirmed or reinstated under subparagraph (A), 
     and award a contract for the scope of work stated in the 
     Request for Proposals, including the design, construction, 
     and operation of--
       ``(i) a facility described in subsection (a) on the site of 
     the gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky; and
       ``(ii) a facility described in subsection (a) on the site 
     of the gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth, Ohio.
       ``(2) Contract terms.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law (except section 1341 of title 31, United States Code) 
     the Secretary of Energy shall negotiate with the

[[Page S5177]]

     awardee to modify the contract awarded under paragraph (1) 
     to--
       ``(A) require, as a mandatory item, that groundbreaking for 
     construction occur not later than July 31, 2004, and that 
     construction proceed expeditiously thereafter;
       ``(B) include as an item of performance the transportation, 
     conversion, and disposition of depleted uranium contained in 
     cylinders located at the Oak Ridge K-25 uranium enrichment 
     facility located in the East Tennessee Technology Park at Oak 
     Ridge, Tennessee, consistent with environmental agreements 
     between the State of Tennessee and the Secretary of Energy; 
     and
       ``(C) specify that the contractor shall not proceed to 
     perform any part of the contract unless sufficient funds have 
     been appropriated, in advance, specifically to pay for that 
     part of the contract.
       ``(3) Certification of groundbreaking.--Not later than 5 
     days after the date of groundbreaking for each facility, the 
     Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a certification 
     that groundbreaking has occurred.
       ``(e) Funding.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of carrying out this 
     section, the Secretary of Energy may use any available 
     appropriations (including transferred unobligated balances).
       ``(2) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated, in addition to any funds made 
     available under paragraph (1), such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3657

        (Purpose: To provide for international food assistance)

       On page 7 after line 12, insert the following:
       Sec.   . (a) Rescission.--The unobligated balance of 
     authority available under section 2108(a) of Public Law 107-
     20 is rescinded as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (a) Appropriation.--There is appropriated to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture an amount equal to the unobligated balance 
     rescinded by subsection (a) for expenses through fiscal year 
     2003 under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance 
     Act of 1954, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1721-1726a) for commodities 
     supplied in connection with disposition abroad pursuant to 
     title II of said Act.''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3658

    (Purpose: To enhance support for international food assistance 
                               programs)

       On page 7 after line 12, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Section 416(b)(7)(D)(iv) of the Agricultural Act 
     of 1949 (7 U.S.C. 1431(b)(7)(D)(iv)) is amended by striking 
     ``subsection.'' and inserting in lieu thereof the following 
     `subsection, or to otherwise carry out the purposes of this 
     subsection.' ''
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3665

       Strike section 806 and inserting in lieu thereof the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 806. None of the funds provided by this or any other 
     Act may be used to enforce the amendments made by section 166 
     of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 on the State 
     of Alaska, including the imposition of any penalties.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3666

       On page 89, at the end of line 3, add a new section as 
     follows:
       Sec.  . In the statement of the managers of the committee 
     of conference accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Labor, Health 
     and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (Public 
     Law 106-554; House Report 106-1033), the provision specifying 
     $464,000 for the Bethel Native Corporation worker 
     demonstration project shall be deemed to read as follows: 
     ``for the Alaska CHAR vocational training program, $100,000 
     and $364,000 for the Yuut Elitnauvriat People's Learning 
     Center in Bethel, Alaska for vocational training for Alaska 
     Natives''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3667

       Amend title II by adding a new section as follows:
       Sec.  . In subsection (e)(4) of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act created by section 702 of P.L. 107-117--
       (a) subparagraph (B) is amended by--
       (1) striking ``subsection (e)(2)'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``subsections (e)(1) or (e)(2)''; and
       (2) striking ``obligations under section 7 of P.L. 87-305'' 
     and inserting in lieu thereof ``small or small disadvantaged 
     business subcontracting goals under section 502 of P.L. 100-
     656, provided that where lower tier subcontractors exist, the 
     entity shall designate the appropriate contractor or 
     contractors to receive such credit''; and
       (b) subparagraph (C) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (e)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection (e)(1) or (e)(2)''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3669

    (Purpose: To provide that amounts appropriated for the National 
 Veterans Business Development Corporation in Public Law 107-77 shall 
                    remain available until expended)

       At the end of chapter 2 of title I, add the following:
       Sec. 210. Amounts appropriated by title V of Public Law 
     107-77 under the heading ``National Veterans Business 
     Development Corporation'' (115 Stat. 795) shall remain 
     available until expended.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3682

(Purpose: To allow the closing of certain accounts relating to the Food 
                     Safety and Inspection Service)

       On page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law and 
     effective on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
     may use an amount not to exceed $12,000,000 from the amounts 
     appropriated under the heading Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service under the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 
     Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 
     of 2001 (Public Law 106-387) to liquidate over-obligations 
     and over-expenditures of the Food Safety and Inspection 
     Service incurred during previous fiscal years, approved by 
     the Director of the Office of Management and Budget based on 
     documentation provided by the Secretary of Agriculture.''
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 3702

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the text of S. 
     1713 as ordered favorably reported by the Committee on 
     Governmental Affairs of the United States Senate on May 22, 
     2002.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3716

(Purpose: To require a report setting forth a strategy for meeting the 
                     security needs of Afghanistan)

       On page 69, after line 23, add the following:
       Sec. 605. Not later than 45 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on 
     International Relations of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations of the Senate a report setting forth a strategy for 
     meeting the immediate and long-term security needs of 
     Afghanistan in order to promote safe and effective delivery 
     of humanitarian and other assistance throughout Afghanistan, 
     further the rule of law and civil order, and support the 
     formation of a functioning, representative Afghan national 
     government.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3754, as modified

           (Purpose: To restore funding provided for the DEA)

       On page 10, strike lines 20 through 24.
       On page 19, line 18, strike ``$35,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$48,000,000''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3766, as modified

       At the appropriate place in Chapter 10, insert:
       Sec.   . The $300,000 made available to the State of Idaho 
     under the matter under the heading ``Job Access and Reverse 
     Commute Grants'' under the heading ``FEDERAL TRANSIT 
     ADMINISTRATION'' in title I of the Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 
     (Public Law 107-87; 115 Stat. 852), shall be deemed to have 
     been made available to the State of Idaho to carry out a job 
     training and supportive services program under section 140(b) 
     of title 23, United States Code.

  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple remarks about the 
process we are going through right now as we are finishing up. We 
should not be doing this. This is a managers' amendment. A managers' 
amendment is intended for technical amendments. Now the Senator from 
Texas and I are causing heartburn for everybody around the Senate who 
has an amendment they think is worthy.
  The amendment should have been brought up and voted on and put in the 
normal process. Instead, because of the egregious practice that has 
been going on, I pointed out many times last year, when I said, What is 
in the managers' amendment? Nobody knew. There were 32 specific 
earmarked projects in an appropriations bill.
  The Senator from Texas and I decided we wanted to see what was in the 
managers' amendment. I have forgotten how many there were--90 to start 
with, somewhere around 90 amendments to start with. Some of them were 
$10 million; some, $20 million; some, $50 million; some were $120 
million out of the highway trust fund--all in ``managers' amendments.''

[[Page S5178]]

  I don't like staying here late at night any more than any of my 
colleagues do. Why don't we try going through the normal process? An 
amendment that is worth $120 million is worthy of debate and voting on, 
on the floor of the Senate, and not to be included in a managers' 
package. Then we have to get our staff, the Senator from Texas and I, 
and make everybody mad because we object to them.
  If these amendments had been brought up in the normal procedure, 
nobody would have been angry because then we would have voted these 
amendments up or down. Instead, we have now a practice where there is a 
managers' amendment which in anybody's definition includes technical 
amendments to the bill where there are huge changes, and many of them 
policy changes.
  I am sympathetic to the Senator from Oregon who wants to keep the 
search and rescue in the State of Oregon. It is an important issue to 
him. Where is it? It is in the managers' package, a policy change where 
we are going to dictate to the U.S. Air Force.
  What I hope my colleagues have learned from this, at 20 minutes to 
midnight on a Thursday night, is that we would go through the normal 
process, have the amendments considered, vote up or down, the managers' 
package being purely technical amendments as they are intended, and we 
wouldn't have this problem that we are in today.
  There is enormous heartburn here on the part of some of my 
colleagues. I understand that. These are important issues to them.
  I say to the Senator that this is an important issue, whether search 
and rescue is available in the State of Oregon at Mount Hood where a 
disaster took place. Instead, we are supposed to decide the situation 
on the basis of germane or nongermane. We should not be doing this. I 
hope the lesson is that we take up amendments and vote on them up or 
down, and not in a managers' package from now on, which is how it is 
supposed to be.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Arizona makes good 
points, and he has made his points throughout the debate. Are we now 
prepared to complete action on this last list of amendments so we can 
get to final passage? He has made his point, and is right, but now we 
have to bring this to a reasonable and quick conclusion. Are we ready 
to do that?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am ready for the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. At the end of the last supplemental, by a clerical 
error, one of the amendments that was offered by the Senator from New 
Mexico was clerically left off. We did not discover that until the next 
morning. We told the Senator that we would accept that amendment and be 
sure it was on the next supplemental. Now, we have done that and it has 
now been ruled not germane. It is amendment No. 3718, and it was 
arguably not germane. There is an indication now that it is not 
germane.
  I ask the Senate to allow us to keep our commitment to Senator 
Domenici. It would have become law in the last supplemental but for a 
clerical error.
  I ask unanimous consent that we take up amendment No. 3718 and that 
it be before the Senate for consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, the amendment is clearly 
not germane. I don't know what kind of deals were made among the 
members of the Appropriations Committee. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, is there any way to appeal that?
  Mr. LOTT. If the Senator will yield, one way is to appeal to the 
Senator from Arizona. I ask the Senator to reconsider. We have a senior 
Senator here who is in this position not because of his own fault. He 
had a commitment made to him by senior members on both sides of the 
aisle. They are trying to keep that commitment. We should honor that, 
whether it is Republican or Democrat, no matter where you are from or 
who it is. I urge the Senator not to object to that request under these 
conditions. I would be here defending or keeping a commitment to the 
Senator from Arizona if he were the one involved. I don't know what the 
subject is, but I ask the Senator to reconsider. I make the request 
again that it be accepted by unanimous consent, and I make that appeal 
to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I object.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Republican leader has 
the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I had a parliamentary inquiry. Was that 
matter subject to appeal?
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding that 
post----

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no appeal of the objection to the 
unanimous consent request.
  The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I want to make a proposal that I think is 
reasonable. The Parliamentarian has now ruled on the remaining 
amendments, as to whether they are germane or whether they are subject 
to a point of order, which would bring them down, and that is only true 
in the case of one of Senator Byrd's amendments.
  I want to propose that all those that are germane we accept by 
unanimous consent and that all those that are not germane fall. They 
could bring them up, we could raise germaneness. The Chair already 
ruled they would be struck down. We will have wasted 2 hours of time, 
and we would end up with exactly the same result. I am not sure if we 
voted on some of these germane ones they would pass. But it is almost 
midnight. I want to propose that all of the items on the list that are 
germane be adopted by unanimous consent or as modified--in the form 
that the Chair has it--that we adopt them, and those that are not 
germane we drop, and we would finish our business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, we have a list of amendments. We have all 
gone to the Parliamentarian and gone over them individually. They have 
looked at these several times to determine whether or not they are 
germane. I will call up each individual amendment, ask whether or not 
it is germane, and that will leave some, as the Chair already ruled, 
and the others will fall.
  I ask if amendment No. 3595 offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, 
Mr. Reed, is germane.
  Mr. STEVENS. Is the Senator asking consent?
  Mr. REID. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That amendment would not be germane.
  Mr. REID. That amendment falls; is that right, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the amendment were called up, the Chair 
would rule that it is not germane.
  Mr. REID. I make the point of order that it is not germane.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not pending. If the amendment 
were called up and pending, the Chair would rule that it is not 
germane.


                           Amendment No. 3595

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3595 by Senator Reed 
of Rhode Island.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no objection in order to calling up 
an amendment. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid], for Mr. Reed, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 3595.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The amendment is as follows:

[[Page S5179]]

       (Purpose: To provide funds to enhance security for public 
                       transportation operations)

       On page 94, line 19, after ``Commerce'' insert ``Provided 
     further, That, not later than 30 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary for Transportation 
     Security shall report to Congress (1) the amount of 
     Transportation Security Administration funds dedicated to 
     improving public transportation security, (2) the number of 
     full-time Transportation Security Administration personnel 
     engaged in improving public transportation security, and (3) 
     a plan for improving the security of our Nation's public 
     transportation systems''.

  Mr. REID. Will the Chair rule on the germaneness of that amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not germane.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I want to ask my friend a question.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will be glad to yield to my friend for a 
question, without losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I cannot follow this process. Whatever 
you say about germaneness or not, I want to bring my amendment up to be 
discussed. We can take 2 minutes, and then you can do with it what you 
want. I am not going to stand here and have my amendment possibly 
disposed of while the process for proceeding is not clear. I have the 
floor now and----
  Mr. REID. You do not have the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Can I borrow it from you?
  Mr. REID. I have the floor. I know that is tough, but that the rule 
here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will come to order. The Senator 
from Nevada yielded for a question.
  Mr. REID. I yielded with my right to retain the floor. Nothing 
unusual is happening. We have a list that we are going to go through 
with amendments that have been deemed to be nongermane. That will leave 
those that are germane that we will deal with.
  Mr. DOMENICI. My two are not germane. One of them would have been 
adopted by the Senate but for a clerical error. Are you going to let 
the Senate listen to that statement?
  Mr. REID. I will say that we have heard statements by Senator 
Stevens, not only publicly here on the floor, but before the 
Parliamentarian and a number of other Senators. I believe Senator 
Domenici's cause is just, but the rules of the Senate are going to 
knock this out.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I ask if you would give me 2 minutes right now, and I 
will not talk anymore.
  Mr. REID. I would be happy to yield to my friend, and I will retain 
the floor following that 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, the Senator from New Mexico is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I want to say to all of you that what happened to me 
should not happen to any of you. I have been here almost 30 years. If 
some of you were here 60 years, I hope it doesn't happen to you. I 
don't care why a Senator leaves the floor at the end of a bill, or 
whether Senator John McCain, who is objecting now, had some reason to 
leave the floor, or if he didn't like the process and he stomped out of 
here mad like he does sometimes.
  The truth is that a managers' amendment with 20 or 30 managers' 
amendments in it, with my name on the list, and Senator Bingaman, 
incidentally--Senator Bingaman was sitting right over there, and we did 
not catch it, as the manager read it. We thought it was included in the 
long list.
  We get up the next day and to our surprise, something that we had 
accomplished, that we thought was very important, was not in the bill 
and did not get attached, and the conferees said they could not 
consider it. But they said the next appropriations bill that comes, we 
will help you.
  I could not get help because we entered into an early-on cloture, 
which we do not do. I should have expected it, but it never happens 
that early. It happened, and all of us got shut out, and we were urged 
by our leadership to help with that. I thought we should not. I thought 
we should wait 2 or 3 days. But the leader asked me, and I said: OK, 
let's close it down early.
  I got closed down, and now I have a Senator or two, because they do 
not like my amendment, sitting here telling you they do not believe 
me--that is what they are saying--or they do not believe Ted Stevens 
who believed me.
  Is that what they are saying? I hope they are not saying that. And 
you can smile if you like, but there is nothing to smile about. It is 
very serious, and you get a frown on your face like me more frequently 
than I do.
  Excuse me for violating the rules for addressing him in the singular. 
I should say the senior Senator from Arizona, and I am sorry about 
that.
  The Democratic part of this team from New Mexico could not be here 
today, or he would stand before you and even tell you he is more in awe 
than I, when the next day or day after we talked and we said, well, it 
would get done. No, it is not there. Somebody forgot to put it in. It 
was all ready. I suggest there ought to be some way to fix this.
  I am going to tell you as my time expires, for those who are going to 
object like this, they better get up early in the morning. They better 
get here when the appropriations bill comes up because amendments I 
have in the future are not going to wait around to the end. You are not 
going to have all this power.
  This approach has given you power beyond anything you have, and you 
are complaining about the processes we have that are inordinate and 
wrong. It is not right to have one or two Senators who would have had 
one or two votes but for cloture. That is all they would have had and 
could not have denied my amendment the way they are doing tonight with 
the help of a Parliamentarian who takes the facts not into 
consideration because he could not. He cannot listen to me. I never 
said one thing to the Parliamentarian tonight. Your ruling is right or 
wrong, but I am telling the Senators, it is not right.
  I am not going to lose, so you just wake up because the next 
appropriations bill that comes through here we are going to vote on the 
Domenici amendment. And I hope you have a lot of people thinking like 
you do because you are going to lose.
  It is going to be a matter of 1 month or 2 months, and this amendment 
is going to be adopted. And I am going to go to the conference, and it 
is going to stay in. I thank you for listening and sorry I bothered 
you. Good night.
  Mr. McCAIN. Point of parliamentary personal privilege since my name 
was used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has the floor.

  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from New Mexico, I have worked most of 
my entire career in the Senate shoulder to shoulder with the Senator. 
We had good fortune to be chairmen and ranking members of the Energy 
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, and the Senator from New Mexico 
has always treated Democrats and Republicans very fairly.
  I am disappointed. I understand the reason the Senator from Arizona 
is objecting. I do not agree. Senator Domenici, the senior Senator from 
New Mexico, I can say from a personal perspective, has always been very 
fair. I can say this personally. If this happened to someone else----
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask the Senator from Nevada if I can have a point of 
personal privilege to respond to my name being used?
  Mr. REID. He would have gone to the wall. I am disappointed that 
Senator Domenici is not going to be given an opportunity. I will be 
happy to work with him in the future, I think as well as everybody in 
the Senate.
  I do not think there was anything said that in any way diminished the 
stature of the Senator from Arizona. I think Senator Domenici had a 
right to object. I ask if we can----
  Mr. McCAIN. Is it your decision to make whether I can respond to 
statements made about me?
  Mr. REID. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona for 2 
minutes without losing the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I guess there is no point in me responding 
as to whether I should smile or not smile. The reason why I objected to 
this amendment was not because of frivolous reasons. This amendment was 
going to expand the eligibility of the airline loan guarantee program 
to include the manufacturers of small jet

[[Page S5180]]

turbo fan aircraft. I am proud to be a member of the Commerce Committee 
and proud to have worked with Senator Hollings as we, working with the 
administration and the airline industry, came up with the airline and 
airport security bill, which was an important piece of legislation, a 
very vital piece of legislation following September 11.
  We considered extending the small airline guarantee program to 
include manufacturers of small jet turbo fan aircraft at the time of 
the consideration and the hearings in the authorizing committee, and we 
rejected that idea. So I certainly objected because we had gone through 
scrutiny of this issue in the proper authorizing process.
  I objected to an expansion of the program without authorization or 
without a hearing, and I will continue to object to changes in 
authorizing legislation on which we worked very hard in the committee 
of jurisdiction. That is the reason why I objected to an expansion of 
the program which was unwarranted by the legislation that was passed by 
this body by a vote of 98 to 0. It has nothing to do with my feelings 
toward Senator Domenici or any other Senator in this body.
  If I have offended Senator Domenici, obviously I deeply regret that. 
I do have a higher obligation to do what I can to make sure the people 
I represent are adequately represented and according to my best 
judgment.
  I thank the Chair and Senator Reid for allowing me to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are now at the point in the proceedings 
where I think we have a good offer from the Senators from Texas and 
Arizona. There are certain amendments in this list that have been ruled 
germane tentatively by the Parliamentarian, and the Chair would rule 
that way. There are some ruled nongermane.
  The proposal is that those amendments that have been ruled germane 
will in effect be accepted upon voice vote. Those not germane will 
fall. They will fall anyway. There is nothing we can do if the 
Parliamentarian rules them nongermane. Then they are gone. There is no 
need to go through that process.
  I ask everyone's patience and cooperation that we accept by unanimous 
consent the proposal made by the Senator from Texas.
  May I have the attention of the Senator from Texas? I would like the 
attention of the Senator from Texas. It is my understanding the Senator 
from Texas has said those amendments the Parliamentarian has 
tentatively ruled as being germane would be accepted; those that are 
nongermane would fall.
  Mr. GRAMM. That is right.
  Mr. REID. I ask my friend, on amendment No. 3691, what is the 
pleasure of the Senator?
  Mr. GRAMM. No. 3691: That amendment is, as far as I know, germane.
  Mr. REID. It is germane.


    Amendments Nos. 3585, As Modified; 3596, As Modified; 3613, As 
    Modified; 3627, As Modified; 3691, As Modified; 3733, 3747, As 
                           Modified; En Bloc

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that amendments Nos. 3585, as 
modified; 3596, as modified; 3613, as modified; 3627, as modified; 
3691, as modified; 3733, and 3747, as modified, be called up en bloc as 
being germane amendments.
  Mr. STEVENS. As modified.
  Mr. REID. As modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Is there objection to the 
consideration of these amendments en bloc and their adoption?
  Mr. HARKIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, was 3581 included in that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. No. 3581 was not included.
  Mr. REID. It is not on the list at all.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to consideration and 
adoption of the en bloc amendments that have been listed by the Senator 
from Nevada?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 3585, as modified, 3596, as modified, 3613, as 
modified, 3627, as modified, 3691, as modified, 3733 and 3747, as 
modified) were agreed to as follows:


                    amendment no. 3585, as modified

  (Purpose: To provide that certain funds appropriated for the United 
States Customs Bureau Service be used to reimburse State and local law 
enforcement agencies that have provided Federal assistance to personnel 
                       along the Northern Border)

       On page 102, line 15, after ``amended'' insert ``: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 is authorized for reimbursing State 
     and local law enforcement agencies that have provided 
     necessary Federal assistance to personnel of the United 
     States Customs Service, along the Northern Border of the 
     United States''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3596, as modified

       On page 79, after line 6 insert the following new proviso:

               Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services


                           program management

       ``: Provided further, That of the funds made available 
     under this heading in Public Law 107-116, $3,000,000 shall be 
     awarded to the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine for 
     activities associated with an in-home study of self-
     administered high frequency chest oscillation therapy for 
     patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3613, as modified

 (Purpose: To provide for the transition of the naval base on Schoodic 
Peninsula, Maine, to utilization as a research and education center for 
                         Acadia National Park)

       On page 37, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       Sec. 307. Not later than 15 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     obligate, from funds made available in title II of division A 
     of Public Law 107-117 under the heading ``Operation and 
     Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' (115 Stat. 2233), $4,000,000 for 
     a grant to support the conversion of the Naval Security 
     Group, Winter Harbor (the naval base on Schoodic Peninsula), 
     Maine, to utilization as a research and education center for 
     Acadia National Park, Maine, including the preparation of a 
     plan for the reutilization of the naval base for such purpose 
     that will benefit communities in the vicinity of the naval 
     base and visitors to Acadia National Park and will stimulate 
     important research and educational activities.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3627, as modified

       Strike page 48, line 18, through page 49, line 6 and insert 
     in lieu thereof:
       ``For an additional amount for ``Operation and Maintenance 
     General'', $32,000,000, to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That using the funds appropriated herein, the 
     Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 
     is directed to repair, restore, and clean-up Corps' projects 
     and facilities and dredge navigation channels, restore and 
     clean out area streams, provide emergency streambank 
     protection, restore other crucial public infrastructure 
     (including sewer and water facilities), document flood 
     impacts and undertake other flood recovery efforts deemed 
     necessary and advisable by the Chief of Engineers: Provided 
     further, That $10,000,000 of the funds provided shall be for 
     Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, and Southwestern 
     Virginia: Provided further, That the remaining $22,000,000 is 
     designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement 
     pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended: Provided 
     further, That these additional funds shall be available for 
     Western Illinois, Eastern Missouri, and the Upper Peninsula 
     of Michigan.''
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3691, as modified

    (Purpose: To provide an additional amount for Emergency Relief 
                               Highways)

       On page 97, line 19, strike ``$200,000,000 are rescinded.'' 
     and insert:

     $320,000,000 are rescinded.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                        emergency relief program

                          (highway trust fund)

       For an additional amount for the ``Emergency Relief 
     Program'', as authorized by 23 U.S.C. 125, $120,000,000, to 
     be derived from the Highway Trust Fund and to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That the amount made 
     available under this paragraph shall be used solely for 
     eligible but uncompensated applications pending as of May 28, 
     2002, including $13,411,000 for projects in the State of 
     Washington stemming from the Nisqually earthquake and other 
     disasters, and up to $12,000,000 for emergency expenses to 
     respond to the May 26, 2002 Interstate 40 bridge collapse 
     over the Arkansas River in Oklahoma.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3733

  (Purpose: To set aside funds for certain National Guard activities)

       On page 37, between lines 2 and 3, insert in the following:
       Sec. 307. Of the amount available for fiscal year 2002 for 
     the Army National Guard for operation and maintenance, 
     $2,200,000 shall be made available for the Army National 
     Guard for information operations, information assurance 
     operations, and training for such operations.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 3747, as modified

(Purpose: To provide funding for the United States Marshals Service to 
   provide Deputy United States Marshals for Federal districts with 
            critical courtroom and prisoner security needs)

       At the appropriate place in the bill insert the following:

[[Page S5181]]

       Sec. 210. Of the funds made available under the heading 
     ``Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial 
     Services, Salaries, and Expenses'' in title III of Public Law 
     107-77, 37,900,000 shall be transferred to, and merged with, 
     funds available for ``Salaries and Expenses, United States 
     Marshals Service'' in title I of Public Law 107-77, to be 
     available until expended only for hiring 200 additional 
     Deputy United States Marshals and associated support staff 
     for protection of the judicial process in response to the 
     terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 to be deployed to the 
     Federal districts with critical courtroom and prisoner 
     security needs.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I ask whether the remaining amendments fall? I ask the 
Republican leader, is there any need to do more? I think we should move 
to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. The point is being made that the remaining amendments have 
been ruled to be nongermane. Therefore, they automatically would fall. 
There is no appeal or vote on that, and therefore we should proceed to 
third reading and pass the bill.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. I ask my colleagues from----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I do know that Senator Gordon Smith and 
Senator Wyden of Oregon have an amendment they were concerned about. 
Their amendment would fall as nongermane, but if they would like to 
make a point at this time I think we would have to give them that 
opportunity.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield.
  Mr. NICKLES. They would have the right to ask unanimous consent for 
the amendment to pass. If there is no objection, the amendment would be 
adopted. If someone raises a point of order on germaneness, their 
amendment would fall.
  Mr. REID. Would the Republican leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Senator Enzi also wishes to make a statement. It is 
midnight and tomorrow is another day. People can prepare statements and 
put them in the Record and say whatever they want to say. I have been 
pretty nonchalant throughout the last several days, but I will tell 
everybody that I am going to object personally to any other amendments 
at this stage, and I think there are a lot of people who will join with 
me.
  We are through with this legislation. Let us get to third reading and 
get it over with.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. I would----
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader has the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. I will yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. I was going to ask, is what we agreed to that we were 
going to take all the germane ones and drop the nongermane ones?
  Mr. LOTT. That is what we have done.
  Mr. REID. That is right.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will yield the floor so others can be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: If we go to third 
reading, are we not still under cloture? Could Members not make 
statements up to their eligible time before the bill is called up for 
actually a final vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. My suggestion is we go to third reading and let people 
talk and find out when you want to have the final vote.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Alaska yield?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Tomorrow is another day. We will pass the bill and people 
can come and talk all day tomorrow if they want.

  Mr. STEVENS. Either way. I think Members are still entitled to their 
time on cloture.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I want to make a very brief point. If my 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, would listen, I say to the 
Senator, a while back he talked about a managers' amendment should be 
purely technical amendments. I wanted to make a point. The arbitrary 
distinction of nongermaneness at this late hour is something I think is 
going to throw away some amendments that should have been adopted. An 
amendment, for example, that I offered, 3689, was offered prior to 
cloture. It is purely technical, has no money attached to it, is out of 
previously appropriated funds that deals with two transmission studies. 
It corrects an error that existed in prior legislation. So it is purely 
technical and no one would argue it is not technical. Creating an 
arbitrary distinction of saying those things that are nongermane shall 
not be considered means that those small issues I have offered 
previously, for example, in this amendment, that was approved by both 
the minority and the majority, they said to me, yes, this is fine, we 
accept the amendment, this kind of an amendment that is purely 
technical now falls because of an arbitrary distinction that we say 
nongermane amendments are gone.
  I only want to make the point to my friend from Arizona, I agree with 
him on a lot of issues but this clearly is technical; it is clearly 
something that should be a part of the managers' package and was agreed 
to by both the majority and minority and now is going to fall under 
this arbitrary distinction at midnight. I do not think that is fair.
  Mr. McCAIN. I am in sympathy with the Senator. I voted against 
cloture. It was your leader who filed cloture and we voted on it long 
before I wanted cloture to be invoked. You would not have that problem 
if it had not been for your leadership that filed cloture at the 
earliest I have ever seen on an appropriations bill.
  I am in sympathy and would like to work with the Senator to get this 
worthwhile technical amendment approved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, to try to assist Senator Reid in bringing 
this to a conclusion----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thought I yielded to the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota still has the 
floor.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand the point the Senator made. I was only 
making the point if, in fact, the managers' amendment is for technical 
amendments, really purely technical amendments, and I offered this 
prior to cloture, was told by the majority and the minority, yes, we 
accept it, there is no problem, this is not spending money, it is 
spending previously appropriated money, a total of $400,000, and deals 
with an error when, in fact, the distinction on the nonreimbursable 
portion of it should be in bill language, or the managers' language, 
which is where it was, this corrects that. It is exactly what, in my 
judgment, the Senator said ought to be in the managers' package. I hope 
the Senator will reconsider at least on 3689 and allow this to be put 
in the managers' package this evening or allow it to be approved this 
evening.
  Mr. President, I would make that request to ask if my two colleagues 
would agree to that--I know they have reviewed it. The majority and 
minority have reviewed it and have approved it. It is not spending a 
dime. It simply corrects an error. I would hope very much that they 
would agree to approve this amendment.

  My point is this, an arbitrary distinction of nongermane at this 
point is unfair to those who offered their amendments prior to cloture. 
I understand the point my friend from Arizona made about cloture, but I 
hope he understands that those of us who came prior to cloture, offered 
our amendments and were told by the Republican and the Democratic 
leaders on the floor, yes, we accept it, it is a good amendment, we 
approve it, at that point I would have expected that this amendment 
would be approved and not now at midnight be objected to by someone on 
the floor of the Senate.
  So I again ask if we might have some cooperation at least on an 
amendment

[[Page S5182]]

that was approved previously by everyone in the Senate, to my knowledge 
prior to cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Will the Senator yield the floor?
  Mr. DORGAN. Well, I am asking consent if my colleagues might not 
agree to include 3689. The Republicans and the Democrats have 
previously accepted it. It does not spend a dime. Can we not, with 
respect to this distinction, agree to accept this amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAMM. Yes, I am going to have to object. The point is the way we 
got----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. GRAMM. The way we got----
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, do I still have the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota retains the 
floor.
  Mr. REID. The objection has been heard. Is that right?
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand objection has been heard. I still have the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection has been heard.
  Mr. DORGAN. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Again, let me make the point that coming to this point in 
time and saying that the amendments that the Parliamentarian says are 
not germane represents some distinction that has relevance when we have 
offered these prior to cloture, I understand technically why this is 
being done but substantively it is unfair, in my judgment.
  The Senator talks about the unfairness of coming to the end of this 
process and having a managers' package that has a bushel of paper 
attached to it. There is another unfairness that exists as well, and 
that unfairness is being perpetrated by those who come to the floor and 
create artificial distinctions at the twelfth hour and they say, oh, 
now, by the way, something that has previously been approved to we 
object to, especially in circumstances where we thought this amendment 
had already been approved. I think we can get by with this once, but it 
will not happen again, in my judgment, because there are other ways to 
deal with it.
  I say to my colleague from Texas, I think it is unfair. He has a 
right to object, of course, but I think it is unfair, and I hope he 
will not ask similar consideration some day.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course I will yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. The way we were able to draw the delineation at the end of 
business tonight was the decision that we would take all the germane 
amendments and we would drop all the nongermane amendments. The problem 
is, when we take that delineation and start making exceptions, then 
everybody gets unhappy.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes. Mr. President, exceptions will require some judgment 
I agree, but the migraine headache around here for a number of people 
has been that managers' packages include things other than technical 
amendments. My point is, this amendment is technical, has been agreed 
to by everybody, was offered precloture. I understand it would require 
some judgment, amendment by amendment, to deal with these, but it seems 
to me that is why we are here. But if the objection stands, I guess I 
accept that. We will be back, and I guess we will pass it at some point 
in the future.
  I will make the final point. I do not think we ought to be here again 
on some future bill having just a couple of people deciding what they 
are going to accept, even in circumstances where purely technical 
amendments which have been approved previously by Republicans and 
Democrats in the Senate are going to fall.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. In an effort to try to facilitate what needs to be done to 
bring this to a conclusion, I will yield 1 minute to two or three 
Senators who feel a need to say a few words, but I retain the floor. 
Then we will move to a third reading immediately after that.
  Without losing my recognition on the floor, I yield to the Senator 
from Oregon 1 minute.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank Senator Lott.
  Mr. President, a lot of Members went the route of the managers' 
amendment because we like to accommodate the requests of our 
appropriators, and to be accommodating to them we did not bring it up. 
Frankly, I have just learned a lesson here: I have to force a vote 
during the course of this bill. I have relied upon the good faith of 
Ted Stevens--and his faith is good. He stood by me the whole time.
  Ron Wyden and I are talking about a national emergency that we think 
exists in our area. You saw on national TV an Air Force Reserve 
helicopter crash trying to save nine people, all but three of whom lost 
their lives. The day before, they saved a person on Mount Rainier. This 
is almost a daily occurrence. The Air Force proposes to move away from 
the Northwest. We need it there. We need it there. When we have the 
chance to bring this issue up again in another context, I hope you will 
remember us. It is one of the few military assets the State of Oregon 
has at all.
  Mr. LOTT. Without yielding the floor, I yield 1 minute to Senator 
Wyden.
  Mr. WYDEN. Two points. First, the position Senator Smith and I have 
tried to convey will cost the taxpayers no money, but what Senator 
McCain is talking about will cost taxpayers money. Second, there are no 
objective criteria for the project. There would be if the Smith-Wyden 
proposal went forward because we laid out basic criteria for dealing 
with life in Oregon. These people are saving lives. That is what people 
all over this country saw on national TV.
  Now, without any objective criteria and in a way that will cost 
taxpayers money, we are not even having a chance to debate a bipartisan 
amendment. That is regrettable. We ought to be following the example 
that Chairman Byrd and Senator Stevens have followed. That is what 
Senator Smith and I have tried to be a part of. We will be back on this 
floor again and again and again. Let us put the Senate on notice. We 
are going to stay here all the way through this session until this gets 
done.
  Mr. LOTT. I propose to recognize the Senator from Wyoming for 1 
minute and then the Senator from Louisiana for 1 minute, and then I am 
prepared to yield the floor for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. ENZI. I thank the Parliamentarian for spending a couple of hours 
today helping me understand the difference between nongermaneness under 
cloture and nongermaneness on bills that are not under cloture. It is a 
very difficult distinction, and I can appreciate the work done.
  I have been trying to get livestock assistance for all the people in 
the third year of drought in the West. It is extremely critical.
  Mr. President, I wish to discuss the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment 
No. 3737 to H.R. 4775, the supplemental appropriations bill. This 
effort seriously acknowledges the plight of our farmers, ranchers and 
works to ensure the future of our rural communities by providing an 
avenue of desperately needed assistance.
  Our amendment funds the Livestock Assistance Program for disaster 
experienced in 2001 by reinstating the farm bill payment limitations 
passed by the Senate in February 2002.
  One of the most difficult responsibilities we all have as Senators is 
prioritizing the targeting of a very limited set of resources. Just as 
a firefighter prioritizes by deciding which homes to save and which are 
already on the edge of destruction, or a doctor faced with an emergency 
or disaster reviews the wounded to determine who most needs his help, 
we are often called upon the make difficult and important decisions 
that at times may be highly unpopular. This is one of those times our 
choice may be difficult and demanding, but it is also very, very clear.
  Just as that firefighter and the doctor need to make decisions that 
have a tremendous impact on lives and livelihoods, our amendment makes 
a similar priority decision that the farm bill conference failed to 
make. This amendment is all about taking care of the folks back home in 
times of trouble. Without the assistance provided under this amendment, 
the Congress is clearly deciding who will be the winners and

[[Page S5183]]

who will suffer the consequences of being the losers. I encourage my 
colleagues to think about the current structures of the farm bill and 
how it pits neighbor against neighbor. The farm bill perhaps 
unintentionally set the winners and condemned the losers to lose in the 
marketplace. It set up a scenario in which one homestead's rent will be 
paid and the children in another home will end up watching their 
belongings go to the highest bidder in an auction.
  Wyoming livestock producers are facing a third year of drought. In 
response, some have begun liquidating their stock while others face the 
loss of their homes. Just days ago, USDA Secretary Ann Veneman declared 
all but three Wyoming counties primary and secondary disaster areas for 
2002. That's an important step, but the amendment before us was written 
to address the 2001 disaster year! Producers that sold or reduced their 
herds in the first year of the drought have been unable to buy 
replacements. The 2-year tax relief provision available to offer short-
term relief from forced sales will soon run out. Now evern more 
producers are being forced to sell their livestock in irrational 
markets due to the prohibitively expensive price of hay and their 
ejections from drought-stricken public grazing lands.
  A forced livestock sale significantly decreases a rancher's future 
profitability because it decreases the number of production units, 
sheep and cattle on the ranch. A forced sale also dilutes genetic 
quality. Many ranchers utilize stringent genetic improvement plans to 
differentiate their product. A forced sale can flush years of careful 
record keeping and genetic improvements out through the sale barn in 1 
day.
  In its refusal to acknowledge this grave disaster, the farm bill 
conference report did not accurately represent the priorities of the 
Senate. It did not fund emergency disaster assistance to the Nation's 
livestock producers and it included a payment limitation that favors 
the corporate producer over the family farmers and ranchers who make 
this country great. Our amendment reinstates the Senate's position on 
payment limitations on farm bill payments and uses the savings to 
offset emergency feed assistance to livestock producers for drought 
disaster.
  The Livestock Assistance Program is a program available to livestock 
producers in counties that have been declared disaster areas by the 
President or Secretary of Agriculture. It provides minimal financial 
relief to livestock producers that are experiencing livestock 
production loss due to drought and other disasters--but only if there 
is money in the fund. Once LAP is funded, producers apply for relief 
and a formula splits the available monies accounting to their needs. It 
assists all producers who qualify, but the extent of the assistance 
that is avaialble is limited by the program funding and the number of 
applicants. The more applicants there are across the country, the 
smaller the individual payment.

  In fiscal year 2001, the Livestock Assistance Program was funded at 
approximately $430 million for fiscal year 2000 drought assistance. In 
Wyoming, 933 producers received $7,752,029 in assistance from those 
funds at an average of $8,313 per producer. Nationally, it provided 
assistance to about 186,000 producers at 88 percent of their grazing 
loss for drought and other disasters experienced in 2000. The need was 
similar in 2001, but the program was not funded in appropriations.
  The farm bill conference report did include an amendment I offered to 
authorize the livestock feeding assistance. With its passage, the 
Secretary of Agriculture now has the authority to use that program to 
provide assistance to livestock producers. The program is no longer ad 
hoc. Using this authorization and funding from the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel 
amendment, Secretary Veneman will be able to initiate and deliver feed 
assistance to livestock producers.
  As a fiscal conservative, the last thing I want to do is further 
increase supplemental spending over the administration's request. 
Rather than advocate additional emergency spending, we have worked 
within the parameters of the President's request to fund this urgent 
need without using new monies. We are doing this by using an offset the 
Senate has already approved by rollcall vote.
  On February 7 of this year, the Senate voted in support of farm bill 
payment limitations 61-33. The amendment limited total dollar payments 
to an average of $250,000. The farm bill conference report too 
generously increased the limitation to $360,000.
  It is important to ensure federal agricultural aid is available to 
those who need it most. My personal philosophy supports targeting 
federal assistance to the neediest farmers and those with greatest risk 
of losing their livelihoods. I have difficulty accepting the notion 
that farmers require assistance to the tune of $360,000 when I know 
there are struggling ranchers in Wyoming and other cattle states that 
receive almost nothing. The Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment equalizes 
this wide gap in farm bill payments and directs federal agricultural 
aid to ranchers in dire need.
  Farm Bill payments were not intended to subsidize every acre of every 
farm nor every bushel produced. The American taxpayer should not be 
asked to keep large corporations or weekend hobby farmers in silk 
overalls and gold-plated pitchforks. Farm assistance was intended for 
and must continue to be directed at small and medium producers, family 
farmers who truly need help. Our rural communities depend on farms and 
the farms, in turn, depend on their communities. Too many small farms 
are not receiving the assistance that is needed while large multi-
million dollar corporations continue to receive federal funds for every 
acre they take over. Payments to large corporations have nothing to do 
with good farm policy but good farm policy has everything to do with 
family farms.
  In Wyoming, farmers, ranchers, and communities as a whole are 
struggling through yet another year of drought and another year of fear 
and endless worry. Will we hear them? Will we respond with good farm 
policy that will assist those in need and keep people on the farm? It 
is a difficult task but it is our responsibility to set priorities and 
save our neighbors from ruin. We can do that by equalizing the gap in 
farm bill payments so we can provide direct aid to ranchers in real 
need. That is what the Enzi-Grassley-Hagel amendment does and it's what 
the American people expect us to do.
  By supporting our amendment, you are again casting a vote accepting 
farm bill payment limitations. You are bolstering your earlier votes to 
provide sorely needed drought relief to livestock producers largely 
ignored in the farm bill conference report. The choice is simple and 
has already been made.
  I hope the leaders will propound a unanimous consent that allows 
these amendments to be brought up, statements to be placed in as though 
given live, and then withdrawn, so we can make sure we have statements 
in the Record. That would save time.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator Landrieu.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate the patience of this body. The reason I 
have been tenacious about this is that this amendment affects 37 
States. It is a technical correction to disability councils. The 
Senator from Texas and the Senator from Arizona, because of rule 
XXVIII, there is no way to correct this. It is a technical amendment. 
If it is not fixed tonight, it will not get fixed; it cannot be fixed 
at conference and will affect 37 States. These are not huge amounts of 
money, but these councils do not have a lot of money for the disability 
councils in 37 States.
  It was passed and agreed to by the managers and ranking members. 
Again, because of the germaneness issue, we have been left out, which 
is unfortunate.
  I thank you for your patience, but I wanted to clarify this 
amendment.
  The supplemental appropriations bill includes authorizing language 
that will address a technical error in the Developmental Disabilities 
Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000. The language will 
reestablish a hold harmless provision that was included prior to its 
inadvertent omission from the reauthorizing bill enacted in 2000.
  The bill also includes $2.5 million for this purpose. However, this 
additional budget authority is fully offset by a reduction in funding 
for NIH buildings and facilities.
  This amendment is needed to address the funding formula error 
recently identified by the Department of Health

[[Page S5184]]

and Human Services. For the past 2 years, the Department of Health and 
Human Services allocated funds to states councils on developmental 
disabilities as if a hold harmless provision still was in effect. In 
fiscal year 2001, this error caused 17 councils to receive higher grant 
awards than allowed under the statute. Last year, 23 councils were 
overpaid. The additional funding provided in this amendment will hold 
these states harmless from reductions.
  Senator Kennedy and Senator Gregg, the chairman and ranking member of 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions are supportive 
of this technical change.
  The amounts for 37 states are as follows:
       (1) For Alabama, $91,709.
       (2) For Alaska, $3,626.
       (3) For Arkansas, $25,849.
       (4) For Colorado, $36,547.
       (5) For Connecticut, $126,810.
       (6) For Delaware, $3,626.
       (7) For the District of Columbia, $3,626.
       (8) For Hawaii, $3,626.
       (9) For Idaho, $3,626.
       (10) For Illinois, $119,542.
       (11) For Indiana, $15,537.
       (12) For Iowa, $120,529.
       (13) For Kansas, $12,297.
       (14) For Kentucky, $90,248.
       (15) For Louisiana, $219,989.
       (16) For Maine, $3,626.
       (17) For Massachusetts, $107,858.
       (18) For Mississippi, $68,539.
       (19) For Missouri, $1,166.
       (20) For Montana, $3,626.
       (21) For Nebraska, $9,104.
       (22) For Nevada, $3,626.
       (23) For New Hampshire, $3,626.
       (24) For New Jersey, $2,530.
       (25) For New York, $631,640.
       (26) For North Dakota, $3,626.
       (27) For Ohio, $130,898.
       (28) For Oklahoma, $39,826.
       (29) For Pennsylvania, $400,847.
       (30) For Rhode Island, $3,626.
       (31) For South Dakota, $3,626.
       (32) For Tennessee, $27,398.
       (33) For Texas, $25,633.
       (34) For Vermont, $3,626.
       (35) For West Virginia, $221,412.
       (36) For Wisconsin, $13,861.
       (37) For Wyoming, $3,626.
                                  ____

  Mr. REID. It is my understanding further debate on this matter is 
ended.
  Mr. ENZI. Would the leader consider propounding a request to put 
statements in the Record?
  Mr. REID. Senator Enzi asked that Members desiring to place 
statements in the Record be allowed to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.


                     federal transit administration

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to thank 
Senators Byrd and Stevens for their stewardship of this Supplemental 
Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. Their stalwart support of 
September 11 recovery efforts has substantially benefited millions of 
Americans, and I support their efforts wholeheartedly.
  Mr. President, Senator Clinton, Senator Torricelli, Senator Corzine 
and I would like to take a moment to engage our colleague in a 
colloquy.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleague for his kind words and would be happy 
to engage in a colloquy with the Senators from New York and New Jersey.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, the events of September 11 had a 
disastrous effect on Lower Manhattan's mass transit infrastructure. The 
Metropolitan Transportation Authority serves roughly one third of the 
entire Nation's commuters. Twelve of its subway stations below Chambers 
Street were incapacitated as a direct result of the attack, and the 
current, damaged state of the MTA's systems affects many of its 360,000 
riders each day.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, my own State of New Jersey was 
severely impacted by the disruption to major transportation systems 
caused by the terrorist attacks. Before September 11, 66,000 New Jersey 
residents had commuted daily to Lower Manhattan through the World Trade 
Center PATH Station. The loss of this station has severely strained 
many of New Jersey's rail, bus, and ferry systems, which will continue 
to operate above capacity for the foreseeable future.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, providing steady and reliable 
transportation for workers into and out of New York City is vital to 
the economic recovery of the region. We are pleased that the Committee 
has provided $1.8 billion that will be dedicated solely to rebuilding 
the infrastructure connecting New York and New Jersey residents with 
Lower Manhattan.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, this funding will be directed to the 
construction of a new intermodal station, which is a critical component 
of the recovery effort for the New York Metropolitan Area. Such a 
facility will be essential not only to the residents and employees 
based in Lower Manhattan, but for the thousands of families who will 
visit whatever memorial will be erected in memory of those men and 
women who were killed in the attack on the World Trade Center.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank my colleagues for their thoughts on this matter, 
and am gratified that we are able to provide such critical support for 
this intermodal transportation center.


                       chemical demilitarization

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, the Senators from Maryland, Senators 
Sarbanes and Mikulski and I would like to engage the chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Inouye, in colloquy on 
funding for the chemical demilitarization program.
  I rise today to express my strong support for funding to be included 
in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill to accelerate the 
destruction of chemical weapons stored at U.S. Army facilities. 
Following the tragic events of September 11, I worked with a number of 
my colleagues, including Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes of Maryland, in 
urging the Army to find alternative methods for accelerating the 
disposal of our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile consistent with the 
highest safety and environmental standards. Since that time, the Army 
has come forward with proposals to accelerate the neutralization of 
chemical weapons stored at the Newport Chemical Depot in my home State, 
and the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. There are presently 1,269 
tons of VX agent located at Newport, and 1,621 tons of bulk mustard 
agent stored at Aberdeen. Let us be clear, the nearly 3,000 tons of 
chemical agent stored at these two sites poses a dangerously attractive 
terrorist target and a grave threat to millions of citizens.
  The Army has plans to accelerate disposal of these chemical agents by 
more than 2\1/2\ years but needs additional funds for the remainder of 
fiscal year 2002 to do so. If funding is provided in the supplemental, 
the Army can alleviate the fears of these communities, and millions of 
our constituents, by the end of next year. I firmly believe this 
request falls within the purview of enhancing homeland security in the 
post-September 11 world in which we live.
  Ms. Mikulski. I join with the Senator from Indiana in supporting 
additional funding to accelerate the chemical demilitarization program. 
This is an urgent homeland security need.
  There is no question whether the United States should destroy the 
chemical weapons stockpiles at Aberdeen Proving Ground and other sites 
around the country. Congress made that decision in 1986. The United 
States is also a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention. That 
treaty binds the United States and 144 other countries to destroy 
chemical weapons stockpiles. We have 10 years from the time the 
Chemical Weapons Convention came into force--until 2007--to complete 
destruction.
  I have worked for decades to ensure that we destroy chemical weapons 
in a way that is safe for the workers, safe for nearby communities, and 
safe for the environment. After extensive research, the Army developed 
a chemical demilitarization process to destroy the bulk mustard agent 
stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground.
  Last October, I joined with Senator Bayh and Senator Sarbanes and 
other colleagues in urging President Bush to strengthen the security of 
the nation's chemical weapons storage sites. We recommended several 
measures, including expediting construction of agent destruction or 
neutralization facilities, consistent with the highest environmental 
and safety standards.
  We now have National Guard troops guarding chemical weapons storage 
sites. I am grateful for that added security, but that's not a long-
term solution. In fact, it adds to the cost of delay.
  The Army also came up with plans to accelerate chemical 
demilitarization. Under that plan, all of the mustard agent stored at 
Aberdeen Proving Ground would have been destroyed by the end of this 
year. The Defense Department wanted funding for this effort

[[Page S5185]]

included in the President's supplemental request, but OMB rejected that 
proposal. I am not sure why OMB would reject an effort to make our 
country safer and save money, but that is what happened.
  We have the opportunity here to address that deficiency, to fulfill 
the Pentagon request. We have the opportunity to address a very real 
homeland security need. I am proud to join with Senator Bayh and 
Senator Sarbanes in this effort.
  Mr. SARBANES. I am pleased to join with my colleagues, Senator Bayh 
and Senator Mikulski, in calling for the funds necessary to expedite 
the Army's chemical demilitarization program. Clearly, this is a matter 
of great importance to ensuring the continued health and safety of 
millions of Americans.
  I have long recognized the environmental and health hazards posed by 
the chemical agents stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground and Army 
facilities throughout the country and I have been a strong and 
consistent supporter of the efforts to eliminate the Nation's chemical 
weapons stockpile in the most environmentally sensitive manner 
possible. The critical need to dispose of the stockpiles has only 
intensified as a result of the events of September 11, 2001, for I 
believe the continued storage of these agents only increases the 
vulnerability of our citizens to acts of terrorism.
  In this regard, I was pleased to learn of the Army's decision to 
expedite the process of neutralizing the chemical agents at both 
Aberdeen and Newport. In my view, doing so is a step in the right 
direction and the decision represents a real win-win situation for all 
involved. Not only does accelerated demilitarization eliminate the high 
risks associated with storing such agents in a highly populated region, 
it results in considerable savings for the Department. Further, it 
eliminates costs associated with continued National Guard protection 
and the construction of new structures to protect stored agent. 
Finally, it helps us meet our obligations as signatories to the 
Chemical Weapons Convention.
  Like my colleagues, I am most concerned with the decision of the 
Office of Management and Budget not to include the Department of 
Defense's proposal for funding for chemical demilitarization in the 
President's supplemental request. In my view, expeditiously removing 
the threat posed by these chemical agents is a critical step in the 
efforts to ensure our domestic security.
  Mr. BAYH. While we are prepared to offer an amendment to provide 
funding for the Army to accelerate chemical demilitarization, we would 
be willing to withdraw the amendment if the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee would be supportive of funding for the 
Army's Chemical Demilitarization program during the conference on the 
supplemental.
  Mr. INOUYE. I support the Army's decision to expedite destruction of 
our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile in a safe and cost efficient 
manner. As the Senators from Indiana and Maryland know, the Army 
planned to reprogram existing funds this year to accelerate destruction 
at Aberdeen and Newport, and I would have support such a request. 
However, I would ask my colleagues to refrain from offering their 
amendment, and want to assure them that I will support funding for the 
accelerated destruction of chemical agents stored at Newport and 
Aberdeen in conference when the opportunity arises.
  Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the chairman's willingness to be of help on 
this matter and am aware of his concerns regarding the Army's failure 
to reprogram existing funds this year. I also want the chairman to know 
that we appreciate how hard he worked to ensure that the defense title 
of the supplemental was consistent with the administration's request.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I appreciate the support of the Senator from Hawaii and 
look forward to working together with him in conference to fund the 
accelerated chemical demilitarization effort.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for his continued assistance in 
this regard.


  rebuilding the eighth air force headquarters at barksdale air force 
                                  base

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, the 
distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
Senator Inouye, in a colloquy on the importance of rebuilding the 8th 
Air Force Headquarters at Barksdale Air Force Base, LA. This historic 
building, which housed the Mighty 8th Air Force, was devastated on 
March 12, 2002, by a fire that burned for more than 12 hours. It is 
imperative that the Mighty 8th see its headquarters rebuilt as soon as 
possible. Over 53,000 airmen served in the Eighth Air Force, including 
the B-52, B-1, and B-2 crews who have provided air superiority over the 
skies of Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. Additionally, key 
National Guard units patrolling the skies in Operation Noble Eagle also 
call the 8th Air Force home.
  I believe that it is critical to the Air Force to rebuild the 8th Air 
Force Headquarters at Barksdale Air Force Base. The 8th Air Force is 
crucial to our warfighting capabilities, and it is imperative that 
construction begin to rebuild the 8th Air Force Headquarters 
immediately. I think my colleague would agree on the need.
  Mr. INOUYE. I certainly do agree that construction must not be 
delayed. I am also aware of the tremendous role the 8th Air Force has 
played in the war in Afghanistan.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate your kind words for the 8th Air Force. 
They are welcome at this time of need for the 8th Air Force. I have 
been notified that the facility repair costs for the 8th Air Force 
Headquarters will total $19.3 million for fiscal year 2002. I am 
concerned as to how this money will be made available, especially when 
service budgets have been stretched thin because of the war on 
terrorism. Will the Air Force be able to fund and begin construction in 
fiscal year 2002?
  Mr. INOUYE. I would say to my friend from Louisiana, that I 
understand her concern that such an important military resource be 
rebuilt as soon as possible. I want to let you know that the Air Force 
has notified the Senate Appropriations Committee by letter that the Air 
Force will commit $19.3 million to an operation and maintenance project 
at Barksdale Air Force Base, LA, to repair the 8th Air Force 
Headquarters Facility.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. That certainly is welcome news. I received a similar 
letter, but I have seen little action from the Air Force leadership. 
The men and women in the 8th Air Force have worked diligently since the 
fire destroyed their headquarters, despite the fact that they have been 
displaced for several months. Much like so many of us in the Hart 
Building simply wanted for our staffs to be able to return to their 
desks following the anthrax attacks, I just want those at 8th Air Force 
Headquarters to be able to return to their normal workplace.
  Mr. INOUYE. I agree with the Senator that those of us with offices in 
the Hart Building know the feeling of being left without adequate 
office space, but the Senator from Louisiana should be pleased to know 
that the Air Force has committed to rebuilding the 8th Air Force 
Headquarters beginning in fiscal year 2002.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I need the chairman to clarify how some other costs 
associated with the reconstruction of the 8th Air Force Headquarters 
will be funded. In fiscal year 2002, an additional $3.5 million is 
required for clean-up costs from the fire. Furthermore, as you can 
imagine, the fire destroyed hundreds of computers, expensive 
communications equipment, and office furniture. The Air Force estimates 
$3.5 million will be needed in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004 to 
replace this valuable equipment. How will the men and women at the 8th 
Air Force Headquarters see that the site is cleaned up this year and 
that office and communications equipment are purchased in the next two 
years?
  Mr. INOUYE. I assure the Senator from Louisiana that, within Air 
Force appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 2003, sufficient 
resources will be available to fund the requisite outfitting of the 
restored 8th Air Force Headquarters.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Again, I thank the Chairman for his assistance and 
taking this time to address my concerns. The people at Barksdale Air 
Force Base, the people of Louisiana, and I appreciate your efforts, and 
I look foward to working with you on other vital issues in the future.

[[Page S5186]]

 reimbursement by the postal service of anthrax-related costs incurred 
                        by health care providers

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a brief colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government, Senator Dorgan, and my 
colleague from New Jersey, Senator Corzine, regarding reimbursement by 
the Postal Service of anthrax-related costs incurred by health care 
providers in New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, as your know, last fall our Nation experienced the 
worst biological warfare attack in American history when terrorists 
used the mail system to send deadly anthrax spores to various political 
and media targets. New Jersey--where all of the tainted letters were 
mailed--was literally at the frontlines of the anthrax crisis, and New 
Jersey health care providers bore the brunt of responding to the 
crisis. Indeed, the Postal Service urged its employees to seek testing 
and antibiotic therapy at New Jersey hospitals, and these hospitals 
responded promptly and effectively, providing invaluable health care 
services to affected employees and customers. Unfortunately, despite 
assurances from the Administration that the Postal Service would 
reimburse these costs, the Postal Service has not reimbursed any of the 
costs.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the committee is aware of 
the costs incurred by New Jersey health care providers and encourages 
the Postal Service to meet the need to reimburse the costs incurred by 
them in responding to last fall's anthrax crisis.
  Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from New Jersey is correct.
  Mr. CORZINE. As my colleague, Senator Torricelli, has noted, last 
fall health care providers in New Jersey responded quickly, effectively 
and responsibly to the anthrax crisis in New Jersey, yet they have not 
been reimbursed for the care they provided. Failure to reimburse these 
very real costs places a significant burden on these providers.
  Failure to reimburse is troubling because in many cases the Postal 
Service directed its employees to these hospitals for care. For 
example, the Postal Service instructed employees to report to the 
Robert Wood Johnson University Hospital at Hamilton for anthrax 
testing. As a result, Robert Wood Johnson Hospital ultimately incurred 
$651,500 in costs for treating 1,400 postal service employees and 
dispensing over 3,500 prescriptions for antibiotics. Seven months 
later, the Postal Service has not reimbursed Robert Wood Johnson for 
the lifesaving health care it provided.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the committee believes that 
the Postal Service has received adequate funding to address the anthrax 
crisis and that the Postal Service is encouraged to meet its 
obligations to New Jersey health care providers.
  Mr. DORGAN. I agree with both my colleagues that this matter needs to 
be resolved. I understand that the Postal Service has been in contact 
with the hospital's administrator to arrange a meeting to review the 
data supporting the reimbursement request. The Postal Service informs 
me that this is a necessary step as any funds the Postal Service pays 
to any entity are subject to an audit by the Postal Inspector General. 
I am confident that once this review is completed, this issue will be 
resolved to the satisfaction of the parties involved.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his 
clarification of this issue and his leadership on this vital homeland 
security supplemental appropriations bill.
  Mr. CORZINE. I, too, thank the Senator from North Dakota for his 
assistance on this matter that is so important to New Jersey health 
care providers.


                      Foreign Assistance Spending

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, as the United States fights this war 
against terrorism--and puts in place the programs called for in this 
emergency supplemental for homeland defense and on-going military 
operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere--we can't overlook the fact 
that global poverty is a contributing factor and a breeding ground for 
terrorism, and that if we are to be successful in this war the United 
States must significantly increase its foreign assistance spending 
commitments.
  Several of my colleagues and I had hoped to be able to do so on this 
emergency supplemental. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be 
possible.
  But we want to be clear that we remain committed to this goal, and 
intend to work through the normal appropriations process to see this 
happen.
  It is in our country's national interest to bring aid and 
functioning, free-market democratic institutions to countries and 
regions that might otherwise wallow in poverty, be preyed on by 
fanatics, or provide safe havens for terrorists.
  I see one of my colleagues in these efforts, Senator DeWine, and 
would ask him his thoughts on the importance of this issue in 
safeguarding U.S. national interests.
  Mr. DeWINE. I would like to echo what my colleague from California 
has said. Providing humanitarian assistance is in our national 
interest, and it is also the right thing to do. We have a moral 
obligation to help ease the suffering that billions of people are 
facing around the world. We have an obligation to help those in the 
world who are suffering at the hands of evil leaders and corrupt 
governments.
  We know that chaos, poverty, hunger, political uncertainty, and 
social stability are the root causes of violence and conflict around 
the world. We also know that if used correctly, our foreign assistance 
is a vital foreign policy tool to prevent violence and conflict. Our 
foreign aid can be used to fight global terrorism and foster political 
stability, food security, rule of law, democracy, and ultimately peace 
around the world. When applied effectively, foreign assistance works.
  One of the many lessons of the tragic September 11th terrorist 
attacks is that we must not wait for a nation to implode before we take 
action. We must not wait for a nation's people to suffer from poverty, 
disease, hunger, despotic leaders, or corrupt governments.
  Yet, tragically, despite its importance and immeasurable value, our 
overall foreign affairs budget has been stagnant for the past 20 years. 
And in real dollars, it has gone down. That is a mistake.
  I ask my colleague from California, what level does U.S. foreign 
assistance spending stand at today?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. United States foreign assistance spending today is 
just eight-tenths of 1 percent of the budget with less than six-tenths 
of 1 percent going to humanitarian assistance and economic development.
  And yet, 2.8 billion people on this planet live in abject poverty--
getting by on $2 a day or less. That's less than a cappuccino at 
Starbucks. Close to 1 billion people are undernourished; 1.2 billion 
lack access to even safe drinking water; and 2.5 million do not have 
access to adequate sanitation.
  In the wake of September 11, I introduced a resolution to triple our 
foreign aid budget over the next 5 years, a resolution which was passed 
by the Senate just this week.
  So I was pleased when president Bush committed to increasing the 
United States foreign aid by an additional $10 billion over 4 years, 
beginning in 2004. The President is to be commended for this 
initiative.
  But although this additional funding represents a significant 
increase in foreign aid it is still well short of historic levels, and 
well short of the level I believe is needed to engage and win the war 
against terrorism.
  In 1946, the United States devoted 3 percent of its Federal budget to 
foreign assistance--a high water mark which was reached again under the 
Kennedy administration.
  But since then, spending has gone downhill. According to a 
Congressional Budget Office report entitled ``The Role of Foreign Aid 
in Development,'' United States spending on foreign assistance has 
fluctuated from year-to-year but has been on a downward path since the 
1960's. A tripling of our foreign aid budget--a level that I consider 
to be appropriate and which the Senate is now on record as supporting--
would simply bring it back in line with historic levels.
  If the United States is to be successful in the war on terrorism--if 
we are to be successful in helping to spread democracy and free-markets 
around the

[[Page S5187]]

globe--we must be willing to step up and bear the burden of leadership.
  Even looking beyond the humanitarian rationale--which I believe is 
sufficient reason alone for action--the United States will never be 
secure in a world in which: Sub-Saharan Africa is ravaged by the AIDS 
pandemic; more than half the people of the world go to bed hungry every 
night; civil wars are a constant; and where failed or failing states, 
unable to meet the needs of their peoples, and allow terrorists and 
terrorism to thrive.
  Reducing poverty, promoting equitable economic growth, and developing 
democratic institutions advances United States national security 
interests. The failure to address these issues through a significant 
increase in foreign assistance spending, and the resulting risk of 
social, economic, and political instability and violence, places United 
States national security interests and the welfare and safety of United 
States citizens at risk.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the days and years 
ahead to address this important issue, and to assure that U.S. foreign 
assistance spending levels are appropriate to the challenges that our 
nation faces and our leadership position in the international 
community.
  Mr. DeWINE. I thank my colleague. Our foreign assistance is 
absolutely critical for people in war-ravaged, politically unstable, 
impoverished nations. The children, the elderly, and the civilian 
people are not responsible for the political and economic turmoil in 
their homelands, but they are the ones who always end up suffering the 
most. I look forward to working with you to continue to help these 
folks around the world. We have a moral obligation to stay committed to 
these people.


                             litening pods

 Mr. DASCHLE. I wish to briefly discuss with the distinguished 
chairman of the Senate Defense Appropriations Committee the LITENING 
targeting pods--an issue of some concern to the Air National Guard in 
my state and many others around the country.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am delighted to discuss LITENING pods with the majority 
leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. As the chairman knows, on April 24th, in testimony 
before the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Air National Guard 
(ANG) identified the procurement of 24 additional LITENING II targeting 
pods as their number one priority. At the present time, U.S. ANG 
fighter components equipped with the LITENING II targeting pods are 
participating in Operation Noble Eagle and Operation Enduring Freedom. 
By all accounts, the ANG aircraft are performing their combat missions 
with great success, due in large measure to the fact that the pods 
provide the aircraft with a precision target capability. As a result, 
the Air National Guard has established a requirement to equip 
additional ANG aircraft with the LITENING II pods. The South Dakota 
National Guard has indicated to me that their mission effectiveness 
would be greatly enhanced if we were to outfit their aircraft with 
these pods. Other Senators from other states have heard a similar 
message from their Guard units. We all agree that the procurement of an 
additional 24 LITENING II AT pods will greatly increase the Guard's 
ability to carry out its combat missions.
  Having said this, I am well aware of the many difficult decisions the 
Appropriations Committee made in crafting this Supplemental. Resources 
are not limitless and difficult choices must be made--both in the 
defense portions of this supplemental as well as the regular defense 
appropriations bill. As we wrap up debate on this important measure and 
begin preparing for conference, I hope we will do all we can to provide 
our military with all the resources and tools they need to fight and 
win the war on terrorism. Given the combat performance of the LITENING 
II pods and the high priority the ANG places on acquiring more, I hope 
we can reach an agreement to procure 24 additional targeting pods for 
the Guard.
  Mr. INOUYE. I am aware of the testimony to which you refer and the 
importance the Guard attaches to acquiring additional targeting pods. I 
will gladly work with the Majority Leader to secure funds for 
additional LITENING pods for the Air National Guard.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senate for his support on this important 
matter.


                     States Devastated by Flooding

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern with 
language contained in the report accompanying the Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act, specifically under the Watershed and 
Flood Prevention Program. During the month of May, much of the Midwest, 
and the State of Indiana in particular, was devastated by heavy rain 
and flooding. In our home state, a disaster declaration has been 
requested for a total of 33 counties. Many of these areas were under 
water for weeks and FEMA has recently completed its assessment of 
damages.
  I hope my friend from Wisconsin will add Indiana to the list of 
states under the Watershed and Flood Prevention Program that have been 
adversely affected by flooding.
  Mr. LUGAR. I join with my colleague from Indiana to express my 
concern about the flooding situation in Indiana. A number of Indiana 
communities are working to recover from damages caused by recent 
flooding. Should the Conference Committee include a listing of specific 
states in the final Conference report under this program, I hope 
Indiana will be included.
  Mr. KOHL. I understand and am aware of the concerns expressed by my 
colleagues from the State of Indiana, and want to assure them that 
Indiana is among the states for which NRCS has identified need and for 
which assistance is provided through this appropriation.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin and am happy to assist 
him with any information that he might need to ensure that Indiana's 
concerns are adequately addressed in the conference.


                  Medicare Reclassification Amendments

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I have just looked over a list of 
amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill and noticed that 
several fall within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  I am most concerned about several hospital reclassification 
amendments that were filed. The House bill included reclassifications 
for hospitals in New York and Pennsylvania counties, and that has only 
fueled the fire of other members to get their ``rifle shot'' fixes in 
the bill too.
  I oppose these provisions, and I believe that Ranking Member Grassley 
shares my policy concerns.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Absolutely. There is an administrative structure 
already in place for hospitals and counties to seek these 
reclassifications. This process was put into the Medicare statute 
specifically to review and adjust payments to hospitals that might be 
disadvantaged under the current system.
  Unfortunately, hospitals often seek a legislative remedy either 
before they have exhausted this administrative avenue or after they 
have been turned down by the Classification Review Board because they 
don't meet the standards.
  It is also my observation that including one hospital or one county 
will only invite dozens of other hospitals and counties to seek similar 
payment increases, regardless of whether such a fix is warranted.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Not to mention that these reclassifications are unfair to 
other hospitals. Reclassifications from rural to urban counties are 
budget neutral. That means that every change we make will decrease 
payments to all other hospitals. My Montana hospitals are not 
enthusiastic about shouldering the burden of financial gains for 
hospitals across the country.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Hospitals in Iowa are already concerned about payment 
levels compared to more urban states. It is not acceptable to me to 
lower payments to them for the benefit of hospitals in other states 
that are already much higher paid. One approach we should consider for 
rifleshots is to require budget neutrality to be applied only to 
hospitals in the area into which the county is reclassified, or perhaps 
to all hospitals in that state. In other words, if hospitals in certain 
New York counties want to be reclassified into New York City, then the 
budget neutrality payment reductions could be applied to New York City 
hospitals, or to all hospitals in New York State, rather than to the 
rest of the country.

[[Page S5188]]

That might help bring some discipline to this issue.
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is not a bad idea, and something that maybe the 
Finance Committee ought to look into.
  Let me close by adding that the Finance Committee, and not the 
Appropriations Committee or any other Committee, should be making these 
policy decisions.
  The Finance Committee has worked to safeguard and improve the 
programs under its jurisdiction. Any requests for additional changes to 
these programs, including further increases in provider payments or 
changes in payment for individual hospitals or counties, need to be 
examined with great care.
  Our committee intends to address Medicare payment policy issues this 
year. Given that there is an opportunity to consider legislation to 
change Medicare provider payment policies in the coming months, we do 
not believe there is any reason to take action on any legislation that 
is not of a time-sensitive nature at this time.
  Therefore, we will object to the consideration by the Senate until 
the material in question is removed.
  As I have said in the past, I look forward to working together in a 
bipartisan fashion on all of the other Medicare, Medicaid, and health 
issues that the Congress will be working on this summer and fall.


                     metropolitan statistical areas

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Chairman of 
the Committee, Senator Byrd, in a colloquy regarding the inequities in 
Medicare reimbursement rates that many hospitals in Pennsylvania are 
experiencing.
  Many Northeastern Pennsylvania hospitals are facing substantial 
operating losses. This region's hospitals are extremely dependent on 
Medicare reimbursements and are experiencing one of the most rapid and 
dramatic shifts to managed care in the country. While almost no 
hospital in the Nation has been left untouched by the cost pressures 
inflicted by the Balanced Budget Act, hospitals in Schuylkill County, 
Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton, Williamsport and Sharon, Pennsylvania 
face unique situations.
  Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Hazelton and Williamsport are being reimbursed 
at 12% less than their neighbor--the Geisenger medical center--because 
Geisinger has been reclassified as part of the Harrisburg Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. The Sharon medical center is having difficulty hiring 
skilled workers because they are located only 12 miles from the Ohio 
border. The Sharon reimbursement rate is unacceptably low compared to 
the reimbursements received by the Ohio hospitals.
  Last year, during conference deliberations on the FY 02 Labor, Health 
and Human Services and Education appropriations bills, the conference 
was prepared to include the provision to correct the inequities faced 
by these hospitals. However, during that conference, word came that if 
the provision was included, the conference report would be subject to a 
point of order under Rule XVIII and on those grounds, you objected to 
the provision. At that time, I left the conference and came down to 
talk to you. You understandably said that you could not agree to the 
provision because Rule XVIII had to be observed. At my request, you did 
state that you would give very serious consideration to including it in 
the FY 02 Supplemental Appropriations bill.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct. You and I had a discussion 
regarding the unique situation facing the Pennsylvania hospitals and I 
sympathized with the plight of these hospitals. However, because your 
reclassification provision would have violated Rule XXVIII, which 
precludes matter from being included in conference agreements unless 
relevant language was contained in either the House or Senate version 
of the appropriation bill, we were unable to accommodate your 
provision.
  Mr. SPECTER. This year, Mr. Chairman, the FY 02 supplemental 
appropriations bill that passed the House on May 24, 2002, does include 
two Medicare provisions which would reclassify some Pennsylvania and 
New York Hospitals.
  Mr. BYRD. This is a matter that is in conference. I will give it 
serious consideration. However, I shall point out that the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee have written to me, 
opposing inclusion of any items in this Supplemental that fall within 
their committee's jurisdiction.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chairman of the Committee. I intend to work 
out language in the conference that will be acceptable to all parties 
and include the reclassification provisions for these Pennsylvania 
hospitals.


                         arkansas river bridge

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senators Byrd, 
Stevens, Shelby, and Murray for their help in providing the necessary 
funding for the repair and reconstruction of the Arkansas River bridge 
on Interstate 40 which was hit by a barge on the morning of May 26. As 
my colleagues are aware, the accident caused a catastrophic failure of 
the bridge structure and resulted in several sections of the bridge 
collapsing. Tragically, 14 lives were lost before the traffic crossing 
the bridge was stopped.
  Interstate 40 is a major east-west route for personal vehicle traffic 
as well as commercial trucking. According to the American Trucking 
Association, approximately 40% of the traffic on I-40 each day is 
trucks. The estimated cost to just the trucks delayed by the detour is 
estamated by ATA to be $480,000 per day. That does not even consider 
the cost to passenger traffic as a result of the delay. Lengthy travel 
delays are exaggerated by the fact that the immediate area around the 
bridge is rural and alternate routes are only two lanes.
  According to transportation statistics, the chances of an accident 
occurring on a narrow two lane road is double when compared to a four 
lane divided highway. Complicating that of course is the added problem 
of the increased truck traffic.
  Mr. President, we are facing not only a major east-west traffic 
disruption and all the corresponding economic consequences, but the 
elements are in place for a serious safety hazard. The potential for 
further loss of life cannot be overstated.
  It is because of these reasons that I was happy to work with the 
Appropriation committee in securing the emergency spending for Oklahoma 
to reconstruct the bridge.
  This reconstruction is eligible for reimbursement under the Emergency 
Relief program with the Federal Highway Administration. Unfortunately, 
that program has a $108 million backlog which means that Oklahoma could 
not reasonably expect to be reimbursed in a timely manner. Because 
Oklahoma highway resources are fully committed, it would be impossible 
to get the repairs on the bridge done quickly if they could not on a 
quick reimbursement. This language addresses not only the Oklahoma 
emergency but also the backlog of existing needs in the Emergency 
Relief program.
  I see my Colleagues, Senator Nickles is also wanting to speak on 
this, so I yield the floor to him.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I would first like to thank President 
Bush for providing the down payment of $3 million to begin the process 
of the recovery. I would also like to thank Senators Byrd, Stevens, 
Shelby and Murray for their help in providing the remaining $12 
million. This is the appropriate way to respond to an emergency.
  Interstate 40 is one of the nation's vital east-west links. This 
tragedy not only took lives, but also is causing hardships and major 
economic disruptions in surrounding communities.
  I applaud Senator Inhofe for his efforts. I am pleased that we could 
work together to secure the additional funds for the bridge repair and 
all other associated costs.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, included in the supplemental is foreign 
assistance for Turkey. My colleagues and I recognize and appreciate 
Turkey's contributions to our war on terrorism and the reconstruction 
of Afghanistan.
  We are also aware of a recent meeting in Iceland between the foreign 
minister of Turkey and Armenia, and encourage additional efforts to 
improve bilateral relations. I fully support the President's April 24, 
2002 statement calling for Turkey to restore economic, political and 
cultural links with Armenia. I have already communicated to both the 
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense my hope that confidence 
building measures--including

[[Page S5189]]

opening a rail link between Kars, Turkey and Gyumri, Armenia--can be 
agreed upon and implemented. Opening the border is in America's 
national interests, as I believe it may help America in our war on 
terrorism.
  The benefits of resolving regional disputes greatly outweigh the 
maintenance of the status quo. In short, regional stability not only 
enhances U.S. security interests, but also contributes to economic, 
political, and social development in Turkey and throughout the 
Caucuses.
  Turkey and Armenia have an opportunity to make meaningful progress in 
their bilateral relations--and they have my support and encouragement.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the President's statement be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                              The White House,

                                       Washington, April 24, 2002.
       Today, we commemorate an appalling tragedy of the 20th 
     century, the massacre of as many as 1.5 million Armenians 
     through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman 
     Empire. These horrific killings left wounds that remain 
     painful for people in Armenia, in Turkey, and around the 
     world. I join the Armenian community in America and across 
     the globe in mourning this horrendous loss of life.
       Today is an occasion for the world to reflect upon and draw 
     lessons from these terrible events. It is a day for 
     recognizing that demonizing others lays the foundation for a 
     dark cycle of hatred. Transcending this venomous pattern 
     requires painful introspection about the past and wise 
     determination to forge a new future based on truth and 
     reconciliation. In this spirit, I look forward to Turkey 
     restoring economic, political, and cultural links with 
     Armenia.
       The United States greatly values the contributions that 
     Armenians make to our national life. With faith and courage, 
     generations of Armenians have overcome great suffering and 
     proudly preserved their centuries-old culture, traditions, 
     and religion. The United States is also deeply grateful for 
     Armenia's swift and decisive cooperation in the war against 
     terrorism.
       Just as the United States reached out to the Armenian 
     people to provide shelter and freedom early in the last 
     century, so did Armenia extend a supportive hand to the 
     American people in the immediate aftermath of September 11. 
     Our two peoples stand together in this fight in support of 
     values that define civilization itself.
       I am also very proud of America's strong support for a free 
     Armenian state, whose citizens enjoy the fruits of peace and 
     increasing prosperity. In the months to come, America will 
     continue to increase its security cooperation with Armenia 
     and with Armenia's neighbors to combat terrorism and pursue a 
     lasting and just settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, 
     which will strengthen peace and stability in the Caucasus. 
     The United States will also continue its strong support for 
     Armenia's efforts to develop democratic and free market 
     institutions, and to deepen its integration into the Euro-
     Atlantic community.
       On behalf of the American people, I send warm wishes and 
     expressions of solidarity to the Armenian people on this 
     solemn day of remembrance. Together, our nations look with 
     hope and determination toward a future of peace, prosperity, 
     and freedom.
                                                   George W. Bush.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to S. 2551, legislation 
making supplemental appropriations for further recovery from and 
response to terrorist attacks on the United States for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.
  On March 21, the President submitted to Congress a $27.1 billion 
request for emergency funding to continue to fight the war on terrorism 
and respond to the September 11 attacks on our country. It was a 
prudent request and one that should have been quickly acted upon. The 
legislation passed on May 24 by the House of Representatives closely 
tracked the President's request. Unfortunately, the majority in the 
Senate has chosen a much different course of action and constructed a 
wasteful amalgamation of pork.
  The President asked for emergency funding for critical resources to 
support the war on terrorism and secure the homeland as we recover and 
rebuild. Yet the product before the Senate includes scores of unneeded 
items that cost billions of dollars--all classified as an 
``emergency.'' The numbers speak for themselves. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee reported out a bill that spends $3.8 billion 
more than requested by the President, for a total of over $31 billion. 
More significantly, by reshuffling priorities, the committee failed to 
fund $10.4 billion in emergency spending items that the President had 
requested, and instead decided to fund $14.6 billion in spending items 
not included in the President's request. Most astounding is the fact 
that each Federal agency is allocated more money than the President 
requested except for one--the Department of Defense. I cannot support 
this bill.
  Fortunately, it will never be enacted into law. On June 4, the 
administration sent the Senate a Statement of Administration Policy. 
Pointedly, the letter says that, ``[i]f the supplemental appropriation 
bill were presented to the President in its current form, his senior 
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.'' Our efforts to 
improve this legislation have been thwarted by the Majority. 
Consequently, this legislation should be vetoed by the President if it 
reaches his desk.
  It is important to remember the context here: that the Federal 
Government is facing a potential deficit somewhere in the range of $100 
to $150 billion. Spending needs must be met, but they must be met in a 
responsible manner. This bill truly fails the test of fiscal 
restraint--with every extra dime, it should be noted, coming out of the 
Social Security surplus. It is worth mentioning that some of the most 
vocal supporters of this bill are those very same Senators who 
routinely lament efforts to return taxpayer dollars to the American 
people in the form of tax relief. In fact, this bill costs--in spending 
for this year alone--30 times more than what it would cost to make 
repeal of the death tax permanent. It is deeply disappointing to me 
that those Senators who reflexively label tax relief ``fiscally 
irresponsible'' are the quickest to turn right around and spend it on 
unnecessary items in the name of an ``emergency.''
  The fact is that the great majority of these questionable add-ons are 
for purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with national defense, 
homeland security, or antiterrorism efforts--for example, $11 million 
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, for 
economic assistance to New England fishermen and fishing communities; 
$2 million for the Smithsonian to begin design of an alcohol storage 
facility for specimens; $50 million for renovating the Ames, IA animal 
research lab; $45 million for Amtrak; $40 million for monitoring animal 
health and enhancing pest detection; and $2.5 million for charting the 
Hawaiian coral reefs. This is just a small sample of an exhaustive list 
of funding for programs totally unrelated to homeland security.
  As the administration's SAP accurately states, ``[t]he 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 SAP continues by stating that the 
Senate bill ``includes scores of unneeded items that total billions of 
dollars--all classified as `emergency.' The bill adds unrequested funds 
for numerous programs and projects throughout nearly all of the Federal 
agencies.''
  What's more, the bill, by requiring that the President designate as 
emergency items ``all or none'' of its nondefense funding items, unduly 
restricts the President's authority. Under the Budget Enforcement Act, 
the President is supposed to have 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, nonemergency items in order to 
access high priority homeland security and recovery funding. Thus, this 
legislation prohibits the President from designating anything for 
defense--such as ammunition and medical stocks--as an emergency, unless 
unrequested items--like alcohol collections and coral reef charting--
are also designated as emergencies.
  Expansion of government often occurs during times of war. We have a 
fundamental responsibility to the American people, however, to use only 
those additional resources necessary to counter the threat to our 
country. It is not our place to use the current emergency as a veil for 
our own special interest initiatives. Unfortunately, the Senate 
supplemental appropriation funding bill breaks faith with the American 
people, and accordingly, I vote my conscience. I vote no.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, yesterday's terror attack in the Middle

[[Page S5190]]

East is tragic and heartbreaking. A car packed with explosives and 
driven by a Palestinian terrorist blew up next to a bus near the town 
of Afula in northern Israel, killing at least 17 people and wounding 
dozens more.
  This act of terrorism came on the 35th anniversary of the 1967 
Mideast War.
  The Palestinian terrorist group ``Islamic Jihad'' claimed 
responsibility for the attack, which occurred during CIA Director 
George Tenet's trip to the region. It is clear that extremists are 
actively undermining any prospects for peace with Israel.
  PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat--by virtue of his inability to reign-in 
extremists and terrorists--is becoming increasingly irrelevant in the 
peace process. It is time for Arafat to lead the Palestinians to peace, 
or to pass the mantle to someone who will.
  The amendment I offer will allow Israel to use the funds appropriated 
in the supplemental bill in the most targeted and effective manner to 
counter terrorism that is claiming innocent lives and destroying 
prospects for peace in that region.
  As this aid is provided through the Economic Support Fund (ESF) 
account, its use is restricted in a manner that does not address our 
ally's most pressing counterterrorism needs--non-lethal equipment vital 
to defending civilian populations from terrorist attacks.
  Section 531(e) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 expressly 
prohibits the use of ESF funds for ``military or paramilitary 
purposes''. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Senate to 
hamstring the ability of Israel authorities to counter the clear and 
ever-present danger posed to Israeli civilians by homicide bombers.
  My amendment provides for the transfer of ESF funds for Israel in 
this bill to the ``Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and 
Related Programs'' account, which will allow for the purchase of non-
lethal equipment that will contribute to countering acts of terrorism 
against the Israeli people. This includes bomb detection, x-ray, and 
personnel protection equipment, among other essential items.
  Let me be clear that the defensive nature of the assistance provided 
to Israel in this supplemental bill is unchanged by my amendment, as is 
the overall amount provided for counterterrorism programs and 
activities.
  Mr. President, Americans understand the devastation caused by 
extremists bent on waging jihad against the world's democracies. We 
know the pain of surprise attacks, and the collective suffering of a 
nation following the slaughter of innocent civilians.
  During these difficult times, the people of Israel should know that 
they do not stand alone. We have a common enemy in terrorism. And we 
will fight--and win--as many battles as it takes to protect the freedom 
and democracy both the American and Israeli people enjoy.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in keeping in our 
thoughts and prayers the victims and their families of this latest 
terrorist attack.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I address some of the concerns I have 
with H.R. 4775, the Fiscal Year 2002 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations Act.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the cost of 
President Bush's emergency spending request is pegged at $28.4 billion. 
This Senate bill we are considering is almost $4 billion more than what 
President Bush requested in his emergency supplemental request to 
Congress. And even though the Senate bill we are considering is 
billions more than what the President requested, we still aren't even 
fully funding $10.4 billion in emergency spending requested by the 
President. We are shortchanging the President $10.4 billion in this 
bill from his emergency spending request to help fight the war on 
terrorism, yet we are piling on $4 billion in new funding in special 
projects which is not at all designated as emergency spending by the 
President.
  The bill's priority funding of non-emergency measures, while ignoring 
the President's full request for emergency funding to fight terrorism 
and ensure the safety of our citizens, just doesn't make sense to me. 
The real kicker is this, Mr. President, despite the $4 billion of 
overfunding in this bill, only one federal agency did not receive more 
money than requested by President Bush--the Department of Defense. The 
purpose of this bill is to provide the President with emergency funding 
to help fight the war on terrorism, and in this bill we are refusing to 
fully fund the Department of Defense's needs to help us fight this war. 
That point baffles me.
  As well, I am disappointed that we were unable to address some 
serious budgetary issues facing the Senate. We have no fiscal year 2003 
budget resolution or discretionary spending caps as we venture towards 
committee and floor consideration of our 13 appropriations bills. For 
the first time since 1974 the Senate has failed to pass a budget 
resolution. This is embarrassing and a bit disgraceful. It is not 
simply a problem for the Senate alone. The lack of a budget resolution 
is the potential problem of every American. For without a budget 
resolution and discretionary allocation limits, we are essentially 
walking Americans down a path scattered with deficit and debt 
landmines.
  Let me just touch on how bad things have gotten lately with our 
Nation's checkbook. Last year, CBO anticipated and predicted a $313 
billion surplus for fiscal year 2002. And now, we all know we are 
facing a gaping deficit. We will borrow and spend all of the $168 
billion Social Security surplus and at the same time have to borrow 
about another $137 billion from the private markets. So the bottom line 
is that we are going to have to borrow over $300 billion. And this is 
new debt stacked on top of the whopping $6 trillion debt we already 
have.
  Now we can all cross our fingers and hope that we are going to 
experience a long economic recovery which will allow us to balance our 
federal checkbook and say goodbye to deficits and debt, but that just 
isn't smart and fiscally prudent. If there is no timely recovery with 
the growth rate we all would like to anticipate, then the deficits are 
going to get bigger and bigger and make it all the harder in the future 
to curb spending and get any reign on fiscal restraint. I know some of 
these choices aren't easy to make, but we have to make them.
  Earlier today we had the opportunity to pass a provision on this bill 
to institute some fiscal discipline by imposing some enforceable 
discretionary spending caps. Unfortunately, this provision failed. 
Hopefully, somehow soon before we trek down the appropriations process, 
we can set some limits on spending and live within our means.
  The White House has released a Statement of Administration Policy for 
the Senate on this bill. President Bush say he will veto this bill 
outright because of the lack of fully funding his emergency requests, 
and because there are many extraneous spending provisions in the bill 
that he did not request.
  In fact, here is a quote from President Bush regarding the 
supplemental bill. He say, ``It's important that we get a supplemental 
out and, frankly, a supplemental that doesn't bust the budget. And 
we'll be looking forward to working with senators, to explain to them 
that the supplemental ought to focus on emergency measures, measures 
that are needed to fight the war, to button-up the homeland. But the 
supplemental shouldn't be viewed as an opportunity to load it up with 
special projects.''
  I am hopeful that when we eventually get to conference with the House 
of Representatives, that the conferees work to report a bill out which 
removes the non-emergency spending, fully funds the President's 
emergency spending request, and addresses the fact that we have set no 
limits on discretionary spending for fiscal year 2003.
  Mr. President, I thank you for time allotted to me to address my 
concerns with this bill.
  Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, before we invoked cloture on the 
supplemental appropriations bill today, it had been my intention to 
offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, which I believed was a very 
important statement about our commitment to fiscal constraint and 
responsibility. Senate rules now prevent my amendment from being 
considered, so I want to go on record regarding the amendment, our 
budgetary situation and the need to tighten our belts.

[[Page S5191]]

  The bill we are considering, S. 2551, a bill making supplemental 
appropriations for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist 
Attacks on the United States, was scored at $30.9 billion or roughly $4 
billion over the President's request of $27.1 billion. While this bill 
recognizes the need to fund emergency homeland requirements and has 
many worthwhile things in it, one could argue that some of its contents 
are questionable at best.
  Now, I realize that ``pork'' and other unfavorable terms for specific 
projects are clearly in the eyes of the beholder. But where does it all 
stop?
  I am sure that we could all justify, even enthusiastically promote, 
projects in our own states that most members might think loony or 
wasteful. Whether it is Federal marshals, summer school, hospitals or 
jars of alcohol on the Mall, they are all important, but where does it 
stop? It is one thing to spend money for these types of things when you 
have money, but quite another when your broke or in debt. That is why 
we must have strong controls and a cap on what we can spend. I was 
disappointed that the Senate rejected such controls yesterday voting 
down the Feingold-Gregg amendment. I haven't been here long, but I do 
know that if we don't enact some spending controls, things will get out 
of control quickly.
  There is a general acknowledgement that a short-term budget deficit 
may be necessary to provide the appropriate resources to fight the war 
on terrorism. But at the same time, we need to look at the impact of 
this very supplemental appropriations bill on our domestic spending and 
our budget deficit.
  Therefore, I had intended to offer a sense-of-the-Senate resolution 
which basically said that the total of the fiscal year 2003 
appropriations bills should have been reduced by the amount we spend 
over the President's request as determined by the Congressional Budget 
Office. If this supplemental ends up being $3.8 billion higher or $4.2 
billion, or whatever the number is over the President's $27.1 billion 
request, then the Senate should agree that we would reduce our total 
appropriations figure by that amount in the upcoming appropriations 
cycle. It is not a scientific formula, just a start down the path of 
fiscal responsiblity--a concept that seems to have lost its 
preeminence.
  So, while I will not offer this amendment today, I will promote this 
idea in the coming weeks and fight for real progress during the 
upcoming appropriations process.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support helping New England 
fishermen and their communities, and by that I mean helping them now, 
when they need it, not later this year or next year, but now. And I 
want to thank our distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee Senator Byrd and the Ranking Member Senator Stevens. I would 
also like to thank Chairman Hollings of the Senate Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary and the 
Subcommittee Ranking Member, Senator Gregg, for their steadfast support 
of the New England fishermen and for including provisions to help 
fishermen and fishing communities in New England recover from the 
effects of a devastating lawsuit which is already having severe 
economic consequences in New England.
  The entire New England groundfish industry is reeling from a lawsuit 
that was finally decided on May 23. I would like to point out that the 
fishing season starts on May 1, so the fishermen and the shore side 
industry learned the rules by which they must live less than a month 
into the season. It's hard to plan a fishing season under those 
circumstances. And the ramifications reach beyond just our fishermen. 
We have over 1,000 active groundfish boats in New England employing 
thousands of fishermen, and economists estimate that for each job on a 
fishing vessel we have four jobs on shore to support the industry.
  In addition, Massachusetts Bay, the prime inshore fishing grounds for 
the small day boats from our North Shore, South Shore and Provincetown 
fleets have been closed since January 1. The area was scheduled to open 
in May, but the court order extends that closure. These fishermen and 
their families are struggling and have barely made it through the 
winter. Now, when May comes around they are unable to go fishing, earn 
some money and pay the bills. These families need help now!
  I want to be clear. We are not backing away from our obligation to 
protect New England's fisheries. I know as much as anyone that this is 
a federal resource. We have an obligation to protect it and preserve 
it, to ensure that generations of New Englanders have the opportunity 
to fish and to protect a Federal, natural resource that belongs to all 
Americans. But at the same time, we are seeking some help for the 
people and communities who bear the brunt of these necessary 
conservation rules. These people need some financial assistance while 
we make the transition to sustainable fishing.
  I would like to point out that it is not just the New England 
fishermen who are hurting. As I mentioned earlier, for every job at sea 
in Massachusetts, economists estimate that we have four shore side jobs 
to support the industry. This includes net makers, processors, ice 
dealers and boat maintenance facilities. I should add that part of the 
court order increased the mesh size from 6 inches to six and \1/2\ 
inches for all nets used to catch groundfish. This is great for 
conservation because it reduces the catch of undersized fish, however 
overnight every fishermen had to replace his nets. That means that all 
of the net makers with 6 inch mesh were now sitting on hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of worthless inventory. For the typical gillnetter 
in New England this means they all have to come up with $10,000 before 
they can go fishing. Remember, these are all small, family-owned 
businesses and in some cases these are people that have not been 
working since January 1. These people need some help!
  Again I wish to thank Senators Byrd, Stevens, Hollings and Gregg for 
their stalwart support of these hardworking fishermen and their 
families.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the provisions in this supplemental that provide financial aid to 
the New England groundfish fishery. This crisis is not caused by 
natural disaster, but by the failure of our fisheries management system 
to effectively manage marine resources and dependent industries.
  I worked with my colleagues from Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New 
Hampshire to get this funding in the bill. And I want to thank the 
Chairman, Senator Byrd, and the Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, for 
understanding the need for this funding.
  The bill includes $11 million for economic assistance to fishermen 
and fishing communities affected by Federal closures and restrictions 
on fishing. My State of Maine will receive $2 million as a result of 
this provision. States have the option of developing locally-
appropriate spending plans for this money or asking NMFS to distribute 
the money, to ensure that it goes to those who need it most.
  It also provides $5 million for direct economic assistance to those 
in the industry affected by court-ordered management measures, in 
return for their participation in activities that support port and 
coastal security. In this way, we can meet two important goals, helping 
fishermen who temporarily cannot fish and helping coastal communities 
participate in national security efforts.
  Over the past several months, New England fishermen have been 
watching their livelihoods disappear. Litigation was brought against 
the National Marine Fisheries Service for not rebuilding stocks fast 
enough, and this litigation ended in court-ordered management measures 
that would have resulted in more than 4,000 lost days at sea for 
Maine's fishermen alone. The court ignored the negotiated settlement 
reached by the interested parties and issued its ruling five days 
before the fishing season started.
  These numbers pale in comparison to the economic, cultural, and 
historical value of the New England groundfish fishery. In Maine alone, 
26,000 people have jobs directly related to the fishing industry and 
last year groundfish alone accounted for $17.7 million in fish 
landings. Nationally, the fishing industry contributes over $7 billion 
to the U.S. economy.
  While the Judge reconsidered her original ruling and adopted the 
negotiated settlement, the number of days

[[Page S5192]]

that fishermen can target groundfish is reduced by a minimum of 20 
percent. And that translates into thousands of lost fishing days and 
millions of dollars lost to the regional economy.
  The economic assistance in this bill will not fix the flaws in the 
management system, but it will help our fishermen through a difficult 
transition period while we fix the management problems that left NMFS 
facing 104 lawsuits at the beginning of May. I am the Ranking Member of 
the Commerce Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and I am working with 
Chairman Kerry to get the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act preauthorized 
so that we can stop managing our fisheries by litigation.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate today 
with regard to the amendment offered by Senators Kennedy, Smith, and 
Boxer on Wednesday, June 5. As you know, this amendment would provide 
$150 million in emergency spending for the 21st Century Community 
Learning Centers program for summer school programs. While I do support 
this program, I do not support the amendment offered by Senator 
Kennedy.
  The supplemental appropriations bill is designed to be a vehicle for 
emergency spending measures, most often funding for the defense of the 
United States. I am particularly disappointed with the Senate's version 
of the supplemental appropriations bill because it contains increased 
appropriations for every Federal department except for the Department 
of Defense while we are at war against terrorism.
  In my opinion, funding for summer school programs simply does not 
qualify as emergency spending worthy of placement in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. It is highly likely that school districts and 
other eligible grantees would not even get the funds in enough time to 
effectively utilize them. I do recognize that many States have been 
faced with difficult financial decisions because of constrained budgets 
and that many have had to cut summer school programs. The regular 
appropriations process for education programs is the appropriate time 
for the Senate to determine the appropriation for the 21st Century 
Community Learning Centers program.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to briefly describe an 
amendment that I filed to the fiscal year 2002 Emergency Supplemental 
Appropriations bill currently before the Senate. Simply, my amendment 
dealt with the Food and Drug Administration's `Pediatric Rule,' which 
the agency issued in 1999 to require that companies conduct clinical 
trials in which children are the subjects for drugs that may provide a 
health benefit for the pediatric population. After discussing my 
amendment with several colleagues, I have decided not to offer it at 
this time. I believe, however, that this is an important issue that 
must be settled this year.
  In 1999, FDA issued new regulations requiring pediatric studies of 
certain new and marketed pharmaceutical and biological products. The 
agency determined that most drugs had not been adequately tested in the 
pediatric population. The 1999 rule requires that manufacturers of 
certain products provide sufficient data and information to support the 
directions for pediatric use for claimed indications. The pediatric 
rule filled an important gap in FDA's regulation of drug and biologic 
products. I know that many of us have been concerned about the lack of 
important pediatric information on marketed drug products.
  The rule and the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, which was 
enacted in January of this year, have different provisions, though they 
complement each other in important respects. The Best Pharmaceuticals 
for Children Act provides incentives for companies to test products in 
children and provides them with six month pediatric marketing 
exclusivity for products approved for pediatric use. The statute does 
not require any pediatric testing. In addition, the rule includes 
biological products in its requirements whereas the statute does not. 
Many of the new products that may provide significant health benefits 
to the children of this country are biologics. And the statute only 
allows each product to be considered once in its lifecycle, which means 
that FDA cannot request information on any pediatric uses not 
anticipated at the beginning.
  I understand that the Secretary of Health and Human Services supports 
the continued enforcement of the pediatric rule and that he so stated 
in a Labor Health and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee 
hearing earlier this week.
  Congressional action ensuring that the pediatric rule remains in 
effect for the foreseeable future is necessary and appropriate, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks on this 
issue.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I was very disturbed to learn that the 
Appropriations Committee included language in the Emergency 
Supplemental that would direct the Department of Transportation to work 
with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and State motor vehicle 
authorities to implement a policy with respect to immigrant eligibility 
for drivers licenses. This decision was made without any consultation 
with the Committee of jurisdiction. The issue of immigrant access to 
drivers licenses is a complex one, implicating road safety, as well as 
questions of immigration, discrimination and racial profiling. It is a 
controversial issue that is being addressed by almost all state 
legislatures and about which there has yet to develop a national 
consensus.
  My reading of the provision is that this language applies solely in 
the case where a State elects to move towards the policy on 
nonimmigrants referenced by the Report. In such a case, the Committee 
intends to direct the Department of Transportation to act as a liaison 
between the state motor vehicle department and the INS to facilitate 
implementation of the State's policy.
  This language should not be intended as a mandate to the states, nor 
affect in any way the States' discretion to determine which of their 
residents is eligible for a drivers license. Indeed, there is no 
statute on the books authorizing the Department of Transportation to 
limit, entice, or otherwise influence a state's discretion to provide 
drivers licenses to immigrants. Moreover, there are no funds in the 
bill itself or elsewhere that have been authorized for such purposes.
  Finally, the language does not authorize the Department of 
Transportation or the Immigration and Naturalization Service to publish 
regulations or guidelines for States to follow, nor does it require any 
particular action either by the Department of Transportation or by the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.
  Everyone agrees that drivers licenses must provide accurate and 
reliable proof of one's identity and ability to operate a motor 
vehicle. However, tying drivers licenses expiration dates to visa 
expiration dates will not enhance our security. Sophisticated 
terrorists with substantial financial resources are likely to have the 
ability to obtain drivers licenses when necessary, regardless of 
restrictions like those discussed in the Supplemental.
  Moreover, State drivers license issuing agencies should not be in the 
business of verifying immigration status, as determining immigration 
status is very complicated with serious ramifications for all non-
citizens. The term nonimmigrant itself is a technical legal term that 
leads to much confusion. Errors will likely result as motor vehicle 
personnel attempt to interpret complicated immigration law provisions. 
Distinguishing between immigrant, nonimmigrant, and other applicants, 
as well as understanding when visas expire, is complicated and very 
difficult without proper training. Furthermore, nonimmigrant visas do 
not have uniform documentation nor do they have a simple expiration 
date.
  Experience has shown that when public officials are required to check 
immigration status, Latinos, Asians, and others who appear to be 
foreign are asked to produce additional documentation or have their 
documents more closely scrutinized. This behavior often results in 
civil rights violations, frequently involving U.S. citizens and legal 
permanent residents.
  While security concerns are extremely important, we need to consider 
the negative consequences of linking drivers licenses to immigration 
status.
  Mr. President, this legislation on supplemental appropriations for 
further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United 
States for fiscal year 2002 provides $15 million for the State 
Department to create a new

[[Page S5193]]

high school exchange program for students from predominantly Islamic 
countries. The program that will be established with this funding is 
based on S. 2505, the Cultural Bridges Act, which Senators Lugar, 
Leahy, Chafee, Dodd, Hagel, Gordon Smith, Cochran, Brownback, Jeffords, 
Durbin, Feingold, and I introduced on May 10.
  One of the clear lessons of September 11th is that our government 
needs to do more to ensure that future generations in the Islamic world 
understand more about American values and culture. A recent Gallup poll 
in nine predominantly Muslim countries revealed strong anti-American 
attitudes. Nearly 1.5 billion people live in the Islamic world, and if 
we ignore these sentiments, we do so at our own peril. If we try to 
address the problem directly, by teaching American values to students 
from the Islamic world, we have a chance, in the long run, of changing 
negative attitudes. It's a long process, which September 11th has 
taught us we must begin now.
  There are no better ambassadors for American values than Americans 
themselves, and student exchange programs have proven to be an 
effective tool in reaching out to the next generation of leaders. As 
Secretary Powell said in his August 2001 Statement on International 
Education Week, ``I can think of no more valuable asset to our country 
than the friendship of future world leaders who have been educated 
here.''
  In October of last year, President Bush spoke eloquently about the 
need to reach out in friendship to children and the Islamic world. In a 
speech to students at Thurgood Marshall Extended Elementary School, the 
President said that America is ``determined to build ties of trust and 
friendship with people all around the world--particularly with children 
and people in the Islamic world.''
  To facilitate the President's goal of reaching children, this 
supplemental appropriations bill provides the funding that is essential 
for the State Department to create a new program for high school 
students from the Islamic world to study in the United States. No 
federal program currently exists to facilitate such student exchanges 
with ever-increasing numbers of youth in the Islamic world.
  There are many benefits to reaching out to students while they are 
young and open-minded to enhance mutual cultural understanding and 
tolerance. Today's high school students are tomorrow's leaders, and we 
need to begin working with them now to inform their attitudes about our 
country.

  In January 20, 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post, a former Fulbright 
scholarship recipient from Egypt expressed concern that his university 
in Egypt was and continues to be fertile ground for recruiters from 
terrorist or extremist organizations. Our challenge is to provide young 
students with the opportunity to learn about America, participate in 
all aspects of American family life, and understand our values before 
they reach that stage.
  The high school student exchange program that will be developed with 
this funding will be modeled on the State Department's highly 
successful Future Leaders Exchange Program (FLEX), which brings 
approximately 1,000 students ages 15-17 from the Newly Independent 
States to the United States each year to attend an American high school 
for a year and live with an American family.
  The FLEX program has been extremely effective in shaping attitudes 
among the students selected to participate from the Newly Independent 
States. A 1998 U.S. government study, which compared Russian FLEX 
alumni with other Russian youth of the same age, indicated that the 
FLEX alumni are more open to and accepting of Western values and 
democratic ideals. They are more likely to want to become leaders in 
and to make a contribution to their society. They tend to be more 
optimistic about the future of their country--especially its evolution 
to a more democratic, rule-of-law society--than other Russian youths.
  Significantly, the FLEX program has been successful in the six 
predominantly Islamic countries from the Newly Independent States--
Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and 
Uzbekistan. More than 1,500 students from those Muslim countries have 
studied and lived in the United States since the program began. FLEX 
alumni in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan are teaching English in their 
home countries, and alumni in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been 
involved in activities to develop democratic practices. Given the track 
record in these countries, there is every reason to believe that a high 
school student exchange program would succeed throughout the Islamic 
world.
  Like the existing student exchange program for the Newly Independent 
States, and consistent with the Cultural Bridges Act, this new program 
should require participating students in high school exchanges from the 
Islamic world to be selected competitively and in a manner that ensures 
geographic, gender, and socio-economic diversity. To qualify, students 
should be tested extensively and interviewed under State Department 
guidelines. As with the FLEX program, the State Department should work 
with experienced American non-governmental organizations to recruit, 
select, and place students and will remain in close contact with the 
public high school, American host family, and American non-governmental 
organizations while the students are in the United States.

  Importantly, consistent with the Cultural Bridges Act, all students 
and visitors participating in programs authorized in this legislation 
should be admissible under all immigration laws and procedures. 
Furthermore, legislation recently signed into law improves our ability 
to screen foreign students by requiring increased communication among 
the State Department, the INS, and the schools enrolling foreign 
students and by closing gaps in the existing foreign student monitoring 
program.
  The high school exchange program included in this supplemental 
appropriations bill has been endorsed by the Alliance for International 
Education and Cultural Exchange, AMIDEAST, AFS, the Academy for 
Educational Development, the American Councils for International 
Education, the American Institute for Foreign Study, the Institute of 
International Education, the National Council for International 
Visitors, Sister Cities International, World Learning, and World Study 
Group.
  America must respond to the terrorist threat on many levels. We need 
to ensure that our defenses are strong, our borders are secure, and our 
relationships with allies are vibrant. We also need to do more in the 
area of public diplomacy.
  It is clearly in America's national security interest to promote more 
people-to-people contacts throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, in a May 
3rd speech to the World Affairs Council in California, Deputy Secretary 
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz spoke about the need to reach out and 
strengthen voices of moderation in the Islamic world and to bridge the 
``dangerous gap'' between the West and the Muslim world. He said 
America must ``begin now . . . the gap is wide and there is no time for 
delay.''
  After September 11, many of the Muslim countries condemned those acts 
and pledged to help the United States fight terrorism. As we have seen 
in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere in the Muslim world, some 
individuals and factions within a country can support terrorists and 
terrorist organizations, while others seek to resolve issues 
peacefully. America must reach out in friendship to all individuals in 
the Islamic world who share our worldview.
  The Koran says, ``O Mankind! We created you from a single pair of a 
male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may 
know each other.'' These words speak eloquently of the need for this 
legislation. Building bridges of understanding and tolerance across 
cultures will help ensure that Americans and people of the Islamic 
world will truly understand and know each another.
  I am grateful to Senator Leahy for recommending that funding for this 
new student exchange program be included in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. I am grateful as well to Senators McConnell, Byrd, 
and Stevens for their support. I urge my colleagues to support funding 
for this program, and I hope it will be preserved during the conference 
on the supplemental appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the

[[Page S5194]]

amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it 
pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Daschle), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Mr. Dayton), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Thurmond), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), and the Senator 
from Colorado (Mr. Campbell) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 22, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 145 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--22

     Allard
     Bayh
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Kyl
     Lott
     McCain
     Nickles
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Bingaman
     Campbell
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Thurmond
  The bill (H.R. 4755), as amended was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I take the floor at this late hour to 
express my appreciation to the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, 
for his cooperation in handling this bill and for his masterful 
handling of the bill on the floor. I thought it best to let him do that 
without any action or work on my part. The problem was on his side. I 
believed that Chairman Stevens was the man to deal with those things. 
He did it to perfection. I thank him. We couldn't have gotten to this 
point had it not been for Senator Stevens and his support.
  Let me also thank Harry Reid. Senator Reid is a whip sui generis. He 
has been a real asset to the leadership, and to the managers of the 
bill in getting this bill passed. It has taken hours on his part. For 
his willingness to stay until the last, for his willingness to take our 
statements and get them in the Record, I want to personally thank him 
for a job well done. It is a hard job. I have been a whip. I have not 
been whipped, but I have been a whip around here. So I know the kind of 
work he did.
  I also thank the wonderful staff on both sides of the aisle. They 
worked hard. They worked during the hours after some of us went home to 
sleep. But they stayed here. And they will still be here after we go 
home tonight. We can't thank them enough. They are excellent.
  I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for the courtesies they 
extended.
  I think this is a good bill. I am glad we passed it. We need to get 
it to conference. Perhaps there will battles there.
  I thank all Senators, and I thank the floor staff--the people who are 
here who work many hours. I thank you all.
  Again, I thank Mr. Stevens. He couldn't be a better Senator from 
Alaska. He is the ``Senator of the 20th century'' from Alaska. I salute 
him.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia. 
The Senator from West Virginia is not only a great chairman, he is a 
great friend. I thank him for the privilege of trying to deal with the 
problems that occurred on this side of the aisle.
  I also join in thanking Senator Reid. I think he has shown 
persistence in trying to get this bill through. I don't criticize the 
concept of having gone to cloture, but I do criticize the conduct of 
some under cloture. We will have to deal with that later.
  It is a difficult process. But I will say this: I think this bill is 
important to the country. It is very important to the President. It is 
a bill which I think is very important to those of us who worked so 
hard to try to get it through. We are now going to go to conference 
with the House. Many of the provisions in this bill the House is not 
aware of yet, but I am sure they will be controversial. It is my hope 
we can move in the conference sometime next week and hopefully try to 
address some of the issues that are not in this bill today. They are in 
the House bill. We have cut out some of them.
  I am still bothered by the debt ceiling. I hope that leadership will 
look to the debt ceiling problem to see if we can't get a stand-alone 
bill or some way to address that issue. I remember so well in days past 
when it would fester and get to the point where people were being 
threatened of being put into jail and all of that because Congress had 
not acted. The debt ceiling being lifted reflects the fact that the 
economy of this country has expanded enormously. We have been through a 
period of inflation. As we go into a period of inflation and we roll 
over our debt, we end up with an imbalance by the passage of time 
rather than expenditures of money.
  I believe we ought to accommodate the situation so that people who 
are administering our laws downtown don't feel fearful of what might 
happen to them because of expenditures over which they really cannot 
maintain total control. As we get close to these debt ceiling 
limitations, I think Government slows down out of fear. This is no time 
to have that kind of reaction when we are at war.
  I look forward to working with everyone with the hope that we can 
address that problem sometime before the end of this month. Again, I 
thank my colleagues. I thank the Chair and everyone for their patience. 
I thank the Parliamentarian for his impartiality.
  I was happy to see yesterday come to an end.
  Thank you very much.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, very briefly, I have spoken to Senator 
Daschle about the debt limit. We have a freestanding debt limit bill. 
We are going to work as hard as we can to get it to the floor as 
quickly as we can. I have spoken to Senator Daschle several times in 
that regard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Durbin) appointed Mr. Byrd, Mr. Inouye, 
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Reid of Nevada, 
Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Reed of Rhode Island, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Cochran, Mr. Specter, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bond, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, 
Mr. Shelby, Mr. Craig, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Gregg, Mrs. 
Hutchison of Texas, and Mr. DeWine conferees on the part of the Senate.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, we are going to wrap up things here in just 
a

[[Page S5195]]

minute. I would like to say publicly, as I have said to the Senators 
privately, and to the Presiding Officer, that we have been through a 
very difficult time while you have been presiding. It really is most 
helpful, where there is confusion on the floor, to have someone who 
understands what is going on and who has absolute control of the 
Senate. You did an outstanding job of presiding. That is not easy.
  We have Parliamentarians who help. But it certainly is a tremendous 
help if you have someone such as the Presiding Officer who makes the 
decisions on his own. They were all right. I extend my appreciation and 
our appreciation for the way in which you presided over the Senate 
during consideration of a most important bill. We have heard enough 
talk about it.
  But this is an important bill. It is an emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill which will help our troops, help homeland defense, 
and help veterans.

                          ____________________