[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 102 (Wednesday, July 24, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7263-S7282]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM THE RESPONSE 
   TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES, 2002--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
4775. The clerk will report the conference report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     4775) making supplemental appropriations for further recovery 
     from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States 
     for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other 
     purposes, having met, have agreed that the House recede from 
     its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and agree to 
     the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree to the same, 
     signed by a majority of the conferees on the part of both 
     Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will proceed to the consideration 
of the conference report.
  (The report is printed in the House proceedings of the Record of July 
19, 2002, at page 4935.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time is allotted for debate on 
the conference report?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty minutes equally divided between the 
chairman and the ranking member.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, Senator Stevens is on 
his way. He is the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee and 
he will share the time with me. I have been informed he has indicated I 
should proceed immediately with my statement, and he will shortly reach 
the floor and speak on the conference report himself.
  The Senate will then vote on the conference report for the fiscal 
year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. This conference agreement 
provides critical investments in national defense, both at home and 
abroad. Let me say that again. This conference report provides critical 
investments in national defense, both at home and abroad. So let the 
world know that the Appropriations Committee has acted expeditiously, 
working with the House Appropriations Committee in conference, and that 
Senators on both sides of the aisle have worked hard with their staffs 
to provide for these investments in the Nation's defense, both at home 
and abroad.
  This agreement is the result of true bipartisan, bicameral 
cooperation, and I urge its adoption.
  Last fall, America was in shock. The World Trade Center and the 
Pentagon had been attacked. Thousands of Americans had lost their lives 
to the brutal terrorist attacks. Our eyes were opened to the new 
reality of war in the 21st century, a different kind of war. No

[[Page S7264]]

longer were we immune from attack on the homeland that we all love. No 
longer did the great oceans shield our country from the violence that 
had scarred so many nations elsewhere in the world. The danger was 
real. The enemy was among us, not just in some foreign land on another 
continent. We could not ignore the massive gaps in our security any 
longer.
  In response, within days of the attacks, Congress adopted a $40 
billion emergency supplemental bill to fund our military efforts 
overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home. I say 
that again. Within 3 days, Congress adopted a $40 billion--not million 
but $40 billion--emergency supplemental bill to fund our military 
efforts overseas and to protect Americans from further attacks at home.
  That funding helped our U.S. troops to bring the downfall of the 
Taliban, the shakeup of the terrorist al-Quida network, and the start 
of worldwide commitment to end terrorism--wherever it could end, if we 
could end it at home, that initial funding paid for more than 2,200 
agents and inspectors to guard our long, porous borders with Canada and 
Mexico. The foreign student visa program, which has been identified as 
one of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's chief loopholes, is 
undergoing a tighter tracking system because of funding that Congress 
this body and the House included in that initial funding package.
  Across the country, local police officers, firefighters, and 
emergency medical teams are receiving new training and equipment to 
handle threats that, before last fall, they hardly considered possible. 
Who would have imagined that their community fire department and 
paramedics would need training on how to respond to a chemical or 
biological or radiological attack? Bake sales and bingo nights could 
not possibly fund terrorist response efforts. Congress had a 
responsibility to respond, and Congress did respond. We responded 
within 3 days. We knew what our duty was. We knew where our duty lay--
and we acted.
  Federal law enforcement also benefited from the work of this 
Congress, from the work of this committee, this Appropriations 
Committee. Because of the funding contained in the initial supplemental 
bill, the FBI started to hire hundreds of new agents. Because the 
Appropriations Committees in both Houses appropriated the moneys, more 
than 300 additional protective personnel were hired to protect the 
Nation's nuclear weapons complex. Air marshals are coming on board to 
protect our planes. Madam President, 750 food inspectors were hired to 
ensure the safety of the meals served at America's kitchen table 
because--and they were able to do this--because this Appropriations 
Committees, which I chair, and which Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska has 
chaired before me, and on which he now sits as the ranking member, 
because this committee acted in a bipartisan way. No split; no aisle 
between the two parties on the Appropriations Committee. We joined 
together. We did not have to be told. We did not have to be ordered. We 
knew where our duty lay. So 750 food inspectors were hired.
  These are just a few, just a few of the examples of the good work 
that came about because of the investments, the infusion of funds by 
Congress, starting with the Appropriations Committees, because of the 
commitment of the men and the women of this body to identify the gaps 
in homeland security and invest funds--your money, the taxpayers' 
money--to close those gaps.
  In the months that followed that first supplemental, many 
congressional committees held hearings on homeland security. In the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, Senators Stevens of Alaska and I 
convened 5 days of hearings. They were long. They were arduous. They 
were time consuming. They were tiring. Members heard from mayors. 
Members heard from Governors. Members heard from county officials. We 
received testimony from police officers, from firefighters, from local 
health officials, from terrorism experts, from experts on port 
security, from experts on water security and nuclear security. Seven 
Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, appeared before this Appropriations Committee. 
The House Appropriations Committee did not hold a hearing. The Senate 
Appropriations Committee held a hearing. And Senator Stevens and I 
joined in selecting everyone. Everything was done in a bipartisan way. 
So seven Cabinet Secretaries and the Director of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency appeared before the Committee, as well as two former 
colleagues--Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia and Senator Warren Rudman of 
New Hampshire.

  What we learned was eye opening. What we learned was that despite all 
of the efforts of Congress and of the men and women at the local level, 
the task before us was massive. As a result of the incredible backlog 
of homeland security needs, one truth was clearly evident; namely, this 
country was not prepared. We are vulnerable today.
  Earlier this summer, it seemed the administration issued another 
terrorist warning to the American people almost daily. Those warnings 
only underscored the fact that the new enemy lives in our midst--here 
among us. So, as Christopher Wren would say, if you seek my monument, 
look about you. If you seek the enemy, look about you. He is somewhere. 
He is invisible. But he is sure in our midst.
  So the enemy, the new enemy, lives among us, moving through our 
society with ease, crafting life-threatening weapons with everyday 
aspects of life: Tanker trucks, postal mail, airplanes, waste 
radiological material from hospitals and energy plants. Any of these, 
and more, we are told can be fashioned into weapons to cause death, 
destruction, fear, panic.
  The Appropriations Committee of the Senate heard testimony that 
indicated America's adversaries could cripple the U.S. economy without 
great difficulty. That was one of the main objectives of the enemy. 
They could cripple the economy, but at a far greater cost than any 
corporate scandal even. The enemy can disrupt the economy without great 
difficulty and at far greater cost than even any corporate scandal, and 
the roots of a corporate scandal are running deep, as we know.
  Yet what we do not know is the most vexing: Where will the terrorists 
attempt to strike next? And when? We may not know the answer to those 
questions until it is too late and the attacks are upon us.
  What this Congress has a responsibility to do is to invest in 
protections that work to prevent attacks before they can occur, and we 
must help to train our emergency responders to be prepared should 
another attack strike within our border. We need to do more. We need to 
do more now. That is why the conference report before the Senate is so 
critical.
  This afternoon, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee is writing 
legislation to create a new Department of Homeland Security. But that 
Department, no matter how well crafted, will take time before it can be 
an effective tool against terrorism. I am thankful for the fact that 
the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Stevens, sits on that committee.
  We all know where the holes are in our protections--borders, ports, 
at our nuclear facilities, and throughout our transportation system. If 
we know where those holes are, then surely the terrorists know, don't 
you think?
  We should not wait--we must not wait--for the next fiscal year or the 
next calendar year to plug the holes in our homeland security. Congress 
and the President should make the critical investments that will 
protect Americans now--today!--without delay.
  This conference report makes those investments. It directs $6.7 
billion for homeland security initiatives, including $3.85 billion for 
the Transportation Security Administration. Another $14.4 billion will 
allow the men and women in the Armed Services to continue to track down 
those responsible for the terrorist attacks almost 11 months ago. The 
conference report also fulfills Congress's promise to the people of New 
York to provide $20 billion to help them recover from the attacks on 
the World Trade Center with a final installment in this bill of $5.5 
billion. The remainder of the funding will go toward other national 
emergencies including fire suppression in the West, flood recovery 
efforts in the Midwest and South, and veterans' health care. The 
shortfall in the Pell Grant program is resolved, and Amtrak, the 
nation's passenger rail service, will be

[[Page S7265]]

able to stave off bankruptcy, because there are $2.5 billion included 
in this conference report for Amtrak.
  This is a balanced bill, a responsible bill, and one that I hope the 
President will sign. I hope he will sign all of this emergency funding 
into law quickly.
  Why do I say ``all of this emergency funding''? I say that because 
Congress gives the President a choice. We have stated that it is the 
Congress's position that these investments are an emergency and they 
should be made. If the President signs this bill, he will have 30 days 
to decide whether to agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 
billion in this legislation as an emergency. If he does not make the 
emergency designation, the funds cannot be spent.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for an additional time not to exceed 7 minutes and that my partner, my 
fellow Senator, my colleague, may be also allowed that time, and that 
the time for the vote be changed accordingly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Within the $5.1 billion there is nearly $2.5 billion for 
homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police 
officers, port and border security, and airport security, search and 
rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety.
  Let me back up just a moment. The self-imposed interruption might 
cause listeners to lose sight of just where we were.
  So we say the President has 30 days in which to decide whether to 
agree with Congress and designate more than $5.1 billion in this 
legislation as an emergency. If he doesn't make the emergency 
designation, the funds cannot be spent--I am talking about the 
President. If he doesn't make the designation, the funds can't be 
spent. Within the $5.1 billion--that is what we are talking about--
included as emergencies, within that $5.1 billion which the President 
must agree to if it is to be spent, there is nearly $2.5 billion for 
homeland security. That includes funding for firefighters, police 
officers, port and border security and airport security, search and 
rescue teams, food safety, drinking water safety.
  If the President does not make the emergency designation, he will 
block nearly $2.5 billion in homeland security investments. I hope that 
the President will join with Congress in this bipartisan approach to 
homeland security, declare these items to be an emergency, and make 
these important investments immediately to protect the American people 
from terrorist attacks.
  In addition, if the President decides not to make the emergency 
designation, he also will block funding for the National Guard and 
Reserves; election reform; combating AIDS, tuberculosis; and malaria 
overseas; flood prevention and mitigation; embassy security; aid to 
Israel and disaster assistance to Palestinians; wildfire suppression; 
emergency highway repairs; and veterans health care.
  These critical appropriations for the American people have been 
delayed for too long, sometimes as a result of Administration 
intervention, and the time has come for its speedy passage and the 
President's signature.
  Once again I want to thank my Ranking Member, Senator Stevens, the 
former chairman of this committee, for his dedication, his assistance, 
and, indeed for his leadership on this bill. If it were not for Senator 
Stevens, his work, this bill would not be here today. Without his hard 
work and constant efforts, we would not be here to present this 
conference report to the Senate today. I also thank our House 
colleagues, Chairman Bill Young of Florida and Ranking Member David 
Obey of Wisconsin, for their cooperation and commitment to the well-
being of the American people.
  Between the supplemental bill last fall and this conference report, 
Congress has approved $15 billion for homeland security initiatives, 
$5.3 billion above the President's request. This legislation is a real 
victory for the American people. It speeds protections that are so 
desperately needed at our borders and our ports. It provides vital 
training for police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. 
Through this legislation, Congress is making investments today that 
will help to protect Americans from terrorist attack for many years to 
come.
  I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement, and I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am pleased to join the Chairman of 
our Committee, Senator Byrd, in recommending this conference report to 
the Senate. The consideration of this conference report today in the 
Senate, following its overwhelming adoption in the other body 
yesterday, reflects the true consensus that surrounds this agreement.
  While not an easy process, the compromises reached on this bill meet 
the most vital Defense and Homeland Security needs facing our Nation.
  In addition, this agreement fulfills the commitment of the Congress 
and the President to meet the needs of the victims of the attacks of 
September 11 of last year.
  While passed in very different forms by both Houses of Congress, this 
conference report adheres to the priorities submitted to Congress by 
the President. With the funds added by Congress in the form of 
contingent emergency appropriations, the President will have even 
greater flexibility to address challenges not fully foreseen when his 
request was transmitted on March 21, if he approves the emergency 
designation.
  Additional funds for the Department of Defense will address the 
mobilization of National Guard and Reserve personnel from around the 
Nation.
  Funds for port security grants and the Coast Guard will protect our 
Nation's maritime commerce and trade.
  Funds added in this bill for aids response in Africa will jump start 
the international effort to address that scourge.
  The House and Senate Both included additional funds to assist Israel, 
and those prepared to join Israel in seeking a permanent and lasting 
peace.
  The conference report makes an initial down payment to respond to 
dramatic flood and fire emergencies in several states, particularly in 
the West.
  While many activities were reduced during the conference to meet the 
funding limit sought by the President, and the OMB, one component not 
touched was support for New York.
  Governor Pataki and Mayor Bloomberg deserve our continued support for 
their leadership and determination to recover from the attacks last 
year. This bill keeps our word to New York and to those officials.
  Despite suggestions from OMB, the conferees rejected any cut to the 
funding for reconstruction and renovation of the Pentagon.
  Restoration of the sector of the Pentagon damaged on September 11 is 
on track for re-opening on the one year anniversary of the attack--
really our Nation's center of military strategy. We will keep faith 
with those who died defending our Nation at the Pentagon as well as 
those in New York.
  I want to commend our Chairman, Senator Byrd, and the House Chairman, 
Bill Young, for their exceptional work to bring this conference report 
before the Congress.
  Along with House Ranking Member Obey, I have worked to ensure 
completion of this bill prior to the August recess and in time to make 
a difference during the remainder of this fiscal year.
  If the President makes the certification that he has the authority to 
do within 30 days after passage of this bill, the moneys will be 
available to use for the contingent emergencies we have specified. The 
sooner that happens, the better it will be for our Nation.
  But above all, I urge all Members of the Senate to approve this 
conference report and send it to the President as quickly as possible 
so it will be possible to get this money to our people--particularly to 
the Department of Defense and all our people in uniform--by the 
beginning of August.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I rise today in support of an improved 
supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. I am glad to see 
that the Senate conferees have reassessed their position and agreed to 
reduce the amount they had originally sought by more than $2.5 billion. 
The conference report now totals $28.9 billion, which is

[[Page S7266]]

only $1.8 billion over the President's request, and an amount he said 
he would support.
  Additionally, the vast majority of the funds will now be appropriated 
as a contingent emergency, giving the President discretion on whether 
they should be spent, instead of forcing him to designate ``all or 
none'' of the non-defense funding items as emergency items.
  The bill has been improved in other areas as well, signifying a 
marked realignment of priorities by the conferees. For example, I am 
pleased that this report increases defense funding by $330.9 million. 
Although this is an increase over the President's request, the 
conferees used updated Department of Defense execution data to make 
many of their adjustments. They also made rescissions to un-executable 
programs and took back unobligated funds resulting from revised 
economic assumptions in order to offset much-needed increases to the 
defense budget. I note that the increase is primarily focused on 
operations and maintenance, $723.6 million, an area most critical to 
the Department.
  Specifically, I support increases to the Navy flying hour account by 
$140 million, the ship operations account by $225 million, the Air 
Force airlift account by $626 million, and the Army's logistical 
support account by $1.03 billion. These increases will go a long way in 
helping our troops around the globe. In the procurement line, much of 
the funding is related to purchasing advanced C3I equipment. And in the 
Research and Development line, the conferees provided additional funds 
to upgrade existing C3I programs, increases that will be crucial to the 
successful execution of our war on terror.
  Additionally, this bill includes the American Service Members' 
Protection Act language that was proposed by both Chambers, and it 
maintains the Senate's provision giving our military the flexibility to 
conduct operations in coordination with international efforts to pursue 
foreign nationals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and 
genocide.
  On the domestic front, I would also note that the conference report 
includes $100 million in disaster assistance for fires and floods, 
funds that are critically important to the State of Arizona. I strongly 
believe that this amount of funding is still woefully inadequate to 
address the dire circumstances surrounding the fires in the Western 
States; however, I am confident that there will be other legislative 
opportunities in which to adequately fund these firefighting efforts.
  While this bill has improved in many ways, I still believe it spends 
too much money on low-priority programs that are not truly emergencies, 
for example, provisions dealing with another Amtrak bailout and 
numerous non-emergency pork projects such as coral reef mapping. That 
said, especially given the need to support our war on terrorism, the 
merits of this legislation now outweigh its deficiencies. Although not 
perfect, the bill deserves the support of my colleagues. President Bush 
has asked that we get this bill to his desk before August recess. I am 
glad that we will be able to do so.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I support this important supplemental 
appropriations bill, which primarily contains crucial spending that is 
immediately needed for homeland security purposes. I commend the 
managers for their efforts on it. I know that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee and the ranking member worked hard and 
diligently, as did others, to complete this bill. And I know that they 
are not responsible for its delay. I am glad the bill will now go to 
the President, and this funding can go quickly to meet urgent national 
security needs.
  I would like briefly to highlight three topics touched upon by the 
bill, items which are not the largest matters dealt with here, but 
which I consider to be very important. The issues are workforce 
development, disaster assistance and veterans' health care.
  First, as chair of the Employment, Safety and Training Subcommittee, 
with jurisdiction over workforce development issues, I want to address 
the elimination of emergency funding for job retraining services 
through the Workforce Investment Act, WIA, which occurred late during 
the conference on this bill.
  What has happened in connection with WIA programs is, I fear, just 
the tip of the budgetary iceberg. Although confronted with severe 
economic distress and uncertainty and record unemployment, we are being 
told by the administration that we lack the resources for key job-
training services. Having spent our surplus on tax cuts for the well to 
do, we do not have the resources to fund services that are essential in 
helping displaced workers train for and find new employment and in 
helping businesses find the skilled workers they need to stay 
competitive in our global economy.
  Yet investments in a skilled workforce are precisely what we need 
right now. As former Treasury Secretary Rubin recently said, to rebuild 
confidence in our financial markets and economic system, ``[b]udgeting 
priorities should heavily emphasize preparing our future workforce to 
be competitively productive in the global economy . . . ''
  The irony is that additional support for WIA was in the President's 
initial fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. He proposed $750 million 
for WIA, including the restoration of last year's $110 million 
rescission of dislocated worker formula funds. The Senate and the House 
followed, both including WIA funding at lower levels.
  But then, in the quest to reach the overall target the President and 
OMB Director Mitch Daniels set for the emergency supplemental, all of 
the WIA funding was cut.
  Frankly, this seems to contradict what the President is saying 
elsewhere. Just yesterday the President was quoted as saying that his 
biggest concern about Sunday's record bankruptcy filing by WorldCom was 
the effect on employees who lose their jobs. Well, the best thing we 
can do for people who have lost their jobs through Enron, WorldCom, and 
the other bankruptcies is to help them retrain and retool to find new 
jobs.
  And earlier this year when he submitted his supplemental request, we 
were told: ``The President's supplemental budget request provides the 
urgent assistance that is needed now to ensure that affected workers 
get the assistance and jobs they need.''
  This decision is a harsh one for the tens of thousands of workers who 
will not get the training they need to retool their careers. Already 
they are finding that the courses they want to take are closed or they 
are put on endless waiting lists. Workers dislocated because of the 
impact of trade and certified to receive Trade Adjustment Assistance 
find they are unable to get training because States have run out of 
resources and the National Emergency Grant funds that typically see the 
States through such shortages are themselves depleted
  It is harsh as well for businesses that cannot find the skilled 
workers to stay competitive and take advantage of market opportunities 
to help fuel our economic recovery.
  And it also threatens to undercut WIA's key reforms. States and 
localities, along with their private sector partners are now at a 
critical stage in the process of building the new systems called for in 
WIA. Without adequate funding and without stable funding this essential 
systems building will be undermined.
  Moreover, all of this is happening while the new WIA infrastructure 
is being stretched to its limits with demands for services triggered by 
the catastrophic after effects of September 11, the highest 
unemployment in years, and the continuing dislocations from the largest 
bankruptcies ever seen in this Nation's history.
  This is why I am concerned. This is why I felt I had to speak out. I 
understand that we are not going to change the fiscal year 2002 
emergency supplemental to address this problem. But I do want my 
colleagues to understand the full impact of the decisions that have 
been made in this bill concerning some very important priorities. I 
urge my colleagues to reflect on these implications so that when we 
take up the fiscal year 2003 Labor/HHS Appropriations bill, we will be 
especially careful not to further undermine the WIA programs that are 
so critical to American workers, businesses, and our economic recovery.
  The second topic I would like to address is disaster assistance. As a 
result of severe flooding in Northwestern Minnesota 17 counties are 
under a federally declared disaster: Becker,

[[Page S7267]]

Beltrami, Clay, Clearwater, Itasca, Kittson, Koochiching, Lake of the 
Woods, Mahnomen, Marshall, McLeod, Norman, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, 
Roseau, and Wright.
  In the 17 counties that are currently included in the federally 
declared disaster, 1,785 homes were damaged. In Roseau alone over 1,180 
homes were damaged.
  I am pleased that the supplemental includes some much needed funding 
for FEMA. The disaster assistance included here represents a down 
payment in terms of the assistance that the families, businesses and 
communities in my State will need as they move forward and begin the 
process of rebuilding their homes, offices and cities.
  The Minnesota Recovers Task Force estimates that there will be over 
$85 million in disaster funding needs as a result of this spring/summer 
flooding. Of this amount, nearly $50 million will be eligible for FEMA 
funding. That will leave approximately $35 million in recovery needs 
that will not be covered by existing FEMA and SBA assistance programs.
  I am working closely with my colleagues, Senator Dayton and 
Representative Peterson, to secure additional flood recovery funding in 
the fiscal year 2003 HUD Appropriations bill. This funding will be used 
for the distinct purpose of meeting unmet needs for buyouts, 
relocation, rehabilitation, long-term recovery, and mitigation to aid 
the business community of Roseau, MN and the surrounding counties that 
have received a Federal disaster declaration. The funding will be used 
in coordination with other Federal, State, and local assistance.
  While these FEMA programs are very important, unfortunately they are 
not geared to handle agricultural losses. In Northwest Minnesota an 
extraordinary rich agriculture region now lies devastated. According to 
the Farm Service Agency, this season's crop losses are estimated at 
more than $267 million across 14 counties. Overall, total agricultural 
flood losses, including damage to agricultural small businesses, are 
estimated at more than $370 million.
  That is why Senator Dayton and I introduced legislation to provide 
disaster assistance to agricultural producers last week. This 
legislation is a starting point to providing the needed assistance to 
farmers, many of whom, without this emergency assistance will be driven 
off their farms.
  I believe the supplemental appropriations bill would have been the 
appropriate place to add emergency agricultural disaster assistance to 
cover weather-related losses. However, the Bush administration 
continues to oppose any emergency appropriation to provide disaster 
assistance to farmers. The administration's position is that in order 
to provide any relief to family farmers who lost their crop due to a 
flood or drought, money must be taken away from commodity program 
supports that assist other farmers. In other words, they are saying 
that when the President signed the farm bill, that was going to be all 
farmers could expect until 2008, no matter what.
  That doesn't work for Northwestern Minnesota. The farm bill was not a 
disaster-assistance bill. It is a 6-year policy to help stabilize farm 
income and rural economies. Its funding is absolutely needed for that 
purpose.
  We tried to include separate, emergency weather-disaster assistance 
in the farm bill, but the administration opposed that, too. They also 
opposed it when we tried to include it in the supplemental 
appropriations bill. When Congress decides to help areas affected by 
hurricanes or fires, we don't tell people to pull their emergency 
assistance out of somebody else's highway fund. Sometimes the Federal 
Government just needs to be there for people. The President needs to 
change his position and help us get some assistance to Northwestern 
Minnesota.
  Finally, the supplemental appropriation bill includes $417 million 
for veterans health care that I requested which was included in the 
Senate's bill. These funds are critically important to the veterans in 
Minnesota. The need for services has simply overwhelmed the VA and in 
some ways there is more of a crisis now in VA health care now than 
there was even during the era of flat-lined budgets.
  The $417 million for Veterans health care in this bill will mean that 
Minnesota's Network, VISN 23, will get an additional $19 million to 
reduce waiting times, keep clinics open, open new clinics, and improve 
the quality of healthcare. This is very badly needed.
  I want to thank Senators Mikulski and Bond on the VA-HUD Subcommittee 
especially, because I know they fought to keep this money in 
conference, as well as Senators Byrd and Stevens. We did right by 
veterans in this supplemental.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, I rise to comment briefly about Title II, 
the American Service Members Protection Act of H.R. 4775 in order to 
clarify the Senate''s intent in insisting on the retention of Sec. 2015 
of that Title which was added during Senate consideration of the 
supplemental.
  I read with interest the remarks of Chairman Henry Hyde during House 
consideration of the conference report on July 23. I am certainly not 
in any position to dispute his comments concerning the first 14 
sections of Title II relating to the American Service Members 
Protection Act, ASPA, as I was not a party to those discussions. I 
leave it to the administration and to others involved in those 
discussions to make that judgment.
  I do, however, know something about the intent behind Sec. 2015 as I 
was the author of the amendment that was ultimately included in the 
Senate passed version of ASPA. A review of the Senate debate makes 
clear that I was offering the second degree amendment because of my 
concern with respect to the complexity of the House passed language 
which was offered as a first degree amendment by Senator Warner. As 
written, I was concerned that it unduly restricted the ability of the 
President to cooperate with international efforts to bring to foreign 
nationals accused of genocide, war crimes or crimes against humanity to 
justice if he chose to do so.
  Sec. 2015 makes clear that regardless of the other sections contained 
in Title II, the President is not prohibited from rendering assistance 
to any such international efforts, including to the International 
Criminal Court. An amendment to exclude cooperation with the ICC was 
proposed during the conference on H.R. 4775, but was rejected by the 
conferees. Therefore, as the language now stands the President has the 
discretion to cooperate with any and all international efforts to bring 
such criminals to justice.
  I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to clarify an important 
addition to the House version of ASPA.


       FUNDING OF HUMANITARIAN GOODS THROUGH COMMERCIAL SHIPPING

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the supplemental provides language 
supporting the shipment of humanitarian supplies to poor nations. My 
friend from Alabama was the initiator of this language and I was hoping 
he could provide the Senate with more information on this topic.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would be glad to discuss the 
national Forum Foundation's TRANSFORM Program. With the help of my good 
friend from Alaska, I offered an amendment to the supplemental that was 
accepted by the Senate. I understand that it was modified during 
conference--but will now permit organizations, such as the National 
Forum Foundation's TRANSFORM program, to receive the much needed 
authority to receive funds to pay for administrative expenses.
  TRANSFORM began 3 years ago as a natural extrapolation of the Denton 
Program. The Denton Program allows U.S. Air Force Transport aircraft 
under the control of CINCTRANS to deliver overseas on a space available 
basis, humanitarian aid donated by 501(c)(3) charity organizations.
  In analyzing the transportation of humanitarian aid, the National 
Forum Foundation has learned that commercial ships have 2000 times the 
space than our Air Force aircraft and with the export-import imbalance, 
are usually relatively empty departing our ports.
  The TRANSFORM program brings the 501(c)(3) charitable organizations, 
which collect and wish to distribute these goods, to the commercial 
shipping lines willing to carry them space-available. The charity has 
to be indoctrinated to conform to the loading dates and times, port 
locations and the

[[Page S7268]]

specific loading manner required by the ship-line. TRANSFORM exercises 
special means to ensure no delays in ports or customs issues.
  Finally, TRANSFORM's system has a leverage of 250-1 meaning that for 
every dollar of its budgetary expenses, TRANSFORM gets $250 to needy 
recipients.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, may I make an inquiry to my friend from 
Alabama? Is it correct that the TRANSFORM program recently gained 
global recognition of its activities at a transportation conference 
hosted by USAID? I understand that in speaking of its activities, the 
World Food Programme's representative praised the program and offered 
it the use of spare space on their ships. This spurred others to offer 
their vessels--such as American President Line, Maersk and CSX.
  Mr. SESSIONS. My friend from Alaska is correct. And I must commend 
him for the work that he did with the help of the House foreign 
Operations Subcommittee on this issue. The conferees were able to 
ensure that organizations that are working for the benefit of 
developing communities on behalf of the United States government and 
charitable organizations receive the assistance they need to execute 
their much laudable goals. I am very grateful to him for this support.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am optimistic that the larger this program becomes, 
the more humanitarian aid will be delivered to those in need around the 
world. Gain, I thank my friend for bringing this amendment and look 
forward to its future success.
  (At the request of Mr. Stevens, the following statement was ordered 
to be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. HELMS. Madam President, I commend Senators Byrd and 
Stevens and the entire Appropriations Committee, as well as the 
leadership of Senators Warner and Miller for ensuring that American 
soldiers, sailors, aviators and marines will not be subject to the 
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). (I, 
unfortunately, could not be here to offer an amendment on June 6 as I 
was recovering from surgery to replace a valve in my heart.) With 
inclusion of the American Servicemembers Protection Act, ASPA, in the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill we can all be proud that the 
Congress put these brave men and women at the top of our priority list.
  During Senate action on the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill, Senator Warner offered a unanimous consent request to include 
section 2015 in ASPA as generous gesture in the face of concerns raised 
about the spirit of the legislation. I have been assured by Senator 
Warner that he did not intend to limit in any way the applicability of 
the bill or the binding nature of its substance. The hortatory nature 
of section 2015 was plain at the time it was adopted, and confirmed by 
the fact that, during debate shortly before ASPA was overwhelmingly 
approved, no Senator uttered a word--not a single word--to suggest that 
section 2015 made any substantive change to ASPA whatsoever.
  Section 2015 was not part of ASPA language negotiated with the 
Administration. It merely reiterates that ASPA applies only to the 
International Criminal Court. It does not apply to other international 
efforts to bring to justice foreign nationals accused of genocide, war 
crimes, or crimes against humanity.
  Section 2015 must be read in line with ordinary canons of statutory 
construction. Our courts have long affirmed that in interpreting laws 
the specific controls the general unless otherwise provided. There are 
many very specific provisions in ASPA about what is permitted and what 
is forbidden regarding the International Criminal Court. Had the Senate 
wished to weaken ASPA's restrictions through section 2015--thereby 
weakening its protections for American servicemembers--it would have 
had to amend them, strike them, or not withstand them directly. 
However, this would have been completely inconsistent with the plain 
language of the legislation, and the intent of its supporters.
  The full text of sections 2004, 2006, and 2011, along with other 
provisions of the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, was adopted 
by the Senate by a vote of 78-21 when I offered an amendment to the 
Defense Appropriations for fiscal year 2002 bill on December 7, 2001. 
When Senator Warner offered these same provisions as an amendment to 
this supplemental appropriations bill, the Senate had essentially the 
same debate it had on December 7th of last year. No Senator suggested 
that section 2015, which was included by voice vote during the final 
minutes of debate, was intended to alter the legislation that passed 
the Senate previously. The final vote in favor of the ASPA amendment, 
75-19, reflected complete uniformity with the December 7, 2001 
legislation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the conference agreement includes 
bill language recommending that $1 million should be provided by the 
Administration for programs and activities which support the 
development of independent media in Pakistan. This action was taken by 
the conferees in recognition of the important role independent media 
will play in improving democracy in Pakistan. I am aware of the 
excellent work that has been done by Internews in this area and urge 
that their experience be used in the development of this project.
  I also want to note that the agreement includes report language 
encouraging the United States Agency for International Development and 
the Department of State to provide $1 million for programs and 
activities that provide professional training for journalists from the 
Middle East. My colleagues and the Administration should know that 
Internews and Western Kentucky University have jointly conducted 
similar training for journalists from Indonesia and Southeast Asia. 
This has been a very successful partnership, and I expect that funding 
provided in the supplemental bill will be used to expand these efforts 
to the Middle East, particularly Egypt.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I come to the floor today deeply 
disappointed by the outcome of the final agreement on the supplemental 
appropriations bill, which deleted the Senate recommendation of 
$400,000,000 for dislocated worker assistance under the Workforce 
Investment Act.
  I know that to break the impasse with OMB to get this supplemental 
enacted, with vitally important items for national defense and homeland 
security, the leadership of the House and Senate had to agree to reduce 
the overall size of this supplemental. Our leadership was hard-pressed 
by the administration to accept unpopular cuts. Sadly, the final 
agreement eliminated all supplemental funding for dislocated worker 
assistance.
  Most disturbing was the elimination of the $110,000,000 component 
which had been requested by the administration, and included in both 
House and Senate versions of the supplemental, to restore last year's 
rescission of dislocated worker funding. This rescission was enacted 
when it appeared there was sufficient unspent carryover funding in a 
brandnew workforce system, and Congress needed to offset an emergency 
supplemental for Low-Income Home Energy Assistance. Since that time, 
spending by local workforce agencies has accelerated, while the 
economic downturn has resulted in a continuing, nagging rise in 
unemployment. In the last year, more than 2 million workers have lost 
their jobs.
  Fortunately, July marks the beginning of a new program year under the 
Workforce Investment Act, and $1,549,000,000 in new dislocated worker 
funding will be available for the next 12 months. Of this amount, the 
law provides that the States receive $1,239,200,000, or 80 percent, 
with the remaining $309,800,000 available for the Secretary of Labor to 
target areas particularly hard hit by mass layoffs. Nevertheless, I am 
fearful that the deletion of supplemental funding will send the wrong 
message to local sponsors of job training projects that will cause them 
to slow down spending of funds that are so desperately needed by the 
growing numbers of dislocated workers. As chairman of the Labor-HHS-
Education Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to do my best to send a 
strong message that Workforce Investment Act funding will be maintained 
despite the attempt of the President to slash more than $500 million 
out of the fiscal year 2003 budget. At my recommendation, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee has fully restored these proposed cuts in the 
fiscal year 2003 budget, recommending a total of $5,633,364,000 for job

[[Page S7269]]

training for the program year beginning in July of 2003. We rejected 
the President's proposal to cut dislocated worker assistance by 
$177,500,000, maintaining the appropriation at $1,549,000,000. We also 
fully restored the President's proposed cuts of $362,000,000 in youth 
job training programs, recognizing that young adults, ages 16 to 24, 
have been disproportionately affected by the decline in total 
employment over the past year. I wish we could have done more, but our 
subcommittee's allocation was extremely tight.
  In conclusion, let me say I am not at all satisfied with the level of 
resources devoted to employment and training services, and I intend to 
work with my colleagues to explore every means to further augment 
assistance for the more than 8 million Americans who are now 
unemployed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 
conference report for the Supplemental Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 2002. When we debated the Senate version of this bill in June, I 
stated my strong opposition to any item included that was not for the 
stated purpose of the bill: the ``further recovery from and response to 
terrorist attacks on the United States.'' As I said before, using the 
guise of responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11th to spend 
federal funds on items that obviously have nothing to do with fighting 
terrorism is war profiteering.
  The conference report before us today contains $28.9 billion in 
federal spending. That is about $1.8 billion over the President's 
budget request of $27.1 billion--a request, I might add, he made over 
three months ago--but at least it is lower than the $31.4 billion in 
the Senate-passed bill.
  Even so, I have reviewed the conference report to determine whether 
the bill contains items that are low-priority, unnecessary, wasteful, 
or have not been appropriately reviewed in the normal, merit-based 
prioritization process. I understand that some of these provisions may 
be meritorious, or included in unfunded priority lists for certain 
agencies. However, I have listed them because they were not requested 
by the President or should not be considered an ``emergency'' for 
funding purposes on this bill or are unrelated to our war on terrorism 
and should be considered for funding in the regular appropriations 
process. All told, I have identified approximately $5 billion in such 
spending in the conference report.
  Before I proceed, I want to especially commend the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget, Mitch Daniels, for his valiant charge 
to reign-in the free-spending ways of Congressional appropriators. In 
this town, the louder the opposition gets, the more sense you are 
making, so keep up the good work Mr. Daniels--and let them howl.
  In the absence of a Senate-passed budget resolution, we need fiscal 
discipline now more than ever. Where we once saw surpluses as far as 
the eye could see, now we have mounting deficits, a national debt clock 
that is again ticking, and both houses of Congress voting to raise the 
government's debt limit by $450 billion. You don't have to be a five-
time Jeopardy winner to grasp the bottom line: With the tremendous 
demands on the federal budget today and with the coming retirement of 
the Baby Boom generation, we must be even more prudent about where we 
devote limited taxpayers' dollars.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government is 
running a deficit of $122 billion for the first nine months of this 
fiscal year, a sharp reversal from the $169 billion surplus recorded 
for the same period a year ago. And the Office of Management and Budget 
recently unveiled their mid-year review of the budget showing that 
there will be a $165 billion deficit for the entire fiscal year. It 
doesn't take an Nobel Prize-winning economist to conclude that at the 
rate we are increasing spending, this sizable deficit will increase 
proportionately in the years to follow.
  It is unfortunate that in a time of war, my colleagues cannot curb 
their appetite for non-emergency, wasteful spending. At this moment, 
the national interest must prevail over politicians' parochial 
concerns. Unfortunately, as this conference report and the recent Farm 
Bill attests, this message has still not gotten through to Congress.
  For example, the recent Farm Bill contained an astounding $83 billion 
above the baseline in new spending for farm programs. This increase 
brought the total level of spending in the legislation to a mammoth 
$183 billion for the 10-year life of that bill. It ranks amongst the 
most expensive in recent history for farm legislation. As has been the 
trend of previous farm bills, this legislation lacked any payment 
restrictions to prevent most of the subsidy funding from continuing to 
benefit large farms and agribusinesses. Widely available information 
has also shown the overwhelming disparity of farm payment 
distributions. The General Accounting Office has shown that over 80 
percent of farm payments primarily benefited large and medium-sized 
farms. Other studies have similarly found that the top 10 percent of 
big farmers and agribusiness consumed about 80 percent of farm 
benefits, leaving small farmers out in the cold. And yet, despite the 
evidence of the great inequity in distribution of the farm payments and 
their whopping price tag, the Senate passed it by a vote of 64-35.
  Now the bulk of the supplemental conference report does contain 
provisions that have been designated as emergencies in response to the 
terrorist attacks of September 11th, but the story doesn't end there, 
Mr. President. Can anyone say with a straight face that everything in 
this conference report, which is officially titled the ``2002 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response 
To Terrorist Attacks on the United States,'' is directly related to the 
bill's stated purpose?
  There is a long list of items under the Commerce Committee's 
jurisdiction that were not requested by the President or have been 
earmarked.
  I am particularly concerned about the funding allocation and 
directives made by the appropriators with respect to the Transportation 
Security Administration, TSA. The funding level provided falls short of 
the President's request for $4.4 billion. Further, the conference 
agreement would take away the TSA's flexibility to allocate the funds 
to areas its considers to be transportation security priorities and 
instead earmarks nearly $1 billion for expenditures considered 
important to the appropriators.
  While these directives may not sound unreasonable, much of the 
funding is being directed toward unauthorized programs. How do the 
appropriators know if these are the most important transportation 
security priorities and that the level of funding they provided is 
correct?
  The conference report goes so far as to prohibit TSA from using 
federal funds to recruit or hire the personnel the Administration says 
it needs to meet the statutory directives in the Aviation Security Act, 
including the directive to, by year end, inspect all baggage. If we do 
not give them the resources, how can we possibly expect the TSA to meet 
its statutory directives?

  Yesterday, Secretary Mineta testified before the House Aviation 
Subcommittee expressing grave concerns over the fact that TSA is not 
being provided its full request and that the earmarks will have a 
serious impact on TSA's ability to meet its statutory obligations with 
regard to baggage screening and other directives. Specifically, 
Secretary Mineta said in his prepared statement:

       The Administration's Emergency Supplemental request was the 
     amount we needed to do the job. No more, no less. Last 
     Friday, the appropriations Conference Committee voted to cut 
     $1 billion from the $4.4 billion requested by President Bush 
     and to impose new restrictions on our ability to get the job 
     done. Here are five facts about the Conference report:
       First, it eliminates $550 million off the top; second, it 
     sets aside $480 million in a so-called contingency fund that 
     may not be available to TSA; third, it imposes $445 million 
     in numerous earmarks not requested or supported by the 
     Administration; fourth, it limits the total number of full-
     time TSA employees to 45,000--at least 20,000 employees short 
     of what TSA needs to meet its statutory mission; and finally, 
     report language severely restricts my discretionary authority 
     to manage TSA.
       In short: TSA's budget was cut by at least $1 billion, 
     possibly up to $1.5 billion. That is a whopping 34 percent 
     cut from the President's request.
       Here is the dilemma Congress has created. You have not yet 
     changed TSA's mission,

[[Page S7270]]

     yet the budget to do the job is apparently on the way to 
     being radically diminished while new restrictions and 
     mandates are being imposed. What can be done? The amount of 
     money Congress is about to approve simply will not support 
     the mandates and timetables for aviation security that 
     Congress set last Fall for TSA.
       Less money with no flexibility means fewer TSA employees, 
     less equipment, longer lines, delay in reducing the hassle 
     factor at airports, and/or diminished security at our 
     nation's airports. Frankly, these conflicting signals sent by 
     Congress have forced us to regroup and revise the TSA 
     business plan. That will likely take several more weeks. It 
     will involve complex negotiations, and a review of literally 
     thousands of TSA commitments and plans.

  These are not my words. These are the words of the Secretary of 
Transportation. I hope my colleagues pay close attention to the 
Secretary's concerns. When the TSA is unable to meet its statutory 
deadlines and fully address critical security issues, we should all 
know it will largely come back to this funding measure.
  Other questionable provisions regarding the TSA should also be 
mentioned. For example, in the Statement of Managers, the appropriators 
have earmarked money for the field testing of a particular security 
technology referred to as Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis (PFNA). There is 
only one company that has developed this technology: Ancore Corporation 
of Santa Clara, California. Unfortunately, earlier this month, the 
National Research Council (NRC), concluded that PFNA is not ready for 
airport deployment or testing. Even though the main role for PFNA is 
the detection of explosives in full cargo containers, the appropriators 
are directing money for field testing on checked bags. This earmark 
could be a total waste of critical research money that should be 
contributing to our effort to increase aviation security.
  Further, the Statement of Managers directs that the TSA ``be 
attentive to the needs'' of Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 
Anchorage International Airport, and Kansas City International Airport 
when allocating resources provided above the Administration's request 
for the costs of physical modifications of airports for installing 
explosive detection systems. This directive is just another thinly 
veiled attempt at earmarking. I am sure there are many airports that 
have significant needs in terms of physical alterations that must be 
made to permit the effective use of bomb detection machines. We should 
not elevate three airports for special attention. The TSA should be 
attentive to the needs of all airports and should have the flexibility 
to establish priorities on how best to meet those needs.
  I note that the conference report would take $150 million out of the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund to reimburse airports for costs 
associated with new security requirements imposed on or after September 
11. Let me point out there is no statutory authorization to use the 
Trust Fund for such purposes, nor was this funding requested by the 
President. While I'm not opposed to reimbursing airports, if it is for 
emergency purposes it should come out of the General Fund, as was 
authorized in last year's aviation security bill. Once again, the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee is being circumvented.
  It comes as no surprise that there is funding in the bill for Amtrak 
$205 million to keep Amtrak operating through September. We all know 
Amtrak is again in financial crisis, nearly $4.6 billion in debt. 
Amtrak's independent accountant concluded this year--after 31 years of 
losses--that a company that loses over a billion dollars annually is 
not a going concern. Imagine. The upshot is that Amtrak hasn't been 
able to access a line of credit from its banker, so once again, 
Congress must make up the shortfall.
  I accept, although reluctantly, that Congress must provide 
assistance. It would not be in the best interest of the country for 
Amtrak to shut down its entire system in the next few weeks, 
particularly since Amtrak has not prepared any type of contingency plan 
to keep its corridor trains, which are paid for by the states, and 
commuter operations, which are also paid by the states, in operation 
even if it were to shut down its intercity service. But I regret that 
the conferees opted to give more money directly to Amtrak in the form 
of a straight appropriation.

  After providing a $100 million loan earlier this month, the 
Administration requested that it be allowed to provide Amtrak another 
loan in the amount of $170 million. By providing a loan rather than a 
grant, the Administration could better control how the funds are used 
and at least try to protect the interests of the American taxpayers. 
Instead, Amtrak is being given another infusion of cash without any 
real restrictions on how it is spent.
  Not only are we not holding Amtrak and its Board of Directors 
responsible for the current crisis, we're not even making an attempt to 
ensure these funds are spent wisely. I question the need to expend 
emergency funds for planning a new route to Las Vegas or investing in 
high-speed rail projects when the Northeast Corridor has a capital 
backlog of over $5 billion and the tunnels under New York's Penn 
Station need $1 billion in safety and reliability improvements. But 
Amtrak is spending its emergency funds on the Las Vegas route and other 
projects that sure don't sound like emergency expenditures to me.
  While I support the intent of the conferees to ensure that Amtrak 
provides Congress the same information it is now required to supply DOT 
as a condition of its $100 million loan, I believe this information 
should also be coming to the authorization committees, not just the 
appropriators. The Senate Commerce Committee and the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee are responsible for setting 
policy with respect to Amtrak not the Appropriations Committees.
  Perhaps one of the more egregious provisions in the conference report 
deals with earmarked highway projects. My colleagues may recall the 
enormous controversy raised late last year when the appropriators took 
the unprecedented action in the FY 2002 DOT Appropriations Bill in 
which every state lost a portion of their highway funding that was to 
be allocated by formula under the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century, TEA-21. The appropriators redirected the states' formula 
funding to projects primarily in the appropriators' home states. Well, 
they are at it once again.
  The conference report includes language making eligible 49 projects 
earmarked in the FY 2002 DOT Appropriations Bill that, under TEA-21, 
are not eligible to receive the earmarked funds. It is very troubling 
that the authorizing Committee of jurisdiction is not more concerned 
about maintaining the integrity of the multi-year highway funding 
formula law. Even more than I, the members whose states lost the 
predominant share of their formula and RABA funds to projects in the 
appropriators' states, should be vehemently objecting to this latest 
overreach.
  Does anyone even know how their state fared as a result of the 
appropriators' handiwork last year? Of course, it should come as no 
surprise that the big winner was the state of West Virginia, which 
received $96.7 million in highway funding earmarks through the funding 
re-directives. This is followed by Kentucky which received $70 million; 
Washington which received $61 million; Mississippi which received $60.7 
million; and Alabama which received $60.6 million.
  Compare this to other states, such as Delaware, which received 
$100,000 but suffered a reduction of its formula funds of $2.496 
million. Many other states also took substantial hits because of the 
appropriators' funding redirection efforts, including:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Cut in Formula/
                  State                    New Earmarks     RABA funds
                                            (millions)      (millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming.................................             +$1         -$4.387
Georgia.................................            +8.2           -22.4
Michigan................................           +17.3         -21.397
New Jersey..............................           +16.1         -18.153
North Carolina..........................           +15.9         -17.598
North Dakota............................            +2.9          -3.684
Ohio....................................           +20.5         -24.624
Oregon..................................          +7.750          -9.815
Pennsylvania............................          +13.97         -40.325
Tennessee...............................           +10.6         -16.656
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I will ask at the end of my remarks that two charts showing the 
winners and losers based on information provided by the Federal Highway 
Administration be printed in the Record. I will also include the list 
of the projects being deemed TEA-21 eligible projects in the conference 
report.
  The conference report would also ensure funding distributed under the 
highway trust fund for the upcoming fiscal year will not be reduced by 
the

[[Page S7271]]

statutory requirements under TEA-21 to adjust the program based on 
adjustments to the revenue aligned budget authority provisions of the 
Act. Instead of following the law, the conference report provides for 
an additional $4.4 billion over the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2003. I think all of us have known this funding would be 
provided even though the President's budget request actually fulfilled 
the requirements that so many members voted for when TEA-21 was passed 
in 1998. But why does this provision need to be included in this 
emergency supplemental legislation?
  With respect to funding provided for the Coast Guard, the conference 
report directs $12.1 million, above the President's request of $26 
million, to acquire, repair, renovate or improve vessels, small boats 
and related equipment. The Statement of Managers further indicates the 
funding shall be used for the procurement of additional 87-foot 
Barracuda class coastal patrol boats. The conference report further 
directs $200 million, not requested by the President, to acquire new 
aircraft and increase aviation capability; and $50.171 million above 
the President's request of $12 million, for shore facilities and aids 
to navigation facilities. Unfortunately, we are provided little other 
information to explain the purpose of these funds. $200 million is a 
significant funding level and we have no clear understanding of this 
provision.
  The conference report provides $33.1 million over the President's 
request for ``Scientific and Technical Research and Services'' for 
emergency expenses resulting from new homeland security activities and 
increased security requirements of which $20 million is for a cyber-
security initiative.
  It is also worth noting that a provision pertaining to the Advanced 
Technology Program at the Department of Commerce was also included. The 
supplemental bill would change the program which currently imposes a 
ceiling of $60.7 million on the amount of new grants that can be 
awarded by the end of the fiscal year, to establishing a floor of $60.7 
million that can be awarded in new grants by the end fiscal year 2002. 
The President did not request this change and why it is necessary, I do 
not know.
  The conference report also includes $400 million for election 
administration reform, contingent upon completion of the ongoing 
conference on election reform legislation. Since it is highly unlikely 
a conference agreement can be reached before the August recess, I 
question why we need to include this funding in this emergency 
supplemental measure. Instead, we should appropriate the funding upon 
completion of the conference report and as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 
Appropriations process.
  The conference report would provide so-called technical corrections 
for the Fisheries Finance Program Account. Specifically, it would 
authorize up to $5 million for Individual Fishing Quota Loans and up to 
$19 million for traditional loans under the direct loan program 
authorized by the Merchant Marine Act of 1926. As I mentioned when the 
Senate considered the supplemental in June, these are authorizations 
which have not been considered by the Senate Commerce Committee. 
Further, with some limited exceptions, Individual Fishing Quota 
Programs are not allowed under current law. Therefore, this funding 
will only help fisheries where a Quota Program already exists, such as 
the halibut fishery in Alaska.
  The conference report also amends the Oceans Act of 2000 to extend 
the deadline for the Ocean Commission's report by an additional 11 
months. The Oceans Act of 2000 was drafted in the Commerce Committee 
and any amendments should start there, yet we were not even consulted 
on this provision.
  The conference report directs $2.5 million of funding provided in the 
Commerce, Justice State Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002 to now 
be dedicated to conducting coral mapping in the waters of the Hawaiian 
Islands. We debated this issue on the floor in June. While my amendment 
to strike the earmark failed, that doesn't mean the funding proposal is 
meritorious. This directive was not requested by the President and the 
funding would be earmarked for the National Defense Center of 
Excellence for Research in Ocean Sciences.
  The conference report also includes $2 million to address what the 
appropriators call ``critical mapping and charting backlog 
requirements'' and $2.8 million for backup capability of the National 
Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, satellite products and 
services. None of this funding was requested by the President and even 
though it falls within the jurisdiction of the Senate Commerce 
Committee, again we were not consulted. Moreover, this funding has no 
relation that I can see to address emergency homeland security needs 
which is the purported purpose of this bill.
  The conference report also includes a total of $11 million for 
economic assistance to New England fishermen and fishing communities. 
This funding was not requested by the President, although I understand 
it is in response to unforeseen circumstances resulting from a federal 
court order which restricts the number of days that fisherman can fish. 
The Statement of Managers then earmarks that funding based on the 
Senate report, as follows:
  Maine, $2 million; New Hampshire, $2 million; Massachusetts, $5.5 
million; and Rhode Island, $1.5 million.
  The conference report places a limitation on apparel articles that 
are eligible for preferential treatment under the Caribbean Basin 
Initiative, CBI, and the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA. Under this 
provision, all dyeing, printing, and finishing of knit and woven 
fabrics must take place in the United States in order for nations under 
CBI and ATPA to benefit from reduced-rate treatment.
  This measure is one in a series of protectionist actions recently 
undertaken by the United States. The U.S. textile industry has carved 
out a protective shell around itself to avoid competition at all costs. 
In this case, the Caribbean Basin and the Andean region nations are the 
victims along with American consumers.
  Due to recent political and special interest pressures, House 
appropriators inserted this protectionist provision into the 
supplemental limiting the dyeing, printing and finishing of certain 
apparel articles to United States manufacturers, with no objection from 
the Senate appropriators. Caribbean nations received greater access to 
the United States' apparel market through the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act. This law granted the Caribbean Basin nations similar 
privileges as those afforded Mexico under the North American Free Trade 
Agreement, NAFTA.
  This provision will scale back the Caribbean Basin Initiative, 
preventing their growing industry access to the U.S. apparel market. In 
addition, it would preclude the Andean Trade Preferences Act, ATPA, 
beneficiary nations from entering the apparel market to begin with.
  Moreover, this is yet another example of the appropriators 
legislating on an appropriations bill. While a trade bill that would, 
among other things, extend and expand the expired ATPA, sits mired in 
conference, the appropriators have reached their own conclusions 
regarding provisions of that bill which would hopefully allow Andean 
beneficiary nations greater access to U.S. apparel markets. Despite a 
letter objecting to the actions of the appropriators from the Chairman 
and Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, the Committee that 
holds jurisdiction over ATPA, this provision remained.

  This is an unfortunate turn of events that is becoming all too 
common: Leaders of the U.S. rhetorically expounding their commitment to 
free trade while actively pursuing protectionist policies.
  The reorganization of our armed services was, of course, an extremely 
important subject before September 11th, and it is all the more so now.
  In the months ahead, no task before the Administration and the 
Congress will be more important or require greater care and 
deliberation than making the changes necessary to strengthen our 
national defense in this new, uncertain era. Needless to say, this 
transformation process will require enlightened, thoughtful leadership, 
and not the pork barreling of military funds, if we are to best serve 
America in this time of rapid change in the global security 
environment.
  Again, I question the requirement for certain items in the defense 
portion of

[[Page S7272]]

this supplemental appropriations bill. We are waging war against a new 
enemy. The dangers in Afghanistan to our service members are real. 
However, I do not believe that our ``special forces'' units are 
threatened by any perceived torpedo attack that would cause the 
appropriators to include in the conference Report a provision to 
include $1 million for the Tripwire Torpedo Defense Program or $1 
million for the Undersea Warfare Support Equipment AN/SLQ 25A.
  The conference report improves on the Senate-passed language 
regarding U.S. policy in Colombia by providing the Departments of State 
and Defense with the authority to support the Colombian government's 
unified campaign against narcotics trafficking and terrorism. However, 
I regret that the final language imposes a burdensome requirement on 
the President of Colombia to commit in writing to a series of 
benchmarks regarding his policy and reform plans. I also regret that 
the conferees have seen fit to cut the President's peacekeeping 
requests by nearly $28 million--at a time when America's global 
presence, and the importance of standing shoulder to shoulder with our 
allies in defense of our common interests, matters.
  I do applaud this legislation's requirement for reports setting forth 
a strategy for meeting the security needs of Afghanistan to ensure 
effective delivery of humanitarian aid, build the rule of law and civil 
order, and support the Afghan government's efforts to bring stability 
and security to its people. History shows that America cannot walk away 
from Afghanistan if we are to protect our interests there. Our first 
requirement in this post-war phase must be to help the Afghan 
government bring basic security and order to all parts of the country. 
America must do more, not less, to consolidate our victory in 
Afghanistan by helping to build an environment in which our values can 
flourish.
  Let there be no doubt that this war will be long. Therefore, we 
should not frivolously spend today like there is no tomorrow. For when 
tomorrow comes, we must have the fiscal resources to not only fight 
this war to victory, but to provide for our nation's other priorities 
including tax relief for the lower- and middle-income Americans, 
adequate funding for Social Security and Medicare, and significant debt 
reduction.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the information I 
earlier referenced.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S7273]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24JY02.001



[[Page S7274]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24JY02.002



[[Page S7275]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24JY02.003



[[Page S7276]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS24JY02.004



[[Page S7277]]

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, today, I rise to object to the Dyeing 
and Finishing Provision found in the 2002 supplemental appropriations 
bill, H.R. 4775, that is now going through the conference process 
within the Senate and will soon be voted on by this body.
  This provision is of serious concern to me because it falls within 
the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee and it was not voted on nor 
reviewed by the committee.
  Senator Baucus and I sent a joint letter in June expressing our deep 
concern about the inclusion of this provision in the bill and asked the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee to oppose this provision due 
to our jurisdiction concerns.
  Section 1405 of the House bill pertains language that will amend two 
U.S. trade preference programs: the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
Act and the Andean Trade Preference Act.
  The amendment requires certain fabric to be dyed and finished in the 
United States in order for apparel sewn from such fabric in the 
Carribean or Andean region to enter the United States duty-free.
  Regardless of how my colleagues feel about the requirement for fabric 
to be dyed and finished in the United States to qualify for duty-free 
treatment they should respect the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee 
under the trade laws of this Congress.
  Our committee has oversight over carefully balanced programs that 
were developed after years of close study and deliberations in the 
Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means.
  During the debate of the Bipartisan Trade Act of 2002 when Senator 
Byrd asked for Senator Baucus and I to respect the jurisdiction of the 
Appropriations Committee by striking all authorization language in the 
trade bill while we were debating the legislation on the floor.
  Senator Baucus and I addressed the Senator's concerns by stopping the 
debate and revising the legislation so as to not encroach upon the 
jurisdiction of the Appropriations Committee.
  I am deeply dismayed about the Finance Committees' concerns not 
seriously being considered about the dyeing and finishing provision 
which is clearly in our jurisdiction.
  I would hope my colleagues would be more considerate of the problem 
we have with the House being able to slip provisions in the 
supplemental hoping to sneak it through the legislative process 
otherwise the legislative process will become a free-for-all.
  If the provision is a good piece of legislation then my colleagues in 
the House should be willing to have an open dialogue with the Finance 
Committee members and address our concerns.
  Alarms should go off when people try to slip legislation by hoping 
that no one will catch it.
  I am disappointed because this is not the way we are suppose to do 
business around here.
  There are several good reasons why committees were established and 
given jurisdiction over specific issues.
  The Finance Committee members are the experts on trade, therefore all 
issues involving trade should come through our committee.
  I am just asking my colleagues to respect the rules established by 
the Senate. I am disappointed that the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee did not respect our jurisdiction.
  This is bad policy and I oppose it.
  I also want to strongly emphasize how important it is that we do not 
set a precedent allowing Members to thwart the committee process and 
smuggle legislation through the Senate under the radar screen.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, a provision I have worked on with my 
Alaska colleagues, Congressman Don Young and Senator Frank Murkowski, 
is included in this bill as section 3002. In conversations with air 
carriers in Alaska and the Postal Service, we have found that there are 
serious problems with mail delivery to rural Alaska under the current 
bypass mail system. This provision, titled the Rural Service 
Improvement Act of 2002, is derived from S. 1713 in the Senate and H.R. 
3444 in the House. It contains several technical changes that will 
resolve these problems.
  The bypass mail system is unique to my State: It was created by 
section 5402 of title 39 of the U.S. Code, and attempts to ensure 
reliable and affordable passenger service and the delivery of food, 
goods, and basic consumer necessities to rural Alaska communities.
  I have stated on numerous occasions during Postal Service hearings 
before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that the establishment 
and maintenance of post offices and post roads applies to my State as 
it does the rest of the Union. As a member of the committee with 
oversight over Postal operations, I take the responsibilities of the 
Postal Service very seriously. As an Alaskan, I am even more concerned. 
Almost every item found on the shelf of a rural Alaska general store 
arrives via the bypass mail system. This system was created through 
legislation originated by the Senate in 1970 and today it is the 
lifeline of rural Alaska.
  In addition to ensuring delivery of food and goods, the bypass mail 
system assured that passenger seats would be available to rural 
Alaskans. The revenues paid to air carriers to transport the bypass 
mail helps underwrite the cost of this passenger service. The Federal 
Government's vast ownership of lands in Alaska and the limited access 
to those lands means that air transportation is the only way to reach 
most rural communities in Alaska. We are prohibited by the Federal 
Government from building roads to connect most of our communities and 
this system assures access by air.
  In recent years there has been an explosion in the number of carriers 
eligible to carry bypass mail in Alaska because the threshold 
requirements for eligibility have been very low. However, few of these 
new carriers operate in ways that reflect the intent behind the bypass 
mail program. Instead of providing air transportation to passengers, 
these carriers use the system to underwrite a portion of their total 
business plan. Other mail-only carriers use it as the basis of their 
entire operation. They provide little to no passenger service to 
Alaska's rural communities.
  The bypass mail system is divided into two categories: mainline 
routes and bush routes. Mainline routes are flown by carriers operating 
larger aircraft capable of carrying many pallets of food and goods. 
These pallets usually weigh a minimum of 1,000 pounds. To be qualified 
as a mainline carrier under the current regulations, carriers must 
operate aircraft certified to carry at least 7,500 pounds of payload 
capacity. These mainline carriers take bypass mail from one of two 
acceptance points, Anchorage or Fairbanks, and carry it to ``hubs'' 
such as Bethel, Barrow, and Nome. From these hubs the mail is 
distributed to bush communities by smaller bush aircraft. To operate 
properly and efficiently the system needs healthy mainline and bush 
carriers.
  The Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 resolves many of the 
problems with mainline operations. It clarifies who is eligible to be a 
mainline carrier, stabilizes mainline markets, and supports increased 
passenger service. It limits the entry of new all-cargo carriers to 
mainline markets where current cargo service is deficient. This bill 
also gives existing carriers 30 days to correct problems with mail 
delivery, schedule adherence, or repeated mail damage that the Postal 
Service deems unacceptable. If no improvements are made new mainline 
carriers would be eligible to offer service on these routes.

  In addition, the bill allows new carriers to enter otherwise closed 
mainline routes if they provide substantial passenger service. This 
determination will be made on a route-by-route basis. To qualify, a new 
carrier must regularly make available to the public at least 75 percent 
of the number of passenger seats on the largest carrier on a give route 
for 6 consecutive months. After a new carrier is certified as a 
mainline carrier it must carry 20 percent of the actual passengers on 
the route to remain qualified. Carriers will design their business 
plans around passenger service, not just bypass mail. This will enable 
the bypass mail system to fulfill our original intent: to provide mail 
and air transportation to Alaskans.
  The bill also addresses a current problem on routes that receive 
subsidies from the Department of Transportation's Essential Air 
Service, EAS, program. Currently DOT establishes a

[[Page S7278]]

subsidy rate based on a combination of factors, including the size of 
the community, the desired level of service an show much revenue the 
EAS carrier can expect to earn from other sources. However, DOT has no 
role in determining how much mail is carried by EAS carriers. This act 
addresses this flaw by requiring all nonpriority mail and nonpriority 
bypass mail be tendered to the contracted EAS carrier on each route, as 
long as the needs of the Postal Service are being met. This will reduce 
the cost of the EAS program in Alaska and ensure mail is delivered in a 
timely fashion. First class and priority mail will still be carried by 
the Postal Service's preferred provides based on premium delivery 
standards on these routes.
  This bill also ensures adequate passenger service for under served 
communities. Under this act, a new passenger carrier may immediately be 
tendered bypass mail on a mainline route if all passenger carriers 
operating under Federal Aviation Rules part 121 leave the market or no 
part 121 passenger service is available. These provisions mean that 
under such conditions a new 121 carrier will not have to wait 6 months 
to provide services. It will get bypass mail immediately in mainline 
markets with no passenger service. This change will provide mainline 
communities with quality passenger service as mail revenues underwrite 
passenger transportation.
  In addition, this bill addresses a serious problem for rural Alaska. 
Currently, some rural markets are classified as mainline by the Postal 
service but have no mainline passenger or bypass mail service. This 
bill allows bush carriers currently serving those routes to continue 
carrying bypass mail even if a mainline carrier begins service there. 
The bush carriers will be paid the lower mainline rate which will 
reduce costs for the Postal Service while preserving existing passenger 
service on the those routes. To preserves bush passenger and non-mail 
freight service on rural routes, if a mainline carrier beings providing 
service on a traditional bush route, existing bush passenger and on-
mail freight carriers may continue to receive bypass mail if they agree 
to be paid the lower mainline rate.
  This act allows for equalization on those mainline routes with no 
current mainline service and on traditional bush routes where a 
mainline carrier enters. It specifically prohibits bush carriers from 
entering or operating on mainline routes with existing mainline 
service, except under specialized circumstances, to ensure that larger 
aircraft capable of carrying many pallets fly full to the hubs. The act 
allows the Postal Service to tender bypass mail to bush carriers on 
mainline routes with existing mainline service if three conditions are 
met. First, the bush carrier must meet the minimum 
technical requirements of the operating statute. Second, no similar 
service is available on the route by the existing mainline carriers. 
Third, the Postal Service determines that the tender of mail to a bush 
carrier on the mainline route will not decrease the efficiency of the 
hub or increase costs for the Postal Service. This test will be applied 
by the Postal Service on a case-by-case basis.

  Another feature of the bill is the explicit authorization of 
``composite equalization,'' to protect and enhance passenger service. 
Currently almost all bypass mail flows from an acceptance point to a 
hub and then on to a bush point. This act allows bush carriers to 
receive mail at the acceptance point for a direct flight to bush 
villages without first stopping in the hub. Bush carriers are paid 
based on what they would have flown to the hub point at the lower 
mainline rate and then based on what they would have flown from the hub 
point to the bush village at the lowest bush rate. The provision also 
recognizes routes where composite equalization or direct flights 
bypassing the hub exist today. The intent is to promote additional 
savings for the Postal Service and to preserve existing direct flights 
for rural Alaskan residents.
  The act also allows for the creation of future routes at composite 
rates if carriers meet a four-part test. First, a carriers seeking 
tender at composite rates must meet the minimum passenger service 
requirements of the bill. Second, the carriers must qualify to be 
tendered mail in the hub point being bypassed by the proposed direct 
route. Third, the carrier must prove that carrying bypass mail on 
direct routes will not reduce the efficiency of the entire hub 
operations. Lastly, the Postal Service must determine that allowing the 
direct flight will save money for that portion of the system. The 
Postal Service will take into account the cost of flying the mail 
directly to the bush village from the acceptance point along with the 
cost of not flying the mail through the hub in terms of payments to 
other carriers, especially the mainline carriers.
  The act restricts entry of new cargo-only capacity in mainline 
markets. All new mainline carriers must also meet the passenger 
requirements of the bill to be tendered mainline bypass mail. A carrier 
otherwise qualified to be tendered non-priority bypass mail on January 
1, 2001, but not engaged in the regular carriage of mainline bypass 
mail on that date, is not qualified as an existing carrier. A carrier 
not qualified as a mainline carrier on January 1, 2001, which has since 
become qualified does not fulfill the definition of an existing carrier 
for the purposes of carrying mainline bypass mail. Likewise, a carrier 
that was tendered mainline bypass mail on January 1, 2001 in improperly 
sized aircraft does not qualify as an existing carrier.
  The Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002 also resolves problems with 
bush community operations. Currently any carrier meeting very minimum 
qualifications may be tendered bush bypass mail. In a community with 10 
qualified carriers each carrier receives approximately 10 percent of 
the bypass mail on that route. Not all of those carriers also provide 
passenger or non-mail freight service. This act intends to change this 
situation by establishing rural mail pools on a route-by-route basis.
  First, 70 percent of the mail will be tendered to those carriers 
which provided at least 20 percent of the passenger service on a given 
route. Twenty percent of the mail will go to non-mail freight carriers 
which provide at least 25 percent of the non-mail freight service on a 
given market. The remaining 10 percent of the bypass mail will go to 
the remaining carriers on the route. After 3 years this 10 percent mail 
pool will terminate and its mail will be divided among the remaining 
two pools. The amount of mail in the passenger pool should increase to 
75 percent; the remaining 25 percent of bypass mail will go to non-mail 
freight carriers. The creation of these pool for passenger and non-mail 
freight carriers should ensure competition in each market without 
having the mail revenue split between an infinite number of carriers.

  Based on advice from the department of Transportation, this act 
includes provisions to increase safety standards. It permits markets to 
convert from operations under part 135 of the Federal Aviation Rules to 
part 121 if a part 121 carrier becomes qualified to receive bypass mail 
in a given market. If this happens, all 135 carriers in the market have 
5 years to convert to operations under part 121 in order to continue 
receiving bypass mail. The bill defines part 121 operations as aircraft 
carrying passengers and non-priority bush bypass mail on aircraft type 
certificated to carry at least 19 passengers, which according to the 
Department of Transportation, are the most efficient aircraft on an 
air-ton-mile basis that are still reasonably sized for use in rural 
Alaska. For the purposes of part 121 operators, the bill focuses on the 
aircraft which actually carry the mail.
  All carriers in Alaska are put on notice of the requirements of 
conversion from part 135 to part 121. After a 6-year period if a 121 
carrier becomes eligible for bypass mail on any route, 135 carriers on 
that route have one year to convert to part 121 to continue receiving 
mail.
  Saving the Postal Service money by requiring the use of more 
efficient and larger aircraft, because of conversion to part 121 is an 
important goal of this bill. This also improves passenger service and 
safety. In a market which can physically support 121 operations, all 
passenger carriers in that market should be encouraged to provided 
increased safety and efficiency.
  Some markets in Alaska may not receive 121 passenger service due to a 
lack of ground infrastructure or the population base to support 19-seat 
passenger aircraft. In these communities

[[Page S7279]]

smaller airplanes operated under part 135 are an integral part of the 
Alaska transportation system. Also, if a 121 carrier begins service in 
a market and withdraws, 135 carriers in that market need not convert 
121 in order to carry bypass mail in the market.
  The bill encourages passenger competition in bush markets. Where 
there is only one qualified passenger carrier under the bill, meaning 
it carries at least 80.01 percent of the passengers on a given route, 
then no other carrier could qualify as a passenger carrier in that 
market. As an incentive for other passenger carriers to enter the 
market to become the second largest carrier, thus increasing 
competition, the act requires the Postal Service to tender 20 percent 
of the 70 percent mail pool to the next largest passenger carrier 
during the first three years of the act, 14 percent of the overall 
bypass mail volume for the market. After the first 3 years the Postal 
Service may provide 20 percent of the 75 percent pool to the next 
largest passenger carrier, or 15 percent of the bypass mail for the 
market.
  As previously stated, carriers operating under part 121 must use 
aircraft type-certificated to carry at least 19 passengers. Carriers 
operating under part 135 must use aircraft type-certificated to carry 
at least five passengers. Finally, recognizing the special needs of 
markets with water-only airports the bill requires water-landing 
aircraft to be type-certificated to carry at least three passengers. 
These requirements do not require these seats to be installed at all 
times. Rather, carriers must use minimum sized aircraft to increase 
efficiencies for the Postal Service and, passenger seats must be 
installed and insured when needed on such aircraft. A carrier may fly 
an extra section with only cargo or mail as long as the plane meets the 
minimum size requirements and the carrier otherwise qualifies to carry 
mail as a qualified passenger or non-mail freight carrier under the 
Act.
  Under provisions in the bill, to avoid over-concentration in the 
markets, no carrier which qualifies both as a passenger carrier and a 
non-mail freight carrier may get mail under both the 70 percent--75 
percent pool in 3 years--and the 20 percent pool--25 percent in 3 
years--at the same time unless no other carrier qualifies in the 
market.

  A substantial amount of the savings for the Postal Service comes from 
the creation of new bush rates for the carriage of mail. After 
collecting all of the carriers' cost data the Department of 
Transportation should first calculate the costs for all bush part 121 
passenger carriers, then for 135 carriers, and finally for 135 carriers 
where only water landings are available to create a new rate for each 
class of carrier. In markets with qualified 121 carriers, all passenger 
carriers will be paid the 121 rate, including all 135 passenger 
carriers operating in those markets. For markets with only 135 carriers 
and water landing markets the new 135 rate will be applied evenly.
  The act provides significant penalties for carriers which 
substantially misstate data just to qualify for bypass mail. However, 
it also gives DOT and the Postal Service the flexibility they need. 
Under this bill, both DOT and the Postal Service may grant waivers for 
otherwise unqualified passenger carriers if the carriers are operating 
in good faith, meaning they are making great efforts to provide 
passenger or non-mail freight service and are not using the bypass mail 
revenues as the primary means of their business. In addition, if the 
Postal Service or DOT determines a carrier meets all of the technical 
qualifications to operate in the system, but is not providing another 
substantial service, i.e. passenger or non-mail freight service, then 
it may be removed from the system. When making this determination DOT 
and the Postal Service should look at the quantity and quality of 
existing service in the community, including passenger carriage, and 
the proposed quality and quantity of service for the carrier seeking a 
waiver, to allow a 121 passenger carrier to become qualified if it 
reduces costs for the Postal Service and improves passenger service in 
a market, even if it has not provided a full 12 months of service in 
the market at the required levels under the Act.
  To allow the Postal Service and DOT to collect 12 months of T-100 
data from the carriers before establishing the new tender policy and 
setting new rates, most of the bush provisions will not take effect for 
15 months from the date of enactment. Also, the bill requires the DOT 
to review the need for a bush rate case at least every 2 years. To 
maximize the savings for the Postal Service initial rate reviews by DOT 
should be performed expeditiously. All carriers in the State are 
allowed at least 1 year to begin providing additional services to the 
communities before reductions in mail tender go into effect.
  Stating 6 months after the enactment date, the act permits the Postal 
Service and DOT to remove a carrier from the bypass mail program if the 
carrier was not attempting to qualify as a passenger or non-mail 
freight carrier.
  The bill intends to promote safety by empowering the Secretary of 
Transportation to shut down any operation where substantial evidence 
exists that the carrier is flying in an unsafe manner to qualify for 
the tender of bypass mail. Such evidence includes flying in unsafe 
conditions or without proper training and equipment, especially with 
passengers on board.
  The bill allows for the merger or acquisition of airlines. If two or 
more airlines merge, the two carriers' data for the previous period of 
time may be counted together for the purpose of qualifying for bypass 
mail. The merged carrier must show it is otherwise qualified to carry 
bypass mail under the provisions of the act. Also, where two or more 
air carrier certificates merge into one certificate, the carriers 
cannot later be split up and operated separately.
  To allow the Postal Service to deliver the mail in the most efficient 
manner possible, under the provisions of this act, and under its 
internal statutory and regulatory provisions, the Postal Service may 
remove a carrier from the bypass mail system if it does not meet the 
requirements of this act. The act states previous carriage of bypass 
mail does not create a contract for guaranteeing future tender of 
bypass mail. Rather, the tender of bypass mail is only a contract for 
the carriage of each particularly batch of mail.
  In summary, this bill intends to reduce the Postal Service's losses 
on the bypass mail program while improving safety and stabilizing 
passenger service. The full Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
agreed, unanimously voting to pass the bill out of Committee on May 22, 
2002. While some may argue this is re-regulation of the airline 
industry in Alaska, it is not. This bill requires carriers seeking 
eligibility to carry the bypass mail in Alaska to meet basic tests and 
minimum requirements. This is the time to correct the problems with the 
Alaska system before it collapses completely. To do otherwise would be 
to turn our backs on the rural communities of Alaska and the 
commitments the Federal Government has made to them as a result of 
broad Federal land ownership in Alaska.
  Mr. CONRAD. Madam President, I rise to offer for the record the 
Budget Committee's official scoring of the conference report to H.R. 
4775, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery and 
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States.
  The conference report provides $29.356 billion in net, new 
discretionary budget authority, of which $14.492 billion if for defense 
activities and $14.864 billion is for nondefense activities. That 
additional budget authority will increase outlays by a total of $7.8 
billion in 2002. Of the total spending authority provided, H.R. 4775 
designates $29,886 billion as emergency spending, which will increase 
outlays by $7.783 billion in 2002. Per section 314 of the Congressional 
Budget Act, I have adjusted the Appropriations Committee's allocation 
for 2002 by the amount of that emergency funding. The conference report 
is within the committee's revised section 302(a) and 302(b) allocations 
for budget authority and outlays.
  The conference report to H.R. 4775 is subject to several budget 
points of order. First, by including language increasing the 2003 cap 
on highway spending, the conference report violates section 306 of the 
Congressional Budget Act, which requires that such language be reported 
by the Budget Committee. Second, by amending the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery

[[Page S7280]]

Act, H.R. 4775 decreases revenues by $60 million in 2003 and $785 
million over the 2003-2012 period. Because the Congress has already 
breached the revenue aggregates under the 2002 budget resolution, the 
conference report violates section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act. 
Finally, H.R. 4775 violates section 205 of H. Con. Res. 290, the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budge for Fiscal Year 2001, by including a 
number of emergency designations for spending on nondefense activities.
  I ask for unanimous consent that two tables displaying the Budget 
Committee scoring of H.R. 4775 be inserted in the record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  TABLE 1.--CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND
  RESPONSE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES (Spending comparison--302(a) Allocations to Appropriations
                                                   Committee)
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Current Level
                                                                         Plus            Senate       Difference
                                                                     Supplemental     Allocations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General purpose:
  BA.............................................................          733,597          734,126         -529
  OT.............................................................          694,579          700,500       -5,921
Highways:
  BA.............................................................                0                0            0
  OT.............................................................           28,489           28,489            0
Mass Transit:
  BA.............................................................                0                0            0
  OT.............................................................            5,275            5,275            0
Conservation:
  BA.............................................................            1,758            1,760           -2
  OT.............................................................            1,392            1,473          -81
Mandatory:
  BA.............................................................          358,567          358,567            0
  OT.............................................................          350,837          350,837            0
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
    Total
      BA.........................................................        1,093,922        1,094,453         -531
      OT.........................................................        1,080,572        1,086,574       -6,002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The conference report includes $29,886 million in emergency
  BA and $7,783 million in emergency outlays.


  TABLE 2.--CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND
                                                   RESPONSE TO
                TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES (Spending comparisons--Conference Report)
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Defense    Nondefense   Mandatory     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Conference Report: \1\
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................     15,008       14,878            0     29,886
  Outlays.......................................................      5,444        2,339            0      7,783
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................       -516          -14            0       -530
  Outlays.......................................................       -100          117            0         17
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total:
      Budget Authority:.........................................     14,492       14,864            0     29,356
      Outlays...................................................      5,344        2,456            0      7,800
 
                       Senate-passed bill:
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................     13,932       17,690            0     31,622
  Outlays.......................................................      5,286        3,161            0      8,447
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................          0         -107            0       -107
  Outlays.......................................................          0          190            0        190
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Budget Authority..........................................     13,932       17,583            0     31,515
      Outlays...................................................      5,286        3,351            0      8,637
 
                     House-passed bill: \2\
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................     16,074       12,955            0     29,029
  Outlays.......................................................      5,632        2,441            0      8,073
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................        -54        1,112            0      1,058
  Outlays.......................................................         -7          261            0        254
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total:
      Budget Authority..........................................     16,020       14,067            0     30,087
      Outlays...................................................      5,625        2,702            0      8,327
 
                    President's request: \3\
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................     14,048       13,095            0     27,143
  Outlays.......................................................      5,310        2,491            0      7,801
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................          0        1,262            0      1,262
  Outlays.......................................................         35          232            0        257
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total:
      Budget Authority..........................................     14,048       14,357            0     28,405
      Outlays...................................................      5,345        2,723            0      8,068
 
                 Conference Report Compared To:
                       Senate-passed bill:
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................      1,076       -2,812            0     -1,736
  Outlays.......................................................        158         -822            0       -664
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................       -516           93            0       -423
  Outlays.......................................................       -100          -73            0       -173
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total:
  Budget Authority..............................................        560       -2,719            0     -2,159
  Outlays.......................................................         58         -895            0       -837
 
                       House-passed bill:
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................     -1,066        1,923            0        857
  Outlays.......................................................       -188         -102            0       -290
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................       -462       -1,126            0     -1,588
  Outlays.......................................................        -93         -144            0       -237
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total:
      Budget Authority..........................................     -1,528          797            0       -731
      Outlays...................................................       -281         -246            0       -527
 
                      President's request:
 
Emergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................        960        1,783            0      2,743
  Outlays.......................................................        134         -152            0        -18
Nonemergency:
  Budget Authority..............................................       -516       -1,276            0     -1,792
  Outlays.......................................................       -135         -115            0       -250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page S7281]]


  TABLE 2.--CONFERENCE REPORT TO H.R. 4775, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FURTHER RECOVERY FROM AND
                                                   RESPONSE TO
           TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES (Spending comparisons--Conference Report)--Continued
                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Defense    Nondefense   Mandatory     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total:
      Budget Authority..........................................        444          507            0        951
      Outlays...................................................         -1         -267            0       -268
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to its increase in spending, the conference report retains the House-passed provision amending
  the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, which decreases revenues by $60 million in 2003 and $785 million
  over 10 years.
\2\ The table removes directives of the House Budget Committee to the Congressional Budget Office on how to
  score certain provisions in the House-passed supplemental bill.
\3\ Includes the President's request, transmitted with his 2003 budget, to provide supplemental funding in 2002
  for Pell grants.
 
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. The conference report is within both the Committee's
  302(a) and 302(b) allocations and the statutory caps on discretionary spending for 2002.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am pleased that the supplemental bill 
contains $75 million additional funding for the Federal Aviation 
Administration's operational account. It was facing some severe 
cutbacks in service without this funding.
  In particular, the FAA had reduced funding for proficiency and 
developmental training of air traffic controllers. This funding was 
reduced by about $10 million without reprogramming approval from the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. It is my hope and desire 
that the FAA add back at least $2 Million to the Air Traffic 
Instructional Services program. This is a vital program that should 
never have been cut back. It provides ongoing in-service developmental 
training all across the country. It has proven to lower error rates by 
air traffic controllers, thus making the skies safer for the flying 
public. I believe they should restore the funding immediately.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to 
discuss an item that is not in the conference report that we will soon 
vote on, but is critical for our national defense, our future economic 
vitality, and the ability of our workers to turn this national disaster 
into new opportunities.
  As my colleagues know, the Senate supplemental bill contained $400 
million for job training and employment assistance for our Nation's 
workers.
  These are funds that were requested by the administration and 
supported by a bipartisan group of Senators, and are critically needed 
throughout our Nation.
  Unemployment nationwide has hovered around 6 percent throughout most 
of this year, and in my State, it is been considerably higher than the 
national average. With the loss of nearly 20,000 commercial aviation 
jobs in Washington State and severe slowdowns in other major 
industries, we are likely to suffer secondary layoffs that extend 
throughout the next 2 years.
  But throughout the Nation, we are seeing more and more workers who 
are unable to find employment for extended periods of time.
  A report released last week by the National Employment Law Project 
found that long-term employment is higher now than in any of the last 
four recessions.
  The number of workers unemployed for more than 26 weeks has grown 
over 140 percent from March of 2001,
  Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin wrote on Sunday in the 
Washington Post that, to get our economy on a sound footing and restore 
the prosperity of the '90s, we need to do three things: one, look 
seriously at our nation's long term fiscal position; two, expand trade 
by granting trade promotion authority; and three, invest in the 
training of our workers . . .
  Mr. Rubin went on to say that ``Budgeting priorities should heavily 
emphasize preparing our future workforce to be competitively productive 
in the global economy.''
  I have supported this bill and I still believe that we need to get 
these funds out there to replenish vital defense accounts and to 
implement immediate improvements in homeland security.
  But in trimming the bill down to reach the level of spending the 
President feels necessary, I believe that this bill does a disservice 
to the workers in this nation trying to upgrade or learn new skills and 
identify new opportunities, and continues to short-change the systems 
that we have established to support those efforts.
  While we are experiencing massive layoffs throughout the nation, 
businesses continue to find a serious skills shortage in our workforce, 
which slows our economic recovery.
  Reducing WIA funding at this time by allowing last year's rescission 
to be enacted, will seriously impede our ability to get workers the 
training they need to secure high-paying jobs and strengthen U.S. 
competitiveness in the global economy. Such cuts would be short-sighted 
at a time when long-term unemployment is at a record high.
  So I am disappointed that these funds have fallen through at the 
eleventh hour.
  We are facing a tidal wave of demand for job training services. One-
stop centers throughout this nation are experiencing record visits by 
displaced workers and those seeking to upgrade their skills.
  In my State, the Renton ``Worksource Center'' is serving over 4,500 
workers per month; and the Benton-Franklin County center recently 
served 991 job seekers in a single day last month;
  And our one-stop systems are already producing results. In 
Washington, we have estimated that, for every dollar invested in 
programs for dislocated workers and youth training, we get $8 in 
participant earnings growth and taxes collected.
  As these programs get further institutionalized, and as workers get 
to know the one-stop sites created throughout our States, we will see 
even greater usage by workers seeking to upgrade their skills or find a 
more ideal job.
  But it won't happen if we don't commit to getting the system up and 
running. If we continue to short-change workforce development systems, 
the effects will be felt on our economy for years to come.
  That is why I and over 50 of my colleagues joined together in 
requesting an increase in funding in the regular Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill currently under consideration by the committee. 
Despite my concerns about the immediate needs, I am pleased that the 
committee has decided to restore last year's rescission and provide 
increases in job these training accounts.
  I urge my colleagues on the committee to work with us in ensuring 
that those funds are protected and maintained as we proceed to moving 
that bill through both Houses, and that we expeditiously reach 
consensus on that bill in the interest of our Nation's future.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the Washington Post article by 
Robert Rubin in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         [From the washingtonpost.com, July 21, 2002; Page B07]

                          To Regain Confidence

                          (By Robert E. Rubin)

       There has been much confusion and uncertainty among 
     investors and in Washington about the economy and the stock 
     market, and about what to do in response to a seemingly 
     significant loss of confidence in our system. Much of the 
     focus has been on accounting and corporate governance. These 
     issues are important, but I think the restoration of 
     confidence and the establishment of sound fundamentals going 
     forward require a much broader focus.
       To address accounting and corporate governance first: 
     Clearly reforms are needed to deal with the systemic issues 
     revealed by the recent spate of corporate problems, as are 
     specific enforcement actions where appropriate. The 
     accounting and corporate governance bill passed recently by 
     the Senate seems to me on the whole sensible and responsive 
     to these needs. Similarly, the New York Stock Exchange has 
     issued thoughtful proposals on corporate governance. 
     Expensing of stock options is, in my view, worth serious 
     consideration, though practical problems such as valuation 
     need to be resolved. And the conflicts between research and 
     investment banking need a dispositive, industry-wide 
     solution.
       These accounting and corporate governance problems 
     developed over time--as

[[Page S7282]]

     seems to happen after extended good times--but only really 
     came to the fore during the past year. From the time the 
     magnitude of the problems became clear, the need was for a 
     response that was energetic, effective and as rapid as 
     possible. But that response--both in regulatory and 
     legislative changes and in enforcement--should be balanced 
     and appropriate. Our accounting and corporate governance 
     systems have great strengths--in allowing for decisive 
     management decisions, rapid change and agility, 
     experimentation and risk taking--and those strengths should 
     not be unwisely eroded.
       Having said that, these accounting and corporate governance 
     issues--though very important--are only part of a much 
     broader question of how to best promote confidence and strong 
     fundamentals, for the short and the long term.
       That was exactly the question the new administration faced 
     in the beginning of 1993, and the strategy then put in place 
     contributed centrally to the remarkably strong economic 
     conditions and sound economic fundamentals for the balance of 
     the 1990s. Unemployment fell from over 7 percent to 4 percent 
     and was under 5 percent for 40 consecutive months; private 
     investment in productive equipment grew at double-digit rates 
     for eight years; annual productivity growth more than doubled 
     by the end of the period; inflation was low; GDP growth 
     averaged roughly 4 percent per annum, and 20 million new 
     private-sector jobs were created. Moreover, instead of the 
     huge 10-year deficits projected by the Office of Management 
     and Budget at the end of 1992, deficits were reduced and in 
     time surpluses began.
       Certain imbalances did develop--for example, the levels of 
     consumer and corporate debt, the level of the stock market, 
     and excess capacity--as they always do after extended good 
     times, and an adjustment period was inevitable. How difficult 
     that period was going to be would be affected by many 
     factors, very much including the actions of government. Also, 
     the legacy of the 1990s provided strong fundamentals to 
     ameliorate this adjustment, e.g., a large fiscal surplus, 
     strong productivity growth, low unemployment, more open 
     markets around the world and a healthy banking system.
       In my view, we need to restore the sound, broad-based 
     strategy that was so central to the prosperity of the '90s. 
     More specifically, I would focus especially on the following:
       (1) Virtually the entire $5.6 trillion surplus projected by 
     the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in January 2001, 
     including $2.5 trillion of Social Security surplus, has now 
     been dissipated. I wrote when last May's 10-year tax cuts 
     were being debated that their direct cost--later estimated by 
     the CBO as $1.7 trillion including debt service--and even 
     more important, their indirect cost in undermining political 
     cohesion around fiscal discipline, threatened the federal 
     government's long-term fiscal position. And that is precisely 
     what has happened.
       Long-term fiscal discipline and a sound long-term fiscal 
     position contribute substantially, over time but also in the 
     short term, to lower interest rates, increased consumer and 
     business confidence, and to attracting much-needed capital 
     from abroad to our savings-deficient country. In addition, a 
     sound long-term fiscal position would far better enable us to 
     meet our long-term Social Security and Medicare commitments.
       The portion of the 10-year tax cut that occurred in the 
     short-term may well serve a useful expansionary purpose at a 
     time of economic weakness. But the great preponderance of 
     this tax cut occurs in outer years. Moreover, nobody is 
     talking about a tax increase; the question is whether the 
     cuts enacted for later years should be canceled. In my view, 
     all matters pertaining to taxes and spending should be on the 
     table, with a commitment to reestablishing a sound long-term 
     fiscal position for the federal government.
       (2) Trade liberalization and our own open markets 
     contributed greatly to our economic well-being during the 
     1990s, and are critically important looking forward. The 
     president should be given trade promotion authority, and the 
     recently adopted steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies--
     which present such a threat to global trade liberalization 
     and to business confidence in the outcome of the struggle 
     over continued globalization--should be corrected. Also--a 
     related matter--we should be prepared to engage in and lead 
     en effective and sensible response to financial crisis abroad 
     when our interests can be affected.
       (3) Budgeting priorities should heavily emphasize preparing 
     our future workforce to be competitively productive in the 
     global economy, including improving our public school system 
     and equipping the poor to join the economic mainstream.
       Finally, we must deal effectively--building on the strong 
     response to the terrible attack of Sept. 11--with the 
     immensely complex challenges of terrorism and geopolitical 
     instability that are of enormous importance to our economy as 
     well as to our national security.
       Much of this is difficult, substantively and politically, 
     but the willingness to deal with exceedingly difficult public 
     issues was central to our economic well-being in the '90s and 
     is centrally important today and for the years and decades 
     ahead.
       The writer was head of the National Economic Council from 
     1993 to 1994 and secretary of the Treasury from 1995 to 1999. 
     He is now director and chairman of the executive committee of 
     Citigroup Inc.

  Mr. STEVENS. Madam 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. STEVENS. 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 yield any time on our side. The 
Senator from West Virginia authorizes me to yield back all time.
  I 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 conference report. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES, I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. 
Helms), is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 7, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 188 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

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

                                NAYS--7

     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     McCain
     Santorum
     Specter
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Helms
  The conference report was agreed to.

                          ____________________