Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 73 (Thursday, June 6, 2002)

[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